John A. Roebling's Sons Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 482 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY and STEEL
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-860.-Decided November 10, 1939
Wire and Wire Rope Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint, and
Coercion: letter sent to employees by respondent warning employees that sign-
ing of S. W. 0. C. cards would deprive them of rights to choose own repre-
sentatives and would sign away rights as employees , held to convey implied
threat that respondent would use its economic power to effectuate hostility
to "outside" unions-Company -Dominated Union: domination of and interfer-
ence with formation and administration of predecessor employees' representa-
tion plan and outspoken hostility to "outside " unions, held to have resulted in
organization of successor company=dominated union ordered disestablished-
Discrimination: charges of dismissed.
Mr. Joseph F. Castiello, for the Board.
Mr. Shelton Pitney and Mr. Morris P. Skinner, of Newark, N. J.,
for the respondent.
Mr. H. Collin Minton, Jr., of Trenton, N. J., for Roebling Em-
ployees Association, Inc.
Miss Carol Agger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) issued
its complaint and notice of hearing dated June 28, 1938, against
John A. Roebling's Sons Company, Trenton, New Jersey, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. The complaint alleged in substance that in or about June 1937,
the respondent, through its agents, by threats, the making of speeches,
the circulation of petitions and cards for signature, the posting of
notices, and in divers other ways, caused to be formed in its New
17 N. L. R. B., No. 40.
482
JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY 483
Jersey plants, the Roebling Employees Association, Inc., ' a labor
organization of its employees, and since on or about that date the
respondent has interfered with and dominated the formation and
administration of that organization, and has contributed financial
and other support to it; that at various times since about December
1936, the respondent by its agents has, by threats of discharge and
of curtailment of work, by the making of speeches and statements
and the circulation of leaflets derogatory to the S. W. O. C., and in
divers other ways attempted to discourage and has discouraged the.
membership of its employees in the S. W. O. C. and has by other
acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
free choice of their representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. The complaint
and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent, the S. W. O. C., and Roebling Employees Association,
Inc., herein called the Association. An amended charge having been
filed, the Board on July 6, 1938, issued an amended complaint alleg-
ing 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 Act. The
allegations of the amended,complaint were identical with those of
the original complaint except that, in addition to the allegations in
the original complaint, it was alleged that the respondent, on or
about May 10, 1938, terminated for a period of 2 weeks the employ-
ment of Roland Goddard, an employee in its Roebling, New Jersey,
plant, and that on or about May 23, 1938, after he had been reem-
ployed demoted him because of his affiliation with the S. W. O. C.
and because he engaged in other concerted activities with other
employees for the purposes of mutual aid and protection and for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The amended complaint was
served upon the parties at the beginning of the hearing on July 7,
1938.
On July 7, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the original
complaint, admitting certain allegations as to the nature of its busi-
ness and denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the
unfair labor practices as alleged. The answer further set out certain
alleged deficiencies in the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing,
which are discussed below. During the hearing, on July 14, 1938'-
the respondent filed its answer to the amended complaint. The
answer to the amended complaint differed in matters of substance
from the answer to the original complaint only in that it denied
the alleged discrimination with respect to the hire and tenure of
employment of Goddard; set up affirmatively that Goddard was
suspended for cause on May 10, 1938, and that he was demoted for
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cause; and pointed out alleged deficiencies in the amended charge,
amended complaint, and certain other matters of procedure concern-
ing which the respondent alleged that it was denied its right to a
fair hearing.
On July 6, 1938, the Association filed with the Regional Director
and duly served on all parties, a motion and petition for interven-
tion in the proceedings., This motion was renewed before and
granted by the Trial Examiner at the hearing.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Trenton, New Jersey,
from July 7 to 14, 1938, before Earl S. Bellman , the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and
the Association were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties.
In its answer to the complaint and by motion at the beginning of
the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint as im-
providently issued because the charge failed to make a clear and
concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor
practices. The respondent in its answer to the amended complaint
moved for its dismissal because of a similar alleged deficiency in
the amended charge. We are of the opinion that the charge and
amended charge provided a sufficient basis for the issuance of the
complaint. In its answers to the complaint and amended complaint,
in its motion for a bill of particulars submitted to the Regional
Director prior to the commencement of the hearing and renewed
before the Trial Examiner at the beginning of the hearing,' and its
motion, made before the Trial Examiner, to dismiss the complaint,
the respondent urged that the complaint and amended complaint
failed to apprise the respondent of the issues of fact 3 it might be
called upon to meet. The Trial Examiner, in denying the respond-
ent's motion for a bill of particulars, stated :
Respondent is assured that reasonable opportunity will be
given for the preparation of his case, which may involve an
adjournment at the end of the Board's case if it appears to the
Trial Examiner at that time that such adjournment is necessary
for respondent to prepare his case.
The respondent's counsel objected that such an adjournment would
be of no assistance in the preparation of cross-examination. There-
after, at the close of the Board's case, the respondent made no re-
' All parties stipulated that this document would be considered the Association ' s answer
to the allegations of the complaint.
,The motion was denied by the Regional Director and by the Trial Examiner.
3In respect to the allegations alleging violations of Section 8 (1) and ( 2) of the Act.
JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY 485
.quest for additional time for the preparation of its case although the
Trial Examiner inquired whether it desired further time. On those
occasions during the presentation of the Board's case when the re-
spondent requested the right to recall witnesses for cross-examina-
tion after it had had an opportunity to investigate matters brought
out on direct examination, such requests were granted by the Trial
Examiner. We are of the opinion that the respondent had ample
opportunity for the preparation of its case and to meet the allega-
tions of the complaint.
In its answer to the amended complaint and before the Trial
Examiner the respondent objected to the issuance of the amended
complaint based upon an amended charge, first because the respond-
ent contended that the period of time covered by the amended charge
.was extended thereby by almost 5 months without prior notice to
.the respondent; secondly, because the respondent was compelled to
answer the amended complaint with respect to the longer period of
time covered by the amended complaint and as to new matter therein
contained before the lapse of the 5 days provided by the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations. The first ground
for the objection is based upon a misapprehension of the scope of
the allegations in the original complaint in so far as they allege a
continuing course of interference' with, restraint, and coercion of
the respondent's employees and the continuing interference with,
domination and support of the Association. In the absence of an
amended charge or an amended complaint, any act of the respond-
ent's which was a part of a continuing course of conduct, even though
it occurred after the date of the filing of the charge or of the issuance
of the complaint would be a proper subject for inquiry at the hear-
ing provided the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity
to meet the evidence concerning such acts. We have found that the
respondent was granted such an opportunity in this case. The sec-
ond ground for the objection depends upon a technical question of
whether the 5 days, to which the respondent is entitled for the
preparation of its answer, should start to run from the date upon
which the Trial Examiner gave notice that the Board's motion to
amend the complaint would be granted or from the date of the
actual granting of the motion. In view of our statement above con-
cerning the scope of . the original complaint with respect to a con-
tinuing course of conduct and in view of our finding below' with
4
The hearing proceeded upon the original complaint until 5 days had elapsed from
the date when the Trial Examiner stated that he would grant the Board's motion to
amend the complaint by substituting an amended complaint. The only evidence intro-
duced pursuant to the amended complaint was that pertaining to the alleged discrimina-
tory discharge. The allegations alleging the discharge were dismissed by the Trial
Examiner upon the respondent's motion, and as set forth below, we are affirming the
dismissal.
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respect to the new matter involved, we find it unnecessary to resolve
the question since the respondent was not prejudiced by the ruling
of the Trial Examiner.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made sev-
eral other rulings on motions 5 and on objections to the admission of
evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the complaint and the
answers of the respondent and of the Association were amended to
conform to the proof. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 27, 1938, the respondent filed a brief and the Association
filed a memorandum, both of which were considered by the Trial
Examiner in the preparation of his Intermediate Report.
On August 27, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist from interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; that it cease and desist from
dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of
the Association and the Plan of Employee Representation in plants
of John A. Roebling's Sons Company, herein called the Plan '6 or any
other labor organization, and from contributing financial or other
support to the Association or any other labor organization; that the
respondent withdraw all recognition from the Association and from
the Plan as representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and completely disestablish the Association and the Plan as
such representatives ; and that the respondent take other affirmative
action with respect to the posting of notices, which the Trial Exam-
iner found would effectuate the purposes of the Act. Thereafter, the
respondent and the Association filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report. A hearing for the purpose of oral argument on the excep-
tions was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on June 22,
5 One of these motions was a motion to dismiss the complaint because the notice of
bearing attached thereto did not contain a notice of hearing before the Board or member
thereof or before a designated agent as required by Section 10 (b) of the Act. The
notice of hearing stated, "a hearing will be conducted before the National Labor Relations
Board, by a Trial Examiner, to be designated in accordance with its Rules and Regula-
tions." . . . On July 0, 1938 (after the notice of,hearing was issued) Earl S. Bellman
was duly designated to act as Trial Examiner. Section 10 (b) of the Act does not require
that the name of the individual who is to act as Trial Examiner be stated in the notice
of hearing. Sufficient notice was given to the respondent in the notice of hearing quoted
above.
0 The -Plan, a predecessor of the Association, is discussed below.
JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY 487
1939, following several postponements and notices duly served upon
all parties. The respondent and the Association participated in the
oral argument but the S. W. O. C. did not appear. Pursuant to
permission granted, further briefs were thereafter filed by the
respondent and the Association.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and, except in so far as they are consistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New Jersey with its principal place of business in Trenton,
New Jersey. The respondent owns and operates two manufacturing
plants located in Trenton, New Jersey, and in Roebling, New Jersey.
Only these two plants, which employ approximately 3,800 production
and maintenance employees, are here involved. At these plants the
respondent manufactures wire, wire rope, cold rolled flat wire, and
insulated copper wire. In addition to these manufacturing plants,
the respondent operates sales agencies and offices in a number of cities
throughout the country.
In the manufacture of the wire products listed above, the respond-
ent utilizes as raw materials pig and scrap iron, lead, rubber, copper,
tin, ferro-manganese, cotton, silk, and zinc. Eighty per cent of these
raw materials are brought to the New Jersey plants from foreign
countries or from States other than the State of New Jersey. Ninety
per cent of the finished products manufactured by the respondent in
its New Jersey plants are shipped therefrom to other States, to South
American countries, to South Africa, and Asia, by water, rail, and
truck. In 1937, the respondent shipped 75,000 tons of finished prod-
ucts, valued at $22,099,000, from its New Jersey plants.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affili-
ated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.7 It admits to
membership employees in steel manufacturing plants, hot mills, roll-
ing mills, fabrication plants, and rail and wire mills.8
Roebling Employees' Association, Inc., an unaffiliated labor organ-
ization, is incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey.
