Leland Gifford Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 120 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter, of LE'AND- GlFFORD Co_, and UNI;rED STEELWORKERS ,or
AMERICA (CIO)^5 ,
Case No. C-24' 21-Decided March 17,1943
Jurisdiction : machine and crankshaft manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements and conduct of
supervisory employees , interrogating employees concerning union, threatening
members of the union with dismissal, and threatening to discharge anyone who
was active on behalf of any labor organization.
Company-Dominated Union: formation during strike called by Ian affiliated union ;
arrangements concerning its formation made on company time and without
opposition by employer ; solicitation on company time and property in violation
of long-standing rule against such solicitation ; assistance rendered by foreman
who instructed employees where to go to sign designation cards ; payment for
time spent away from work on organization's business ; special privilege of
leaving plant during shift extended to organization's organizers and repre-
sentatives ; closing of plant to permit holding of organization's first general
meeting at a time suitable to employees ; participation in organization's meeting
of foreman who had signed membership card ; recognition of organization-
although its legality had been placed in issue by settlement made with affiliated
union at behest of the Conciliation Service ; enhancing prestige of organization
by permitting it to control transfers.
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : dominated union disestablished, and invalid contract abro-
gated.
Mr. Robert E. Greene, for the Board.
Grant d Angoff, by Messrs. Samuel E. Angoff and Frederick Cohen,
of Boston , Mass., for the Union.
Mr. Ernest L. Anderson, of Worcester,-Mass., for the respondent. -
Vaughan, Esty, Clark cC Crotty, by Messrs. James A. Crotty and
George H. Mason, of Worcester, Mass., for the Independent.
Mr. Harry H. Kuskin, of counsel to the Board.
, At the hearing the Union 's motion to amend the pleadings by substituting the name,
"United Steelworkers of America ( CIO)," for the name, "Steelworkers Organizing Com-
mittee ( CIO)," was granted without objection , upon a showing that on May 22, 1942, at
a constitutional convention in Cleveland , Ohio, a new ' constitution was adopted and the
Steelworkers Organizing Committee ( CIO) became the United Steelworkers of America
(CIO) -
48-N. L. R. B ,,No. 25.
120
0
LELAND-GIFFORD CO.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
121
Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges- duly filed by Steel-
workers Organizing Committee (CIO), affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union or CIO„ against
Leland-Gifford Co., herein called the respondent, a hearing was held
before a Trial Examiner in Worcester, Massachusetts, from August
24 to September 8, 1942, in which' the Board, the respondent, the Union,
and Independent Union of Employees of Leland-Gifford Co., the inter-
venor, herein called • the Independent, participated by their
representatives.
On November 17, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report finding 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 Act, and that
it had not engaged in unfair labor practices in discharging Michael
Leo Ryan on February 2, 1942, and recommending that it cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and take certain'affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thereafter
the respondent and the Independent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and briefs in support of the exceptions. Oral argument, in
which the respondent, the Independent, and the Union participated,
was held before the Board on February 2, 1943. . The Board has
considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. Except as herein expressly
noted, the rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Independent sought to introduce testimony that acts of vio-
lence directed at the respondent's employees crossing- the picket line
occurred during the course of the strike of August 11 to 22, 1941.•
Although some evidence of violence was admitted thereafter, the
Trial Examiner refused to'admit such testimony when offered in the
first instance, and the Independent made an offer of proof. The
testimony was not offered to impeach the credibility of any of the
witnesses for the Board 2 but for the general purpose of showing
"that the 'violence . . . had an effect on the employees and their
interest in the Independent." We are of the opinion that this rul-
ing of the Trial Examiner was erroneous and that the evidence
2 The evidence of violence adduced was not directed to specific individuals , and neither
the respondent nor the Independent sought to ascertain by cross-examination of the wit-
nesses for the Board whether they bad any part in such violence.
i
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
should have been admitted when tendered; we shall consider the
offer of proof as-part of the record. However, the evidence of vio-
lence already before us, if not complete, would appear to be char-
acteristic of the evidence sought to be adduced and we do not regard
the violence as the causative factor ' of the employees' preference for
the Independent.
.The respondent and the Independent contend in their exce'p'tions
and supporting briefs that the Trial Examiner acted improperly and'
injudiciously in his rulings on the admission of evidence, in 'his al-
leged efforts to hasten the hearing and, ,"cut it as short as possible''-
after the Board had presented its case, and in his inferences and
conclusions set forth in the Intermediate Report.3 We hater fully
reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and his conduct of the hear-
ing and we find the contentions of the respondent and the Inde-
pendent to be without merit.'
The Board has considered the exceptions and the briefs submit-
ted by^ the respondent and the Independent and the brief` of the
Union before the Trial Examiner ,5 and, insofar as the exceptions, are
inconsistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, 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
Leland-Gifford Co., a corporation of the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts, is engaged at its plant in Worcester, Massachusetts, - in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of machines and crankshafts.
The respondent receives the crankshafts in rough form from within
the Commonwealth, and purchases and receives from outside the
Commonwealth raw materials consisting of steel products and vari-
ous alloys, for use in connection with its manufacture of machines.
The- finished crankshafts and over 50 percent of the finished ma-'
chines are shipped outside the Commonwealth. The annual sales of-
the respondent are in excess of $1,000,000. The respondent admits,
for the purpose of this proceeding, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
s The criticism relating to the substantive aspects of the case is considered below in the
discussion of the unfair labor practices and of the appropriate remedy.
4 Cf. N. L. B. B v Ed. Friedrich, Inc., 116 F. Pd) 888 (C. C. A. 5) enf'g as mod.
17 N. L. R. B 1 387 ; Matter of Delaware-New Jersey Ferry Company and United Marine
Division, Local No. 333, affiliated with the A. F. L. and the I. L. A., 30 N L R B 820;
Matter of Ford Motor Company and H. C. McGarity, an individual, et at., 26'N. L R..B
322, enforced as mod 119 F. (2d) 326 (C C A 5)
'The Union did not submit exceptions and a supporting brict before the Board; but
relied upon its brief before the Trial Examiner
4
LELAND-GIFFORD Co. 123
II. TILE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America (CIO) is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
Independent Union of Employees of Leland-Gifford Co. is an
unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership only em-
ployees of the respondent. ,
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES'
A. Liter f erence, restraint, and coercion; background of the strike of
August 11, 1941
Sometime in May 1941, Thomas Fox and several other employees
of the respondent met with an organizer for the Union and decided
to try to organize the employees of the respondent through per-
sonal solicitation. Within a few days of the original meeting of
this 'group, the respondent voluntarily raised the wages of its em-
ployees 5 cents per hour. Fox testified that the organizational
activity abated as a result of the wage increase.
Enthusiasm for the Union revived about the middle of July
1941; during the latter part of the month the respondent became
aware of the Union's attempt to organize the plant. Shortly after
employee John Connor joined the Union on July 20, Foreman James
Kneeland 6 his brother-in-law, visited Connor's home and discussed
the Union with him. This visit constituted only the fourth time in
12 or 15 years that Kneeland had been "in the presence" of Connor
socially, inasmuch as there had been "family trouble" between the
Connors and the Kneelands, and Kneeland had opposed the employ-
ment of Connor 4 years before. Connor testified that Kneeland
stated that he wanted to talk to Connor about the Union, that he
had heard that there was a lot of CIO activity in the plant, and
that Connor was at the head of it. When Connor denied the truth
of the latter part of Kneeland's statement, Kneeland stated that
the respondent would not stand for any union, that it would do
everything in its power to keep the Union out of the plant, and that
it would discharge anyone who was, engaging in union activities
regardless of his family relationships. Kneeland offered to shake
hands and forget the whole matter if Connor would assure him that
he was not the leader of the CIO. Connor did so, and the men shook
hands. Although Kneeland denied that he mentioned the Union
during this visit to Connor's home because he "always avoided shop
talk" away from the plant; he was unable to recall either the rea-
e Kneeland was also referred to by the respondent as "proCCuction manager."
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
son for the visit or the conversation which occurred there. In view'
of Kneeland's indefiniteness on the subject and the positive testi-
mony of Connor, we find, as did the Trial Examiner; that the-facts-
are substantially as testified to by Connor. . _
Employee Michael Leo Ryan testified that shortly after he was
hired by the respondent on July 20, 1941, through , the assistance of
Kneeland, the latter told him that he would discharge anyone who
'joined any union. He testified further that a few days later Knee-
land asked him whether he had heard any conversation about the
Union. Ryan, who had become a union member at the solicitation
of Connor, denied having heard any' such conversations but, at
Kneeland's request, agreed to try to find out about the Union. On
two subsequent occasions Kneeland, requested Ryan to ascertain how
-many employees had attended a certain CIO meeting and who was
the leader of the Union. With, Connor's permission, Ryan told
Kneeland that about 150 employees had attended the meeting and
that Connor was the head of the CIO. Connor corroborated Ryan's
testimony as to the messages sent back to Kneeland., On the after-
noon of the day of Ryan's report about Connor, the respondent laid
off Connor for the asserted reason of lack of work. Connor testi-
fied, however, that at the time of his lay-off, there was work at his
in
which had' to be finished. On the following day, Thomas
Fox was summarily laid off.
Although Kneeland denied having talked unionism with any em-
ployees and having made the above requests of Ryan, he did not
deny having made the- threat to, discharge anyone who joined any
union. The Trial Examiner, who heard and observed the witnesses,
did not credit they denial of Kneeland in view of the general vague-
ness of his testimony. We credit the testimony of Ryan, as did the
Trial Examiner, and find the facts substantially as testified to by
him.
Employee Charles Creighton testified that about the first of Au-
gust 1941, Foreman Gilbert Burl asked him and employee Arthur
Thibeault if they had been approached by any union and ordered
them to report to him if anyone spoke to them on the subject. Al-
though Burl did not remember making the inquiry, he denied having
given any such order. A few days before August 11, 1941, Burl told
employee Homer Rock that he wanted Rock 'to work nights instead_
of days, whereupon Rock asked if this transfer was caused by his
activities on behalf of the Union. Burl testified that 'he answered,
"You do your own thinking. I am trying to run my department
efficiently. I have no time for it." According to the testimony of
Rock, Burl gave as the reason for the transfer the fact that Rock
had been "monkeying around with, the C. I. O.' ... that some-
body was doing his thinking for him." Although Burl denied mak-
LELAND-GIFFORD CO. 125
ing this, last statement, his testimony, except for, the denial, cor-
roborated that of Rock. Rock testified further that later during the'
same day Burl informed him that the respondent "had them fellows'
[C. I. 0.] names in the office" and "they will dispose of you fellows
one way or another." Burl denied ever,having threatened to dis-
charge Rock for union activities, stated that he had never seen any
list of CIO members, and was unable to recall making any statement
relating thereto. The Trial Examiner, who heard and observed the
witnesses, did not credit the testimony of Burl. We credit the testi-
mony of. Creighton and Rock, as did the Trial Examiner, that Burl
made the statements attributed to him by them.
Beginning with the latter part of July 1941, and continuing until
August 11, the respondent discharged or laid off a number of known
union adherents. Among others, "Slivers" Anderson was laid off the
latter part of July and Connor and Fox, as found above, were laid
off on August 8 and 9, respectively. In all, the Union contended that
about 12 of its members had been discharged during this period be
cause of their union activities. On August 11, 1941, the Union
struck because of, the above-mentioned discharges and lay-offs, and
began picketing the respondent's plant.
According to the testimony of employee William DeCelle, whom
we credit,'Foreman Elmer Lindquist told him during the course of
the strike that working conditions for the strikers would not be good
when they returned. Indeed, Night Superintendent Jerry Leland
testified that when he was asked by employee Butler in September or,
'October 1941 to secure a trahsfe'r•for Butler "as a favor," he replied,
"Are you asking me to do you a favor? ... Didn't I see you on the
picket line? Don't ask me to do any more favors for you. As long
as you work-here you will have to earn anything you get from now
on." Leland testified further that Butler had subsequently received
wage increases which he had "sure earned."
We find that by, the anti-union 'statements and conduct of Foremen
Kneeland, Burl, and Lindquist 'and Night Superintendent Leland,
the respondent ' has interfered with, restrained; and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section' 7 of the,
Act.
B. Domination and interference with the, formation and administra-
tion of the Independent
1. The formation of the Independent
Employee Michael Abbruzzese and his friends and fellow grinders
at the plant, Thomas Doherty, James Garrity, William Carrow,T'
and Angelo Trippi, testified that for a period 'of more than' a year;
P At various places in the transcript Carrow' s name was incorrectly spelled either,
"Caro" or "Carow
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prior to August 1941 they had been discussing the matter of "getting
the grinders together." They had, however, exercised extreme cau-
tion in their conversations; with one exception, it was not until
August 11 that they even used the words "organize" or "union."
Moreover, they were extremely careful as to whom they talked, for
fear of speaking to a "stooge." In fact, so carefully had this attempt
to organize the grinders been'concealed that Abbruzzese was dis-
charged by the respondent on July 31 upon the apparently mistaken
belief that he was soliciting and organizing for the Union.8 As here-
inafter found, the idea of an independent organization composed of
all of the respondent's employees, rather than of the grinders only,
did not take root until the first night of the strike and coincided
with Abbruzzese's reinstatement by the respondent at that time.
Doherty and Garrity reported at the regular time for the evening
shift on August 11, the first day of the strike. After punching the
time clock they left the plant to mingle with the strikers, where Gar-
rity learned that the Union was striking because of the respondent's
practice of discharging men without explanation. Garrity spoke to
Foreman Dan Shea and told,-him - that he -was going to "stay- out"
until the respondent gave Abbruzzese a reason for his discharge.
While Garrity was conversing outside the plant, Doherty informed
him that Leland had been heard to say inside the plant that anyone
who knew where Abbruzzese lived should summon him to work.
Thereupon Garrity and Doherty, accompanied by Carrow, drove to
Abbruzzese's home, where they convinced Abbruzzese that he should
return to work, pointing out that this would be a good time to carry
out their, "plan . . . to get the grinders together." Abbruzzese
agreed to return-to the plant but stated that he was not going to
touch a machine until Leland gave him a reason for his discharge.
On the way to the plant Abbruzzese telephoned to Trippi, a grinder
who worked on the clay shift, inquired how many grinders were
working on the day shift, informed Trippi that Abbruzzese might go
back to work, and stated that Trippi should see Doherty.
The men arrived at the plant between 8 and 9 p. -m. Doherty, Gar-
rity, and Carrow went back to their work and Abbruzzese proceeded
to secure a badge and a time card. At that time Abbruzzese met
Superintendent William Leland who apologized for discharging him.