7 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
8 No local lodge had been chartered for the employees in the respondent 's mills at the
time of the hearing . A temporary organization had been set up to organize the employees.
247384-40-vol. 17 32
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It admits to membership all employees in the respondent's New
Jersey plants , except those in salaried positions and those who hire or
discharge workers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference , restraint , and coercion
The S. W. O. C. started organizing in the respondent's Trenton
plant late in 1936 and in the Roebling plant in March 1937. On
January 22 , 1937, W. A. Anderson , the respondent 's president,
addressed the following communication to the employees :
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
JANUARY 22, 1937.
To Our Employees:
During the past few days outside union organizers have
approached many of our employees, both at the entrance to the
plant and at their homes, urging them to sign membership cards
in their union.
I feel it is my duty to inform all our employees of this situa-
tion and the results that would follow should they be successful
in misleading you.
The cards you are asked to sign are in fact a "Power of
Attorney." The signing of the Power of Attorney means that
you are no longer a free agent to deal with our Company regard-
ing "rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other condi-
tions of employment."
It means that you have no further say in selecting your own
representative to deal for you but gives this power to outsiders
over whom you have no control.
If enough people are misled into "signing up" regardless of
the motive, the cards will be used as evidence that you have
empowered strangers to represent you and once they get your
signature there can be no "dropping out" if you are dissatisfied.
The cards are not from responsible Government officials as
they would have you believe.
I am confident that if you know all the facts, no one will
lightly sign away his or her personal rights as an employee of
our Company
W. A. ANDERSON , President.
The power of attorney referred to in the letter was an application
-for membership in the S. W. O. C. which contained the words, "I
hereby . . . authorize the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, its
.agents or representatives to act for me as a collective bargaining
JOHN A. ROEBLTINTG'S SONS COMPANY 489
agency in all matters pertaining to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment." The authorization
.is clearly revocable at will and the statement in Anderson's letter of
January 22 that dissatisfied employees could not drop out of the
.S. W. 0. C. is misleading. The statement in the letter that the em-
ployees who joined the S. W. 0. C. would have no further "say" in
selecting their representatives was made recklessly without any
attempt to verify its accuracy. Anderson in testifying concerning
the letter stated that he did not look with favor on the entrance of
ooutsiders into the relations between the employer and the employee,
that he believed the Employees Representation Plan, which was in
existence at the time, was sufficient to take care of questions arising
between the employer and the employees even though the Plan had
been set up by the respondent, and that he did not think the men
wanted to be represented by an outside union which they did not
know instead of choosing their representatives in the manner pro-
vided by the Plan. Anderson further testified that he was prompted
to send out the communication by (1) the fact that the words, "A
Message to You from the President" were printed on the envelope
sent by the S. W. 0. C. to the employees along with the application
card; and (2) the fact the employees were directed to return the
signed applications to Philadelphia from which Anderson concluded
that the employees who signed them would place their representative
rights in the hands of individuals who were not employees of the
respondent.
It is apparent that Anderson's letter went far beyond a discussion
of the impression given by the S. W. 0. C. literature concerning the
President of the United States. The letter warns the employees of
nn imaginary loss of rights if they sign the S. W. 0. C. application
cards, makes misleading statements concerning the effect of signing
such cards, and ends with an assurance that Anderson believes that
no one will "lightly, sign away his or her personal rights as an
employee of our Company." The letter makes clear to the employees
the respondent's dislike of "outside" unions and of "strangers" enter-
ing into the employer-employee relationship, and its preference for
the type of organization which the respondent had introduced into
its plants. It contains no assurance that the employees are free to
join the S. W. 0. C. if they wish. The letter as a whole was calcu-
lated to impress upon the employees the respondent's strong hostility
to their joining an "outside" union. In the absence of accompanying
assurances that they were free to join the S. W. 0. C. or other "out-
side" union, if they so desired, the letter conveyed to the employees
an implicit threat that the respondent would use its economic power
to effectuate this hostility. We find that the respondent, by.circu-
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lating this letter, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.9
The record also includes testimony concerning conversations be-
tween various workmen and supervisory officials in which the super-
visors are alleged to have made anti-S. W. 0. C. and threatening
statements. This testimony was given for the most part by em-
ployees of foreign birth whose language difficulty was great: Accord-
ingly, their testimony is not clear cut. We think that it is entirely
possible that the employees misunderstood the import of remarks
addressed to them, since in most instances the supervisors' versions
of the conversations are reasonable on their face and do not bear the
interpretation put upon them by the employees. Under these circum-
stances, we do not find that supervisory employees made the state-
ments attributed to and denied by them.19
B. Interference with and domination and support of the Association
1. The plan of employee representation
Prior to 1933 no labor organization existed in the respondent's
Roebling and Trenton plants. In that year the respondent instituted
a Plan of Employee Representation, herein called the Plan. The
Plan provided for the election of employee representatives from the
various departments and "natural subdivisions" of the plants and
for the appointment of "Regular and Special Representatives of the.