After some discussion about being paid for time lost that night and
during the period of his discharge, Abbruzzese went to his machine.
8 On July 30 Abbruzzese used the word "organizer" at the plant during his conversation
with his friends On the same evening he saw Foreman Kneeland searching the lockers
of the individual employees. That evening Abbruzzese' left, a note on his machine for the
clay operator , telling him "to have the day 'men do more agitating on days and to keep
the hatchet men off nights as they were bothering us." According to Abbruzzese , he referred
to the supervisors as hatchet men. The following evening, Abbruzzese was discharged
without explanation. „
LELAND-GIFFORD CO. 127
The -respondent paid all four men s from 5: 45 p. m., the regular
starting time for the night, shift.
During the night shift of August 11,, Abbruzzese and his friends
talked together "considerably" about the possibility of -organizing.
These conversations took place both inside and outside the plant,
They talked about "organizing an independent union," and considered
all the employees still, working to be potential members of their-
organization. Although Abbruzzese testified that organizing the
grinders was a preliminary, step to the organization of an inde-
pendent union comprising the employees in the entire plant, the
other organizers stated that they had never heard of such an organiza-
tion. until that night, which was the first time that any type of or-
ganization other than that of the grinders had been mentioned. We
are convinced, as was the Trial Examiner, that the decision to form
a labor organization composed of all the employees -of the respondent
was made during the night of August 11 and that the organizers then
began to talk in straightforward terms about organizing such a union
in the plant.
Pursuant to arrangements made that night by the organizers,
Garrity drove to Boston the following day to inquire of one Skibinski,
chairman of the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, and
others, about the procedure for forming an independent union. Upon
his return, the four organizers met at Abbruzzese's hoiile where they
spent a large part of the evening discussing the problems of organiza-
tion. Although they did not report for work that night until,10:23
'p. in., the respondent paid them from 5:45 p. m., the beginning of the
shift.,
Upon entering the plant on August 12, the four organizers discovered
that a group of employees, led by LeRoy Burke,10 John Faubert, and
Salih, were circulating a petition, and interpreted this action as a
movement by these employees to form a labor organization in competi-
tion with them. Doherty and Garrity spoke to this group and sought
to discourage this activity by telling them that such a petition would
be illegal and by outlining their own plans. After some discussion the
Burke group 'decided to authorize Abbruzzese and his friends to go
ahead with their plans, but threatened to resume the *circulation of the
petition-unless the organizers could report definite progress the follow-
ing evening. Again, a considerable amount of working time was spent
in discussing plans and making arrangements for the formation of the
Independent. During the course of these discussions, employee Baroni
offered Doherty the use of his home for a meeting of the night shift
employees at which Doherty could make a progress report. Before the
end of the shift; Doherty made arrangements with Burke and a few
u These four individuals are herein referred to as, "the organizers" or "the- four organizers."
10 Also referred to in the record as "Roy"„Burke.
4,
128 DECISIONS- OF ` i ATIONAL` ,LiABOR `RELATIONS BOARD'
of his followers to meet with them at' Baroni's house on Wednesday
afternoon.
After leaving work on Wednesday morning, Abbruzzese, Gar-
rity, Doherty, and Carrow arranged for the services of, Attorney
James A. Crotty and made payment therefor contingent upon the
successful formation of the Independent. With Crotty's assistance,
the men drafted a card which stated that the signers were willing to
join an independent union sponsored by certain named employees."
During the same day the organizers had 1,000 of these independent
cards printed.
According to the corroborated testimony of Trippi, Doherty told
him about the cards on Wednesday noon, and instructed him "to get
the fellows, as many.as you can" to go to Baroni's home,on Ingleside
Drive that evening after work to sign Independent cards. Doherty
testified that he warned Trippi not to "spread it around the shop
through the grapevine" until after 3p. m. for fear the news might get
to the Union. Later that afternoon Doherty met with the Burke
group as prearranged, adjourned to the grounds of Rice Square School
nearby, and had them sign Independent cards. -
DeCelle testified that sometime that Wednesday afternoon in the
plant he asked Foremen Kneeland and Lindquist;-if they knew any-
thing about a settlement of the strike and Kneeland replied "Never
mind; we have something cooking, something up our sleeve-don't
worry about it." Kneeland denied having made this statement and
added that "if it took place . . . I don't recall it." In view of the
general character of Kneeland's testimony, we credit, as did the Trial
Examiner, the testimony of DeCelle. DeCelle testified further that
about 3:30 or 4 p. m., Foreman Lindquist came into DeCelle's depart-
ment, spoke to Foreman Worcester and a group of employees, and gave
DeCelle and others an address on Ingleside Drive, which proved to be
that of Baroni's home, with instructions "to go up there and you will
see what this is all about." According to the undenied testimony of
DeCelle, Trippi appeared in the department about 4: 30 p. m. and told
him that Independent cards were to be signed at Ingleside. Drive after
work that night, and instructed him to get as many employees as possi-
ble to go there for that purpose. DeCelle, thereupon, began actively to
solicit employees, and made "arrangements to take several of them to the
Ingleside' address. Foreman Lindquist testified that some employee
in Building No. 2, whose name he was unable to recall at the hearing,
put a note in his pocket with the request that he deliver it to DeCelle in
another building, that he thereafter handed the note to DeCelle with-
out having looked, at it and without commenting thereon to DeCelle or
the others. Both Lindquist and DeCelle agreed that Foreman Wor-
11 Roy „ Burke, ,, Ralph Slater , Angelo , Trippi , Owen,,Kilcoyne , James Garrity , )Micbael Ab-
bruzzese , William Carrow, Thomas Doherty, John Faubert.
LELAND-GIFFORD co. , 129
tester was present during the incident; Worcester, however,_did not
testify. Although Lindquist testified that note carrying by super-
visory personnel was a practice in the plant, Foreman Kneeland, when
questioned about such a practice, denied that he had ever carried notes
and stated "That is something I do not know. I cannot tell what the
individual does."
It is apparent that, in carrying the note, and in relaying the infor-
mation contained therein to the employees, Foreman Lindquist was
performing a real service to the organizers. He testified that the inci'
dent involved going from his department in Building No. 1 across a
public street to another department in Building No. 2, that no employee
was making a trip between these departments at that time, and that
in those cases where employees did move about, they had' to check out-
and in with 'the guards stationed, at the entr;auce to these buildings "as
to where they are going and coming." In view of the unsatisfactory
and vague explanation of this incident liy Lindquist and the straight-
forward testimony of DeCelle, who was corroborated by Lindquist in
many details, we credit the testimony of DeCelle, as did the Trial
Examiner. We are also of the opinion, and we find, that whether or
not a practice of note carrying prevailed in the plant, Lindquist know-
ingly assisted in this important step in the organization of the
Independent.,
The solicitation of DeCelle by Trippi was part of his fulfillment of
Doherty's request that Trippi put the news of the Ingleside gathering
"on the grapevine," Trippi testified that he had started to do so
after 3 p. in., as requested, and that he "put the news on the grapevine"
by telling his friends and requesting them to tell their friends. He
explained further that when he desired to spread the news "oil the
grapevine" to all three of the respondent's buildings, one of which
was separated from the others by a public street, he so informed em-
ployee Roche, a trucker whose duties required him to go from building
to building, and instructed him to see that the news reached the men
in the other buildings. By this means, which was used extensively by
the organizers of the Independent, all the employees of the respondent
were advised of the plans of the Independent. ,
At 5:45 p. in. on Wednesday, Carrow and Doherty returned to the
plant and led a group of employees through the picket line into the
plant. According to the testimony of Carrow, corroborated by
Doherty, the four organizers on the night shift had decided upon such
action in order to "bolster [the] spirits" of the employees and to dissi-
pate any adverse effect upon their organizational efforts which may
have been caused by their previous failure to assist the employees
through the picket line. Garrity and Abbruzzese were not present
since they were charged with the important task of having cards signed
at Ingleside Drive that evening.
130 DE,CISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Soon after the day shift ended, large numbers of automobiles filled
with employees began to arrive at the Ingleside Drive address'\vliere
Garrity, Abbruzzese and, later, Trippi, distributed Independent cards
to the employees and collected them again after they had been
executed. Later, upon learning from a policeman-of the neighbors'
objection to the noise attending this activity, Garrity and Abbruzzese
went to a nearby public park, leaving Trippi to direct the employees
there. Employees continued to appear at this park and to execute
Independent cards until about 9 p. in. According to the testimony of -
Garrity, 'about 350 cards were signed at both places that evening.
After-placing the signed cards in a safe place, Abbruzzese and Garrity
went to the plant, where they checked in about 10 p. in. Again the
respondent paid them their full wages from 5 :45 p. in., thereby paying
them for the 41/4 hours they had spent on business of the Independent.
The four organizers were thus paid for a total of 27 hours during
the evening of August 12 and 13, although their time cards showed
that they were absent from the plant, and their testimony established
that during this period of time they were engaged in discussing the
problems of organizing or in securing signed application cards for
the Independent. The respondent and the Independent contend that
during the strike it was the policy of the respondent to' pay any em-
ployee from the beginning of any shift for which he reported irrespec-
tive of the time of his reporting for work, and that such conduct is not
blameworthy and is not to be interpreted as company support.
Although the respondent produced the time cards of 60 employees 12 to
establish this policy, and these cards showed that the respondent paid
these employees during the week ending August 16 for approximately
+"65'hours of time when they were not in the plant, it does not appear
from the record that the asserted policy serves to justify the payments
to the four organizers. Trippi testified that employees who reported
their lateness to the timekeeper and attributed it to their inability to
pass through- the picket line were credited by the timekeeper with time
from the commencement of the shift and the time cards were so marked.
The record is barren of testimony that any of the organizers asserted
such a claim to the timekeepers; nor were their time cards marked to
indicate the commencement of work at the start of the shift but, instead,
showed,the actual time of arrival. Moreover, it appears from their
time cards that the daily totals of hours worked were altered by the
respondent to show a figure which included the-hours absent from, the
commencement of the shift. In this connection Doherty, when ques-
tioned as to why he was paid for full time on Tuesday, August 12,
although lie arrived at 10: 23 p. in. and his time card reflected that
information, stated that "I must have unconsciously told [the' time- ..
'2 The cards were replaced at the hearing by a tabulation of their contents, now in
evidence
LELAND-GIFFORD CO. 131
keeper] I came in at a quarter of six," the regular starting time;
Garrity testified that he did not know why such starting, times as
10 or 10: 23 p. m.'were written on his time card instead of 5: 45 p. in.
if there was a practice of paying -from the regular starting time, as
some employees had told him; and Abbruzzese expressed surprise when
his attention was called at the hearing to the daily total of his time
card for Wednesday, stated that he had not discussed this matter with
the respondent and did not know on what basis the time was computed,
and suggested that a clerical error had been made. On all 'the facts,
we find that the asserted policy does not adequately explain the pay-
ment to the four organizers for time not worked on Tuesday and
Wednesday, August 12 and 13, and that the,respondent made such
payment with knowledge of their activity on behalf of the independent
during the periods in question.
Sometime Thursday morning, Doherty-instructed Trippi to inform.
the employees that the organizers might be back in front of the plant
at noon so that they could sign Independent cards. • Trippi testified
that he spent part of the morning soliciting employees to join the
Independent and telling them that they could sign cards in front of
the plant,at the noon hour. Once again, this news was spread through
the plant on the "grapevine."
Although the respondent had requested the employees to remain in
the,plant during their shift in order to minimize the chances of trouble
with those on the picket line, groups of employees left the plant that
,Thursday noon and walked between the pickets who, on orders of the
Worcester police, were required to continue marching on the sidewalk.
These employees gathered around the Independent organizers who
were standing in the street just beyond the sidewalk, signed Independ-
ent cards, and then walked back through the picket line into the plant.
Trippi testified that while this was occurring outside the plant, he was
busy inside the plant rounding up employees and sending them outside
to the organizers. This solicitation continued throughout the lunch
period without objection by the respondent. The signing of Inde-
pendent cards was witnessed by numerous company officials, super-
intendents, foremen, assistant foremen, and the respondent's attorney,
Ernest Anderson, who had gathered in a reception room overlooking
this scene and within 15 or 20 feet of one of the two main exits. Ander-
son became so interested that, according to his own testimony, he asked
some of the employees about what was going on and learned from
"just general talk outside the plant window at the time" that some of
the Independent organizers were former A. F. of L. members. Other
supervisors went outside to watch the proceedings. According to the
uncontradicted testimony of Ryan, one of the CIO adherents, Gifford,
the respondent's treasurer, questioned him about the cards which were
being distributed. When the lunch period ended, the organizers
521247-43-'vo1 48--10
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
returned to the automobile in which they had driven to the plant and
departed under escort of a police scout car for which they had made
arrangements earlier that day with the Worcester chief of police.
Although the organizers testified that they were pursued in cars
,occupied by pickets for a considerable distance, no untoward incident
occurred before such pursuit was abandoned.
Sometime in the morning or afternoon of Thursday, August '14,
Trippi, DeCelle, Jerry Cote, and four other employees secured an
appointment to see Treasurer Gifford. According to the testimony of
DeCelle, Gifford came into the meeting and said "you boys are doing a
nice job. It is good." Wilkinson testified that he did not hear this
remark. Although Trippi's recollection of the facts did not include
any such statement, he was not questioned specifically about the remark
attributed to Gifford by DeCelle. We credit the testimony'of DeCelle
and find that Gifford did make the remark attributed to him by
DeCelle.' Trippi ' stated that he requested Gifford to furnish more
police protection in front of the plant; the other men also requested
better transportation facilities and free coffee. Gifford was also'asked
about, and explained, the lay-off of Connor and Fox. Subsequently,
according to DeCelle, more police protection, better transportation
facilities, and free coffee were furnished.
On Thursday evening the organizers reported for work at Building
No. 2 at the beginning of the shift. This was the first time since the
start of the strike that they had all reported on time. Doherty testified
that they proceeded to put on the "grapevine" the news of their plan'
to be out in the street during the midnight 20-minute lunch period'so
that the employees could sign Independent cards. It is clear from the
record that, like-Trippi, the organizers personally solicited employees
throughout the plant to sign cards at midnight and made arrangements
as to how the signing was to be done. The news of the midnight
signing-up period was spread by the organizers or their friends,to the
employees of the buildings other than the one in which the organizers
worked. According to Burke, by midnight there was not an employee
in the plant who had not been solicited. and told to go into the street
at midnight, form a circle around the organizer and the man signing
the card as a "protectionary" measure, and to execute a card for the
Independent. - On this occasion, there was no CIO picket'line present.