Company" by the management. An equal number of employee rep-
resentatives and of the regular representatives of the respondent
made up the Joint Committee. The principal function of the Joint
Committee under the Plan was the consideration of grievances, when
the other methods of settlement of such grievances provided by the
Plan had failed. The Plan further provided that in the event that
the Joint Committee was unable to agree upon the proper settlement
of a grievance, the matter might be arbitrated, provided that the
9 The respondent urges that even if the letter was a violation of the Act, which the
respondent does not admit, it occurred prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States which made it clear that the respondent was subject to the provisions of
the Act, and the circulation of the letter should not be considered as evidence of the
respondent's unwillingness to comply with the law. This contention is without merit.
11 The record clearly discloses one incident in which one of these employees by reason of
his language difficulty, honestly mistook a notice concerning a free lunch period for an
announcement that employees joining the Association would be given free lunch. Another
example of probable mistake is the testimony of one Murgo who testified that Assistant
Superintendent Ludwig told him that the respondent did not want a "CIO" kind of union
in the plant. Ludwig denied making such a statement and testified that he had spoken
to Murgo about passing out literature during working hours and that Superintendent
Smith then came along and told Murgo that it was against the rules to pass out literature
during hours. It is probable that this warning against union activities in the plant during
hours was understood by Murgo to be a warning against all union activity.
JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY 491
respondent's general manager and a majority of employee representa-
tives agreed to that procedure. The Plan could not be amended
without the consent of the management representatives. Under the
Plan the employee representatives were required to be non-supervisory
employees who were over 21 years of age and American citizens.
An employee representative was deemed to have vacated the office
upon termination of his employment, permanent transfer from one
voting unit to another, or upon his promotion to a supervisory posi-
tion. The Plan also provided for the payment of representatives
for the time lost from work by their attendance at employee repre-
sentative committee meetings. The respondent was also required to
assist in arranging for meeting places.
From the foregoing it is apparent, and we find, that the Plan,
having been initiated by the respondent, being subject to the re-
spondent's control by reason of its power to prevent amendments
and to discharge or transfer employee representatives who were
repugnant to it, being supported by the respondent by the payment
of representatives for time lost and by the provision for meeting
space, was interfered with in its formation and administration and
was dominated and supported by the respondent.," We do not under-
stand the respondent to contend otherwise.
2. The Association
As we have stated above, the Plan continued in operation until
1937. The record discloses no formal dissolution of the Plan but
it appears that the Plan as such ceased functioning sometime in
June 1937. The last election of employee representatives under the
Plan was held on May 11, 1937. President Anderson testified that
the election was held in the same manner as any other election under
the Plan. This meant, and we find, that the respondent furnished
ballots, notices, and other election material and paid the tellers for
the time spent in conducting the election:12 From the representatives
so elected a committee, consisting of representatives Catherine,
Monard,13 Schaum, and Dillon, was appointed to investigate the
legality of the Plan under the Act. Such an investigation was under-
11 Since the complaint contained no allegations that the respondent dominated or
interfered with the formation or the administration of the Plan or contributed support
thereto , we shall make no order based upon our finding.
12 Superintendent Smith testified that the respondent gave the Plan no support after
April 12, 1937 . Personnel Manager Ross in his testimony also intimates that election
expenses were not met by the respondent after April 12, 1937. However , in view of
Anderson 's testimony and in view of the testimony of both Ross and Anderson that the
respondent did nothing to suggest to the men that any changes would have to be made in
the Plan, we find that the respondent assisted in the election of May 11 , 1937, as it had
in other elections under the Plan.
13 Occasionally referred to in the record as Menard.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken because of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States upholding the constitutionality of the Act as applied.
to certain manufacturing enterprises?' The officials of the respond-
ent insist that any action taken to amend the Plan or to provide a.
substitute therefor was taken by the employee representatives on
their own initiative without any suggestion by the respondent. The
record bears out the contention that the respondent took no action
at that time to advise the representatives that the Plan was in viola-
tion of the Act or to suggest that a new organization be formed-
On the other hand, no action was taken to disclaim the respondent's,
previously publicized hostility to "outside" unions.
On June 5, 1937, the committee, having decided that it should
see a lawyer, went to an attorney in Trenton and inquired whether
the Plan could continue to function. He advised the committee that
the Plan was "out." The committee then informed him that the
Plan had been so successful that they would like a new one as
similar to it as was possible within the requirements of the Act..
The attorney undertook the drafting of a constitution and bylaws.
for a new organization which were subsequently approved by the
committee.
During the, period from about June 5 to about June 10, 19377
Dillon, one of the committee members, went to see the attorney six
times during working hours. Dillon testified that he asked his fore-
man if he could leave on these occasions . The foreman having given
him permission, Dillon punched out and was not paid by the re-
spondent for the time lost. Dillon did not tell the foreman why
he wished to leave nor did the foreman ask him. The record does
not disclose whether. or not such requests were ordinarily granted.
Dillon admitted at the hearing, however, that it was " common gossip
around the shop" that he was active in the formation of a new
organization and that he guessed that the foreman had heard some
of the gossip.