According to Burke, all ,the 40 employees in Building No. 3 and about
80_ employees from Building No. 2 went out into the street through the
exit of Building No. 2 without interference to sign Independent cards.
In an effort to enforce the respondent's order forbidding employees to
leave the building during their shift, Superintendent Gaudes stood in
front of the'exit of Building No. 1 and-refused to allow them to leave
the building. Night Superintendent Jerry Leland testified that, upon
being informed by an unidentified employee of Gaudes' action,in inter, ,
LELAND-GIFFORD CO. 133
fering with the employees who "had some business they wanted to do"
outside , he ordered Gaudes to permit the employees to leave. These
employees then went out into the street and signed Independent cards.
Doherty thereafter carried off the signed cards to a safe hiding place
and returned-to the plant 10 minutes late, according to his own estimate.
Doherty testified that he was not,questioned by any representative of
the respondent concerning his absence and'no deduction was made from
his pay for the time so spent. With this exception, the respondent,
for the first time since the inception of the Independent, began on
Thursday night to pay the organizers only for the time they were
actually in the plant. However, not even then was it concerned with
the fact that a part of this time had been spent by the organizers in
soliciting men to join the Independent and in arranging for the
execution of the cards. ,
On the morning of Friday, August 15, the organizers met in Crotty's
office and turned over to him all the cards signed by the employees on
the above occasions. Crotty thereupon prepared a list of the names
of the signers on these cards. This list included the name of Foreman
Walter L'Heureux.13 It was then decided that the Independent should
have a'meeting that evening attended by representatives from as many
departments in the plant as possible. 'The group also discussed the
general meeting which had been scheduled for 8 p. in. of the following
day, Saturday, August 16, and made arrangements to notify the em-
ployees concerning/ it.. According to Carrow, the group conferred
about the possibility of changing the time of the Saturday meeting and
arranged, in that event, to notify the employees of the change through
the Worcester Telegram, a local newspaper.
.Sometime that Friday Doherty notified Trippi of the necessity of
having representatives from the various departments on the day shift
at the meeting scheduled for that evening. Trippi testified that he
told some of the employees about the meeting and made arrangements
as to the time and place they should meet, and that he instructed Roche
to secure representatives from Building No. 1. Trippi personally,
invited` Jerry Cote and Francis N. Cody and arranged to take them,
to the meeting. These instructions were carried out by Roche during
working hours. That evening, after again reporting to work on time,
's Although Tripp! testified that L'Heureux was then only a lathe hand , Superintendent
William Leland , who was in complete charge of the crankshaft department ,, testified un-
equivocally that L'Heureux was a foreman on the night shift at the time of the strike, that
be was assigned to the supervision of employees working on 25 or 30 lathes in Buildings
No 2 and No . 3, and that he had the right or duty to recommend the hire and discharge
of these employees . The respondent , in its exceptions and supporting brief, argues that
Leland was mistaken when he so testified , and the Independent requests permission in its
brief to furnish proof that L Heureux was not a foreman . However , we are satisfied that,
regardless of the 'fob designation of L'Heureux on the, respondent 's records , his actual
duties, as testified to by Leland who was well informed thereof by virtue of his position,
indicate clearly his supervisory status
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR .R'EL'ATIONS BOARD
the 4 organizers also put "on the grapevine" the news that the repre-
sentatives to this meeting should be selected,by the 'various depart-
ments. In addition, they personally invited-a few employees to attend.
The organizers testified that they did not know how the representa-
tives were actually selected from the various departments to, attend
the meeting scheduled for Doherty's home. However, by' 7:30 that'
evening, not only the - organizers but also 10 or 11 employees on the
night shift left their tasks, without permission, to, attend the meeting
as such representatives. In those instances where supervisors 'were
informed by the men that they were leaving the plant, no questions
were asked. It is the undisputed testimony of Carrow and Abbruzzese
that they,were not questioned by their supervisors or foremen concern-
ing their 'absence that evening, and Doherty testified that no comment
was ever made by any supervisor about the simultaneous departure of
all these employees. Although the Independent argues that it was a
common practice during the strike for anyone to leave the plant at
will,14 we are not convinced that such a practice did in fact exist. We
find that the extensive undertaking of selecting representatives was
carried on openly under such circumstances as to afford a reasonable
basis for imputing knowledge thereof to the respondent. We find
further that the respondent cooperated in this activity of the inde-
pendent by permitting the selected representatives to leave their work
and the plant without objection.
At the meeting which was attended by approximately 30 employees,
including Foreman L'Heureux, some time was spent in preparing for
the general meeting of the following day. In view of the respondent's
decision to close its plant on Saturday; it was decided to hold .the
general meeting at 2: 30 p. in. the following day instead of 8 p. in.,
and an advertisement to that effect was placed in the newspaper.
The general meeting was thereupon held at 2: 30 Saturday after-
noon and the attendance was variously estimated from 500 to 900 em-
ployees; execution of an Independent card. was a prerequisite for
admission: Abbruzzese opened the meeting and announced that its
,purpose was to form an independent union. After temporary officers
were elected,' it was unanimously voted .that all those present should
be charter members of the Independent. • Thereafter the constitution
and, bylaws which Attorney Crotty had drafted were unanimously
adopted, and permanent officers were elected with unanimous author-
ization by the membership to proceed immediately to, negotiate an,
"employment contract" with the respondent. , The, meeting, then
adjourned until August 19.
14 Abbruzzese testified , to that effect , but under the circumstances the do not-'creclit'his'
testimony.
15 None of the organizers was elected to office, since Abbruzzese stated that none would
accept office in the Independent.
LELAND-GIFFORD Co. 135
The "closing of the plant bthe respondent on August 16, the day
upon which the Independent'-',vas formally organized, marked the first
Saturday on which the plant had not operated in years 1B It is appar-
ent from the testimony of Kneeland that this action was taken despite
the fact that the respondent well knew that its chief customer, Pratt &
Whitney, was threatened with a shut-down'if' deliveries by the're-
spondent were not increased.- However, the respondent urged at the
hearing and in its brief before us that, due to the poor attendance of
employees on the night shift," it planned to eliminate the night shift
and combine it with the day shift on the following Monday, and that
the planning and arranging incidental to such a change required it to
shut the plant on Saturday. In view of the uncontradicted testimony
of Foreman Mero that, such a change would require considerable reor-
ganization on the following Monday, but "that there wouldn't have to
be much planning on it" in advance, and in view of the apparent
unawareness by the respondent's supervisory personnel of the closing
end 'tlie' reason for it,i$ we are unable to give any weight to the
respondent's argument.
The record•sho«-s that the evening hour scheduled by the Independ-
ent for the Saturday meeting was encountering objection from the
respondent's employees and that several employees at the meeting of
representatives at Doherty's home made mention of the fears expressed
by some of the employees about attending a meeting at night. Indeed,
Carrow testified that the Friday meeting was called, in part, for the
purpose of changing the time of the general meeting. As found above,
the possibility of such a change had been discussed by the organizers
with Attorney Crotty on Friday morning. Moreover, in contrast
with the lack of knowledge by the respondent's supervisory personnel,
the organizers appear to have been well informed of the projected
closing. Thus; Carrow testified that he had discussed the closing of
the plant with the other, three -organizers considerably before die
16 The 'rCsjondent'cllsed •rts1-plant again on the following' Satinday for the asserted
reason that it had to get pioduction back to notinal after the disruption caused by the 2
weeks of the strike
17Company figures indicate that 77 percent of the employees appealed for i, ork on
August 11, and that thereafter there was a gradual decrease in the number of employees
reporting for work until August 15, when 51 percent reported for work After the cigani-
zation of the Independent, there was a corresponding gradual increase in the number of
employees repoiting for work until August 21, nnhen 77 percent of the employees repoited.
The total employment during this period, excluding supelvisois, foiemen, and assistant
foremen, was estimated by Wilkinson to be approximately_ 1,?50 The i ecord does not
disclose, however, any separate attendance figures for the day shift and night shilt.
18 Superintendent William Leland testified that he did not remember v by the pant was
shut down; Foreman Kneeland stated that lie did not know of the closing until satin day
noon ; and Foremen Gilbeit nuil and Memo testified that they were not told Ni by the plant
iias'being closed
136 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting on Friday,' and that he knew of the closing some time before
Friday afternoon.
In view of the organizers' desire'to find a meeting time more ac-
ceptable to the employees, in view of the inadequate explanation by
the respondent for its action, and in the light of the circumstances
under which the plant was closed, we are satisfied and we find that
the respondent closed its plant in order to assist the Independent and
to facilitate its organization.
Throughout the formation of the Independent, the "grapevine" at
the plant was used by the organizers to spread among the employees,
the information about their activities. As found above, the,"grape-
vine" consisted of the organizers telling their friends throughout the
• plant about the Independent, soliciting them to join it, making ar-
rangements for them to execute Independent cards outside the plant,. -
and having them pass the information along to their friends through-
out the plant. In furtherance of its defense that it had no knowledge
that the Independent was being formed on company time and property
the respondent contended that the "grapevine" in use at the'plant was
a method, common to plants of this type, of- passing information
among employees. While the usual type of "grapevine" would be
secret, closely guarded, and limited in its use, the activities conducted
in the respondent's plant were extensive and characterized by many
overt acts. In view of the magnitude of the task of informing so
many employees in such a short period of time, the prolific use of the
,"grapevine" and the success it had in reaching all the employees in the
plant; and in view of the presence of supervisory employees through-
out the plant. during working hours, and their conversations with
employees who were either at work or engaged in group discussions,'
we are convinced and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
respondent had knowledge of the plans, arrangements, and solicita-
tions made by the Independent on company time and property. In so
finding, we regard as patently lacking in merit the contention of the
respondent that, due to the disorder at the plant accompanying the
strike and due twits relaxing of discipline during that period, it was
prevented from learning of the Independent's activity; especially is
this the case in view of Superintendent Jerry Leland's testimony that
he learned about the formation of the Independent during the early
part of the first week of the strike through conversations, in the plant.
where all the employees were talking about the Independent.20 More-
19 This testimony was given on cross-examination by Carrow, a witness for the Inde-
pendent. Although Cairoiv testified on redirect examination that be did not remember
any such discussion, we do not credit the latter testimony
" Other supervisory employees of the respondent denied having heard anything about
the Independent throughout its formative period. Under the circumstances, we do not
credit-these denials. - ,
1
LELAND-GIFFORD CO. 137.
over, despite,this knowledge and despite the respondent's rule for-
bidding any solicitation in the plant on penalty of discl' large, the
record shows and we find that the respondent made no attempt to en-
force this rule in regard to the organizers and adherents of the
Independent."
2. Subsequent events
On August 15, the respondent received a letter from the CIO, in
part as follows : "We feel that all strikers, including those whose dis-
charge or lay-off precipitated this strike, should be. reinstated to their
'jobs; that provisions should be made for recognition of the Union and
adequate protection of Union members . . ." The letter suggested a.
meeting between -the parties to discuss these and other matters. On
August 18, the Independent wrote the respondent claiming to repre-
sent a majority of its employees and requesting a meeting in the near
future to negotiate a contract. Neither letter was answered by the
respondent.
On'August 19,,at a conference with the respondent and the CIO in
Boston, Dr. Myers, Regional Director for, the Board, proposed a
5-point agreement to settle the strike. The following terms were
included therein :
3. That the allegation as to company sponsorship and domination
of the Independent Union of the Employees of Leland-Gifford Co.,
and the allegation of the refusal to bargain collectively with the Steel
Workers Organizing Committee (C. I. 0.), be investigated by the
Regional Office, National Labor Relations Board for further deter-
min ation ;
4. That the Company will deal with no labor organization until the
proper agency is determined by the Regional Director or by the
National Labor Relations Board;
The CIO promptly accepted these terms but Anderson, attorney for
the respondent, stated that he could not accept without discussing
the matter with the respondent's officials.
That afternoon, the Worcester Evening Gazette, carrying the fol-
lowing banner headline: "C. I. O. Accepts 5-Point Program to End
Leland-Gifford Strike," caused consternation among the Independent
organizers and leaders who feared, according to Abbruzzese, that the
attendance at the Independent meeting scheduled for that evening
would be ruined. By 4 p. in., the respondent had posted a notice on
the bulletin boards to the effect that it had reached no settlement with
the CIO.
21 Although the record reveals that the Union solicited in the plant on,company time, the
credible evidence points to the fact that the Union did so , considexably after the Independ-
ent had begun to solicit membership and collect dues in the plant
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly before the end of the shift that afternoon Abbruzzese and
Doherty went from floor to floor in the respondent's various buildings,
calling the employees together on each floor to hear a speech by
Abbruzzese. Abbruzzese told them that there had been no settlement
of the strike, that the headline was a CIO trick, and urged the em-
ployees to attend the Independent meeting that evening. 'Employee
Jefscoat testified, without contradiction, -and we find, that Foremen
Walsh and Jordan were present and did not interfere when Abbruzzese
spoke in his department on the second floor of Building No. 1. We
also credit the testimony of DeCelle that the power controlling the
overhead shafting was shut off in his department in Building No. -2"
during Abbruzzese's speech 22 without interference by Foreman
Worcester 23 who was present. "
On the evening of August 19 about 900 employees attended the
Independent meeting and discussed the demands to be made of the
respondent in the Independent's proposed contract.
On August 20 the Independent protested by letter to the respondent
against acceptance by it of paragrph 4 of Dr. Myers' recommenda-
tions on the ground that such action would temporarily, at least,,pre-
vent the Independent from representing the employees and from bar-
gaining immediately with the respondent.
On August 21 the CIO called off its strike at the instance of the
United States Conciliation Service, which had arranged a meeting
between the CIO and the respondent at Washington, D. C., for August
26. On the following day the strikers returned to work. The respond-
ent persisted, however, in its refusal to reinstate the discharged or
laid-off employees.
On August 22 the respondent wrote a letter to Dr. Myers refusing
to accept his recommendations for settling the strike and denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices, but failing to mention
specifically the charge of refusing to bargain. In answer to paragraph
4 of, these recommendations the letter stated : "Our Company will not
deal with any labor union unless it represents a majority of our
employees . . . and even in such case, no employee in our plant will
be required to belong to any labor union."
On August 23 Attorney Crotty and Anderson and Wilkinson, the
respondent's attorney and personnel manager, respectively, met with
"Doherty testified that he heard someone in Building No . 2 shout "Shut the power off','
and that an unidentified person pulled the switch shutting off the power on the overhead
shafting controlling four machines.