Sometime in June or July 1937, Schaum and another representa-
tive under the Plan went to see Superintendent Hunt. One or two
other management representatives were also present. The employee
representatives informed the management representatives that they
were going to form an incorporated association but did not state why
they were so informing the management. The officials who were
present did not tell the two employees whether or not they favored the
proposed action.
On June 10, 1937, the certificate of incorporation for the Associa-
tion was issued, with Catherine, Monard, Schaum, Dillon, and Cant-
14 National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp ., 301 U. S. 1, and other
cases decided at the same time.
JOHN A. ROEBLING 'S SONS COMPANY 493.
well acting as incorporators. These men were representatives under
the Plan and the record discloses that all of them except Schaum
had been leaders in the Plan within the two previous years 15 On
about June 11, 1937, a membership. campaign was undertaken by the
committee with the object of persuading a majority of the employees
to join the Association. It is apparent from the record that some
solicitation of members took place in the plant during working
hours. However, there is no substantial evidence that this activity
was observed and condoned by the supervisory employees or officials..
During the period of solicitation, the charter and bylaws of the,,
Association were posted upon the various bulletin boards in the
plant without the respondent's objection.
The charter and bylaws of the Association, more fully described'.
below, provided for the election of employee representatives from the
several departments, and on July 29, 1937, such an election was held..
The committee and its counsel decided that the election should be-
conducted by persons who were not associated with the respondent..
Accordingly, two superintendents of schools in the vicinity were re-
quested to act as election judges. They were guided by a memoran
dum prepared for their use by the Association's counsel. This.
memorandum included the following paragraphs : "1. The purpose.
of forming this Association is to carry on the contact between the
employees and the employer formerly carried on by the Company
Union. The Wagner Act outlawed any company union which might
be fostered or encouraged by the employer. This Association puts•
in legal form this contact." "10. The formation of this Association.
does not confer any greater rights in the employees than that pre-
viously had under their former union. It is merely putting in legal.
form what previously existed, and which now is declared illegal in.
form. The Company has always dealt fairly with employees in the:
past, and it is fair to assume that in the future its dealings with the
delegates will be of the same nature." The superintendents of
schools made the arrangements for the election. On the Saturday
prior to the election, while the plant was closed, these superintend-
ents posted copies of the following notice in the plants :
To members of Roebling Employees' Association, Inc.:
Take Notice, that an election of the Board of Trustees or
Representatives will be held by the membership of this Associa-
tion on Thursday, July 29, 1937.
On election day, all members are requested to wear their
buttons and carry their membership cards.
15 Dillon, Monard, Catherine , and Cantwell were members of the Executive Committee of
the Plan in April 1935.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ballots will be handed out to the members in the various
units during working hours on Wednesday, July 28, 1937.
Ballot boxes will be located at all exit gates, and will be in
charge of tellers selected by me.
The twelve o'clock shift will vote at 8:00 A. M., Thursday;
the eight o'clock shift will vote at four o'clock in the afternoon;
the four o'clock shift will vote at 3:30 P. M., coming in.
I have been requested to conduct this election as an impartial
judge, and I ask for, the cooperation of all members of the
Association in conducting this election.
On July 26, 1937, the superintendents of schools, accompanied by
Dillon, Monard, and Catherine, went to see Daniel Ross, the respond-
ent's personnel director, advised him of their plan to conduct an
election on the plant property, and inquired whether such arrange-
ments were satisfactory to the respondent. Ross replied that the
respondent would not interfere with the plan and had no objection
to the election being held on the respondent's property. The elec-
tion was held in the manner described in the above notice, the ballots
being passed out in the various departments by the persons who had
been representatives under the Plan or by persons designated by the
election committee.
On August 6, 1937, a committee representing the Association and
consisting of Schaum, Cantwell, Catherine, Dillon, Huff, and Monard
met with W. A. Anderson, the respondent's president, and entered
into an oral agreement which was confirmed in writing by a letter
to Schaum, president of the Association, from Personnel Director
Ross. The letter sets out the matters agreed upon as follows :
1. Recognition of the Association as the Collective Bargain-
ing Agency for those employees who were members ' of the
Association.
2. The Company will give the Association thirty days notice
before making a general reduction in pay.
3. The Association will give the Company thirty days notice
before requesting a general raise in pay.
4. Association members who are laid off due to lack of work
in their departments will be given preference over new employ-
ees when work is available.
5. The Company will employ only American citizens.
6. The procedure for handling grievances shall be carried out
in the same manner as that followed during the past few years.
7. The present labor policy relative to hours of work, wages,
seniority, vacations, etc., will be continued.
JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY 495.
At this conference, Schaum stated that the Association had 3,800
paid-up members and the Association requested recognition as sole
bargaining agency. This request was refused. Anderson testified
that he had been informed that 3,800 people had voted in the elec-
tion of representatives and that he therefore did not question the
Association's membership claim.
At about this time Personnel Director Ross and Superintendents
Smith and Hunt were appointed as a committee to represent the
management in dealing with the Association. This committee of the
management met with representatives of the Association three or four
times between August 6 and September 8, 1938, concerning a state-
ment of labor policy issued by the respondent on the latter date to
which the representatives and Association members agreed. The
statement was an amplification of the agreement reached on August
6, 1937, and made few substantial changes in the respondent's policies,
which were in effect prior to August 6, 1937. The principal changes
made in existing practices dealt with the employment of citizens,.
married women, and the adoption of a straight seniority rule with-
out reference to family responsibilities. With respect to wages, the.
statement provides that : "The Company maintains a policy of pay-
ing wage rates and providing working conditions comparable with
those of its competitors in this district." The statement also sets
out the respon,d'ent's policy with respect to collective bargaining :
"The Company recognizes and will abide by the principle of collec-
tive bargaining relating to wages, hours, and working conditions, as
provided by law. The Company also recognizes the right of employ-
ees to bargain individually, and will deal individually with such
employees as desire this method in preference to collective bargain-
ing."
Copies of the statement of labor policy were given to the super-
visory employees in the plants and to the employee representatives
in the Association but not to the employees generally. Although one
of the purposes of the Association was stated, in its bylaws to be the
negotiation of a contract with the respondent, no contract other than
the oral agreement has been negotiated.
Prior to August 6, 1937, the bylaws of the Association were sub-
mitted to the representatives elected in the July 29 election and re-
ceived their approval. The bylaws limit membership in the Asso-
ciation to employees of the respondent and suspend membership
"upon severance of employment." They also provide for the elec-
tion of departmental employee representatives, who are primarily
responsible for carrying on the activities of the Association, and each
of whom "shall automatically vacate his office upon severance of his
relations with" the respondent. The bylaws provide for monthly
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership meetings, notice of which is to be given by notices posted
in all departments of the plants.
Some evidence was introduced concerning suggestions made by
supervisors that employees join the Association and concerning solici-
tation of members by Gang Leader Lawrence and Foreman Price.
One Rousch testified that in May or June 1937 Superintendent Bar-
retta inquired whether Rousch belonged to the Association and said
that if work became slack, the men who belonged to the Association
would yet preference. Barretta denied making any such statement.
A similar statement was attributed to Barretta by Kozma and Klau-
ser in connection with an incident which took place in July 1937. On
this occasion, 12 men who had been sent to work temporarily in a
department other than their own were sent away when they arrived
for work by one Cantwell an Association representative, because they
-did not have Association buttons and therefore the other men would
not work with them. When the 12 men returned to their own depart-
ment and explained to Barretta what had happened, he said, accord-
ing to Kozma, "Why you fellows don't join the union? [Associa-
tion] If I am not going to have enough work I have to give the
union men work and I have to let you fellows stay home." Klauser
testified that Barretta said, "Why don't you sign it? Maybe after-
wards when the Roebling Employees' Association gets through, only
those men get work what join the company [Association], and if some
work is left, why we will get it." Barretta's version of the conversa-
tion was that he said :
I don't know what they do over there, but here in the copper
mill I am instructed not to recognize any union or have any
union activities interfere with a man's privilege . . . I don't see
why they should be any different . . . I tried to give them [the
men] the impression that as far as I was concerned, and as far as
the Company was concerned, they were free to belong to .. .
any union . . . as long as it didn't interfere with their work.
Barretta also testified that two or three of the men asked him
whether they would get more work if they joined the Association and
that "I said I could not answer that question, because as far as I
knew the company had not signed up giving them the bargaining
rights, whether they were to represent 100 per cent of the people or
50, so it would be left to their discretion . . . As far as I was
concerned at that time . . . everybody was on equal terms re-
gardless of what association he belonged to . . . I expressed it
as clear as I could." After these conversations the men were sent
back to work, Cantwell was reprimanded for his action, and the 12
men were paid in full for the time lost. We find that the employees
JOHN A. ROEBLING 'S SONS COMPANY 497
misunderstood Barretta's remarks, and that his statements were sub-
stantially as he described them.
Yuhas, an employee, testified that in June 1937, Foreman Hartman
asked him why he did not join the Association and remarked that
if he did not join he could not work in the shop like a scab. There-
after, Yuhas joined the Association. Hartman denied that he had
ever had any conversation with Yuhas concerning unions. Smekal,
an employee, testified that in June 1937, a list of Association members
was posted upon the departmental bulletin board which the men in-
spected as they left work; and that Foreman Grouser, who was pres-
ent, said, "we have 98 and the rest of them are Bolsheviks." Grouser
denied that he had ever made such a statement or had ever discussed
any union with Smekal. He also denied that a list of Association
members was ever posted in the department. No other witnesses
testified that they had seen such a list posted.
An examination of this evidence does not convince us that Hartman
and Grouser made the statements attributed to them. We therefore
do not find that foremen and supervisors suggested that the em-
ployees join the Association.
An employee, Malmos, testified that in May 1938 Foreman Price
brought a handful of Association application cards into the shop and
gave some of them to a gang leader to hand out to the employees
while Price himself handed out some. Because Price was unable to
be present at the hearing, it was stipulated that had, he testified he
would have denied Malmos' testimony to the effect that Price dis-
tributed or participated in the distribution of Association literature.
The Trial Examiner found that, "There can be no doubt that some
of the respondent's supervisors encouraged membership in the Asso-
ciation by their remarks and attitudes," but made no specific findings
upon the alleged statements and activities of the various supervisory
employees. We therefore do not have the benefit of his observation
of the behavior of each witness on the witness stand. • The record is
clear that shortly after April 12, 1937, the respondent's superintend-
ents and foremen were instructed not to interfere with the union
activities of the employees and that the rights guaranteed by Sections
7 and 8 of the Act were to be respected. Under the circumstances
here presented, we find that Foreman Price took no part in the
distribution of Association application cards.