"Although the Independent argued in its brief that no supervisory employees were
present and that , in any event , Walsh and Jordan were assistant bosses or straw bosses
rather than supervisory employees , we credit the testimony of Jefscoat and DeCelle, cor-
roborated by Lindquist , and find that Walsh and Jordan were foremen in charge -of the
filing department and drill department , respectively , and that Worcester had supervisory
powers in that , as assistant to Lindquist , he assumed all the latter 's duties (luring his
absenee from the department. -
LELAND-GIFFORD CO. 139,
the Independent at Crotty's office. The Independent requested recog-
nition and offered 933 signed cards in substantiation of its claim to
represent a maj ority , of the employees. Thereupon the parties • con--
sented to have Harry C. Prince, a bank teller, check the authenticity
of the signatures on-the cards against signatures from the respondent's
file. Although Anderson refused to give any written evidence of
recognition, he agreed to allow the Independent to give the newspapers
the story of its recognition and agreed, to confirm that story in the
event that this check showed that the Independent represented a
majority of the employees. That evening -Prince certified that 899
cards bore authentic signatures. The story of this recognition ap-
peared in the Sunday paper, as agreed, after Anderson had
confirmed it. .
On August 26, 27, and 28,,Anderson and Wilkinson, representing
the respondent, and representatives of the, CIO, including a number
of the discharged or laid-off employees, met in Washington, D. C.,
with a Panel set lip by the 'Conciliation Service. By the evening of.
August 27 the respondent had agreed to the' reinstatement of those
employees and the CIO had agreed to withdraw its charges of dis-
crimination as to them. On August 28 the Panel published its recom-
mendations which, after- providing for these reinstatements and the
withdrawal of the discrimination charges, was in part as follows :
3. That the remaining representation issues and others now be-
fore the National Labor Relations Board be handled by the
proper office of the National Labor Relations Board through the
established procedure set up for that purpose.
The Union promptly 'accepted the recommendations, but once again,
Anderson requested time to confer with the respondent's officials. On
August 31 the respondent telegraphed its acceptance of the recom-
mendations of the Panel.
After the respondent's acceptance, the discharged or laid-off em-
ployes were _reinstated, although in some instances not to the same
positions and in some instances to the night shift instead of the day
shift. Indeed Ryan, Connor, and Fos' were thereafter returned by
the respondent to different positions, which, according to the credible
testimony of all three, were more difficult and less desirable than
those formerly held by them. Ryan was changed from the position of
checker of crankshafts- on the day shift to that of picking up chips
on the night shift; Connor was shifted from the position of planer-
on the day shift to that of boring shafts and grinding on the night
shift; and Fox was shifted from the position of planer and sawyer
on the night shift to one of picking Lip chips-on the night shift.
Although the respondent should have concluded from the tenor of
the discussion before the Panel and from paragraph 3 of the Panel's
recommendations that the legality of the organization of the Inde-
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pendent was in issue, it nevertheless, as found below, undertook fur-
ther negotiations with the Independent. On September 5 the Inde-,
pendent met with Anderson and Wilkinson and Worcester. The
parties' discussed first the matter of recognition of the Independent,
since, as the Independent reported in its minutes , "Nothing had been
accomplished,,- in -two,, previous, ^meetings." 24 The,- Company then
agreed, in view of the card check by Harry C. Prince, to recognize the
Independent as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees. The
demands of the Independent were also discussed but no further de-,
visions were reached. After further, negotiations on September 10
and 12, these parties were substantially in agreement as to the terms
of a contract. At a general meeting of the Independent on Septem-
ber 13, the Independent officers were authorized by a unanimous vote
to "sign a contract with the Company, substantially in, accordance
with a contract read at this meeting."
After some ,, minor :changes: in phraseology had, been made in-the,
agreement, it was executed by the respondent and the Independent on
September 16. This contract grafted the Independent exclusive
recognition and, for the first time, clarified the unit involved. By
the terms of the contract the respondent granted a general wage in-
crease of 10 cents per hour and vacation with pay, and agreed to a
basis for determining seniority. Although a grievance procedure
was outlined, the contract specifically provided that employees could
continue to handle grievances individually, if they so elected. Sec-
tion 7 of the contract placed "the management of the plant and direc-
tion of the affairs of the Company and working forces, including
the right to hire, lay off, discharge, suspend, and transfer ..' . " ex-
clusively in the management.
After the strike the respondent transferred a number of the em-
ployees to the night shift. Thereafter, when some of the CIO mem-
bers attempted to secure transfers back to day work, they were told
by various superintendents and foremen, including William Leland,
Jerry Leland, William Gaudes, and William Mero, either that the
Independent members were supposed to have the day,work or that
the employees would have to secure permisssion from the Independ-
ent in order to get such a transfer. Employee Robert Grenier, a
CIO member, testified that he failed in several attempts to secure
such a transfer, but that he was successful within a week or two after
signing an Independent card. After having unsuccessfully at-
tempted, during September 1941, to secure from Foreman Lindquist
a transfer back to day work, employee Butler, who had been, on the
CIO picket line,' requested Superintendent Jerry Leland to do him,
"a favor" by securing such a transfer for him. As found above,
21 The record shows only one previous meeting between the parties.
LELAND-GIFFORD CO.
,Leland admittedly replied ,"Are you asking me to do you a favor?
... Didn't I see your on the picket line? . . . Don't ask me to do any
more favors for you. As long as you work here you will have, to
earn anything you get from now on." . Butler was not transferred.
By March 7 , 1942, despite the provision of'Section 7 of the September
,16 ,contract giuoted above ; ` the ,respondent tltrn 'ed the mattemof , trans--r
fers over to the Independent . Thereafter applications for such
-transfers had to be made by employees on a form prepared and sup-
plied by the Independent , and non -members had to procure such
applications at the offices of the Independent . Each application had
to be approved by the Board of Directors ' of the Independent and
-submitted thereafter to the respondent before such transfers would
be granted by the respondent . We are convinced and we find that
by its conduct in effectuating this change , the respondent indicated
-clearly -to its employees the, benefits of membership in the Inde-
pendent.25
3. Conclusions
The allegations of the complaint that the respondent°has domi-
nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the
Independent, and has rendered assistance to it find ample support in
the record which reveals a continuous course of collaboration between
the respondent and the Independent. The respondent's defense of
lack of knowledge of such formation on company time and property
and its denial of assistance fail in the light of all the facts.
Prior to August 11, 1941, the respondent demonstrated its hostility
to the possible organization of its employees by the CIO through the
acts and statements of Foreman Kneeland and Burl and interrogat-
ing employees about the Union, threatening members of the 'CIO
with dismissal, and threatening to discharge anyone who was active
on behalf of any labor organization. Thereafter, on August 11, when
the CIO-went on strike, in protest against what it considerecl'unfair
labor practices against,'its members; the, respondent embarked upon
a course of conduct designed to assist the formation of the Inde-
pendent. It promptly recalled Abbruzzese whom it had discharged
upon the apparently mistaken belief that he had been soliciting and
organizing for the CIO. After reporting for work that evening,
the organizers conceived the idea of the Independent. The growth
of the Independent was most rapid thereafter. During ,the night
shift of August. 12, the formation' of the Independent was agreed
upon at an informal discussion in the plant attended by several em-
,ployees. Lafer during -the• same 'shift, -further arrangements con-
cerning the formation of. the Independent were made. Begimiing
25 See Matter of Illanoic Electric Porcelain Company and Illinois Eteetric Porcelain
Workers of Macomb, etc ., 31 N. L. R B. 101.