Other testimony concerns the solicitation of members for the Asso-
ciation on the respondent's property during working hours by George
Lawrence, a gang leader. Since Lawrence did not testify and no
evidence was introduced to rebut the testimony concerning his activ-
ities, our sole concern is the question of Lawrence's supervisory
status.
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lawrence was not a salaried foreman but a gang leader whose
earnings depended upon the amount of wire cleaned by the seven
members of the gang, although they were somewhat higher than
those of the gang members. Lawrence was supposed to engage in
manual labor along with the members of the gang although there is
some conflict as to whether or not he did in fact participate. The
wire-mill foreman, who appears to have worked in a different room,
was generally in charge of the wire-cleaning gangs during the night
shift. The day foreman laid out the work for the gang when they
came in at 4 p. m., giving Lawrence written instructions concerning
the size of the wire and the manner in which it was to be cleaned.
Although the foreman instructed Lawrence as to how much wire was to
be cleaned during the night Lawrence was not told what the duties of
each man 'should be. Henry Ulrich, assistant superintendent of the
wire mills at Roebling, testified that Lawrence had no authority to
depart from the day foreman's instructions. Lawrence was described
by Emanuel Smith, the general superintendent in charge of manu-
facturing operations, as having some power of direction over the
gang and added that there were hundreds of employees in the plants
with similar powers. Ulrich stated that Lawrence was responsible
for seeing that the work was done after it had been laid out by the
day foreman but that he had no authority to "boss" the men.
Anderson, the respondent's president, testified that a gang leader
reports on the men's work to the foreman in charge and the foreman
then investigates any complaint. Anderson thought that a foreman
would not act upon a gang leader's recommendation to discharge an
employee. Superintendent Smith testified that Lawrence would not
have the power to settle minor grievances by himself but could report
anything he thought needed attention to his superior. Lawrence sent
the men home when there was no work for them but it appears that
he did not keep account of the men's working time.
We find that Lawrence's position was such that he exercised some
of the powers of management since he had some power of direction
over the gang members and within rather narrow limits could have
subjected them to some discrimination in the manner of assigning
duties to them and in reporting on their work.
3. Conclusions
The Trial Examiner found that the Association is a continuation
of the Plan and subject to the same employer domination, inter-
ference, and support. It is clear that the Association was formed
by individuals who had been representatives under the Plan. These
representatives were elected under a Plan which had been dominated
and supported by the respondent for several years. The cost of the
JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY 499
election on May 11, 1937, at which they were selected, was borne
by the respondent. While no suggestion was made by the respond-
ent at that time that an independent organization be formed to
replace the Plan, such notice was not necessary since the representa-
tives themselves suspected that the Plan was deficient under the Act
and were so informed by their counsel, and since the respondent's
preference for an inside organization had been made abundantly
clear by its letter of January 22, 1937, and by,its long-standing sup-
port of the Plan. The respondent made no announcement to its
employees generally that it intended to abide by the Act in the
future and to forsake the policy it had followed for several years
of dominating and supporting the labor organization it had origi-
nally brought into being. Nor did the respondent take any action
to counteract the impression made by its letter of January 22, 1937,
that it was opposed to affiliated labor organizations and ,preferred
that its employees designate only employees to represent them. Un-
der these circumstances, the employees, when solicited to join the
Association by men who had been elected under a Plan which the
employees knew was favored by the respondent, did not feel free to
join or not join as they desired.
That the organizers of the Association did' not regard themselves
at liberty to organize whatever type of organization they felt would
be most effective, is shown by their visit to the respondent's officials
to advise them that they planned to form an incorporated Asso-
ciation. The only inference which can reasonably be drawn from
this visit is that the organizers wanted to be sure that what they
were proposing had the respondent's approval, or at least was not
disapproved by the respondent. Although the respondent's officials
did not commit themselves one way or the other, the organizers of
the Association took such approval for granted and posted copies
of the Association's constitution and bylaws upon the bulletin
boards of the respondent's plants during the period when member-
ship was being solicited. The respondent made no objection to this
use of the bulletin boards. The effect of this action upon the em-
ployees who already had been pointedly made aware of the respond-
ent's preference for the type of organization represented by the Plan
by the letter of January 22, 1937, was to further encourage them in
the belief that the Association had succeeded to the privileged status
formerly accorded to the Plan. The election of the Association rep-
resentatives held upon the respondent's property and the use of the
respondent's bulletin boards in connection therewith provided a fur-
ther basis for this belief. These activities, together with the pro-
vision in the constitution that meetings are to be announced by
notices posted in all departments, show that the organizers of the
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association themselves took for granted the respondent's approval
of their use of the bulletin boards and the respondent' s premises.
The constitution and bylaws of the Association, which were
adopted by the representatives elected under a plan originated and
dominated by the respondent, but, so far as the record shows, not
by the membership as a whole, provide for a type of organization
similar to that which the respondent initiated in the Plan, and which
may be generally described as an employees' representation plan.
Under such a form of organization the persons who carry on the
activities of the organization are the employee representatives who
are elected by the membership in each of the electoral districts into
which the plants are divided. This organizational pattern. was
adopted by the Association when it tried to set up an organization
as like the Plan as possible. It also followed the respondent's Plan
by providing that a representative's office was vacated when his
employment terminated. This provision not only effectively pre-
vented the employees from designating outsiders as their representa-
tives once they had' accepted the Association, but also gave the
respondent the power to rid itself of representatives who were dis-
tasteful to it by discharging them 16 The constitution and bylaws
make no provision for protecting the Association against such inter-
ference. In short, an inherently weak bargaining structure, origi-
nally instituted by the respondent, was perpetuated in the Associa-
tion, under circumstances affording no reason to believe that such an
organization was the free and untrammeled wish of the employees
generally.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Association was not a
new and truly independent organization but rather a continuation
and reorganization of the Plan under a different name. Not even
counsel for the Association believed that it was a different and inde-
pendent organization. In his memorandum to the superintendents
of schools, quoted above, he described the Association as "merely
putting in legal form what previously existed, and which now is
declared illegal in form." The reorganization was encouraged by
the respondent's expressed hostility toward "outside" unions an4 its
preference for a union limited to its own employees and by its domi-
nation and support of the Plan over a long period of time. Allow-
ing the Association privileges of the sort enjoyed by the Plan pro-
vided the employees with a further basis for the belief that the
'0 Dillon, one of the organizers of the Association, testified that while the bylaws made
no provision for continuing membership in the Association in the event of an unjust dis-
charge, he thought that the discharged employee would be entitled to appeal to the repre-
sentatives to have his grievance taken up. Such an informal arrangement does little to
insure the independence of employee representatives,wbo are themselves employees com-
pletely dependent upon the respondent for their livelihood.
JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS COMPANY 501
respondent favored the Association.' The employees, dependent
upon the respondent for their living, are naturally sensitive to its
wishes. We believe that the respondent made its wishes sufficiently
clear to the employees to deprive them of that free and unhampered
choice of a bargaining agent to which they are entitled under the
Act. Had the respondent taken affirmative steps to assure the em-
ployees that its previous unlawful policy was no longer in effect,
and that they were completely free to do as they wished in organiza-
tional matters, a different conclusion might be warranted. No such
assurances are shown here.
Upon the basis of the entire record, we find that the respondent,
has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration
of, and contributed support to, the Association.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharge
The amended complaint alleged that on or about May 10, 1938, the
respondent terminated for a period of 2 weeks the employment of
Roland Goddard,la an employee in its Roebling plant, and that on or
about May 23, 1938, after he had been reemployed, demoted him
because of his membership in and activities in behalf of the
S. W. 0. C. When the Board had completed the presentation of
the evidence with respect to the allegations in the complaint con-
cerning Goddard's discharge, the Trial Examiner, on the respond-
ent's motion, dismissed the allegations. No exception to this action
was taken by the S. W. 0. C. We have reviewed the evidence and
find the Trial Examiner's ruling correct. The ruling is hereby
affirmed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III A and B above, occurring in connection with the operations of
the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent, by the circulation of its letter
of January 22, 1937, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
17 A further indication of the respondent's desire that the Association endure is the
solicitation of membership in the Association by Gang Leader Lawrence, whom we have
found to occupy a supervisory position . While we would not regard this instance of
solicitation as of great weight in the absence of other indications of the respondent's
favoritism for the Association, It is of some significance under the circumstances present
here.
is Roland Goddard is not to be confused with one of the superintendents , P. S. Goddard.
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in their right to self-organization. Accordingly, we shall
order the respondent to cease and desist from such practices. We
have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association and has con-
tributed 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 rights guaranteed by
the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition
from the Association, to disestablish it as a representative of the
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, and to cease
giving effect to the contract with the Association. The respondent
will, in addition, be ordered to cease and desist from dominating and
interfering with the formation and administration of and contribut-
ing support to the Association or any other labor organization. This
action, together with the posting of appropriate notices, is necessary
to afford the employees a free opportunity, which has never been
theirs, to follow their own desires as to organization, whatever they
may be.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Roebling Employees
Association, Inc., are labor organizations, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The respondent has dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of Roebling Employees Association, Inc.,
and it has contributed support thereto, within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the tenure
of employment of Roland Goddard within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
JOHN A. ROEBLING 'S' SONS COMPANY 503
the respondent, John A. Roebling's Sons Company, Trenton, New
Jersey, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Roebling Employees' Association, Inc., or with the forma-
tion or administration of any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, or contributing support to said Roebling Employees' Asso-
ciation, Inc., or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) In any manner giving effect to its contract, heretofore de-
scribed, with Roebling Employees' Association, Inc., to any renewal
thereof, or to any successor contract it may have entered into with
said Roebling Employees' Association, Inc., in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) 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
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid and 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 Roebling Employees' Asso-
ciation, Inc., as a representative of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes;
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and completely disestablish Roebling Employees' Asso-
ciation, Inc., as such representative;
(b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places at its Trenton
and Roebling, New Jersey, plants, and maintain them for a period of
at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will
cease and desist in the manner set forth in Section 1 (a), (b), and
(c) and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in Section 2
(a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
247384-40-vol. 17-33