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD'
on-August 13, the Independent organizers started soliciting employees=
to join the Independent. This work was done almost exclusively
"over,the grapevine," freely and openly during working hours with
the knowledge of and without, any apposition by the respondent.
Although not a single card was executed on company time and prop-
erty, virtually all the solicitation and arrangements for the physical-
act of executing Independent cards outside the plant were made on
company time and property during both the day and the night shifts,.
in violation of a long-standing rule against such solicitation in the
plant on penalty of discharge. Indeed,. the respondent,. acting
through Foreman Lindquist, assisted in these arrangements by mak-
ing known to employees the address of Ingleside Drive where Inde-
pendent cards were to be executed, 'and by instructing them to go•
out there. In all, G74 employees signed cards for the Independent
on 4 occasions during 2 days : at Rice Square School and at Ingleside
Drive on August 13; in front of the plant, after having passed
through the CIO picket line at noon on August 14; and in front of
the plant at the midnight lunch hour that same night.
In effectuating the rapid organization of the Independent, the
organizers enjoyed the privilege of being late in reporting for work
a total of 27 hours and of being paid therefor, although such absence
was not claimed by them to have been caused by inability to cross
the picket line, a prerequisite to payment from the commencement of
the shift on those days. In addition to enjoying the freedom of the
plant, during this period and the right of coming to work at will,
the organizers enjoyed the privilege of leaving when they so desired.
In fact, the respondent extended the last-mentioned privilege to the
night-shift employees, who we're selected as representatives to attend
the iiieeting. at Doherty's home on August 15, by allowing them to
leave their places at about 7: 30 p. in., after having worked less than
2 hours, in order to attend that meeting. Moreover, the respondent
participated in that meeting through Foreman Walter' L'Heureux,
who had also signed a membership card for the Independent. Indeed,
on August 16, the day of the, advertised general meeting at which the
Independent was formally organized, the respondent, in violation of
a precedent of at least several years' standing, closed it plant so as
to make it possible for. the Independent to change the time of its
meeting to the afternoon of that day and thus meet the objections
registered by some of its members to a night meeting.
'The subsequent history of the Independent indicates a continued
course of collaboration between it and the respondent. Two days after
the Independent had protested to the respondent against its acceptance
of the -proposal of Dr. Myers that the Board determine the proper
bargaining agent, the respondent refused the proposal. The day after
LELAND-GIFFORD co: - = = 143
16 ,00 had terminated its strike' at the instance of the Conciliation
Service, the respondent agreed to give the Independent newspaper
recognition after the Independent cards had been checked against the
respondent's pay roll, in total disregard of the Union's request that
"provisions be made for recognition of the Union and adequate protec-
tion of the union members." Although Wilkinson testified that the
respondent recognized the Independent on this occasion because it had
.a' legal duty to do so under the Act and because, if it failed to do so,
it would be in difficulty with the group of employees represented by the
Independent, we are persuaded from all -the facts that, absent the
desire by the respondent to collaborate with the. Independent, no such
hasty recognition would have been accorded to it.
Following this recognition, the respondent and theeCIO settled their
differences at the behest of the Conciliation Service. One of the terms
of the settlement stated that the remaining representation issues were
to be settled by the Board through its legal procedure, thereby placing
the legality of the organization of the Independent squarely in issue.
-Five days after accepting this recommendation, the respondent again
recognized the Independent upon the same check of cards which had
been made prior to the acceptance of the Panel's recommendation, indi-
,cating a -,preference by the respondent for making a unilateral deter-
mination as to the proper bargaining agent without resort to estab-
lished legal procedure.
Eleven-days after this last recognition the respondent and the Inde-
pendent executed a written contract which provided specifically that
the transfer of employees was exclusively the prerogative of the re-
spondeiit. But the -respondent soon gave the Independent full control
over the transfer of employees from one shift to the other, and its su-
pervisory personnel made use of this new company policy to indicate to
the employees the benefits of membership in the Independent. By
March 1942 the respondent voluntarily abrogated Section 7 of this
contract in order to give the Independent some justification to control
the transfers from shift to shift, thereby lending prestige to the Inde-
pendent and indicating further to the -employees its support of the
Independent. ,
Both the respondent and the Independent contend that events occur-
ring before and after the formation of the Independent are material to
the-issue of interference and domination and show that the Independent
hats been and is now free from such interference and domination by the
respondent. In substance, such facts asserted either by the respondent
or the Independent are (1) that as soon as the strike started, divisional
superintendents, ' foremen, and' guards were told to and did observe
neutrality in any, union discussions or activity, (2) that the organiza-
tion of the -Independent at that time-was attributable to the organizers'
4
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
belief that because of the strike the time was propitious, (3) that the
disorder and circumstances attending the strike made it practically im-
possible to prevent its formation on company time and property, even
conceding arguendo that the respondent had knowledge thereof, and
(4) that the extent of the negotiations prior to the contract with the
Independent negative any suggestion,of assistance to it. We are of
the opinion that the credible evidence does'not support these con-
tentions, but discloses a studied course of action by.,the respondent to
interfere with, dominate, and assist the Independent.
Upon the entire record, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of the Independent and has contributed financial and
other support thereto, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
C. The alleged 'discrimminatory ;discharge of Michael Leo Ryan
In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that al-
though the case is 'not free from doubt, the respondent discharged
Michael Leo Ryan on February 2, 1942, for absenteeism and not
because of his union membership and activity. The Union did not
file any exceptions to this finding, but indicated thereafter by let-
ter to the Board that it was relying upon its brief before the
Trial Examiner in which it urged that Ryan was discriminatorily
discharged. However, at oral argument before the Board, the Union
receded from its position and indicated that it was not contesting
this finding of the Trial Examiner or his recommendation that the
complaint be dismissed as to Ryan. We have considered the rec-
ord, and we agree that it does not support the allegation that Ryan
was discharged because of his union membership or activity. We
shall, therefore, dismiss the ' complaint as to him.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section 1, above, have a close, initimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among theksev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has, engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
LEI.AND=GI'FFORD CO. -145
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
We have- found that the respondent 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 domina-
tion 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 and render the Independent incapable
of serving the employees as a genuine bargaining representative,
we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the
Independent as the representative of any of the respondent's em-
ployees for the purposes of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment and completely disestablish it
as such representative. Having found that the exclusive bargaining
contract of September 16,,1941, with the Independent is the product
of the respondent's unfair labor practices, we shall order the re-
spondent to cease and desist from giving effect to the said contract
as well as to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereto and to any superseding contract which may now be in force.
Nothing in this .decision or in our order shall be taken, however, to
require the respondent to vary those wages, hours; seniority, and other
such substantive features of its relations with the employees, if
any, which the respondent may have established in performance
of the contract as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or
superseded, the order herein being issued without prejudice to the
assertion by the employees of any legal rights acquired under such
contract.
The respondent's unlawful course of coiicluct discloses a purpose
to defeat self-organization-and its objects. Because of such conduct
and its underlying purpose, we find that the unfair labor practices.
in which the respondent has engaged are persuasively, related to,
the other unfair labor practice's proscribed by the Act. and that the
danger of their commission in the future "is to be anticipated from
the course of the respondent's conduct in the past." 20 The preven-
tive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the terms of our
order are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore,, to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to
prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby to mini-
mize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and
thus, effectuate, the;policies- of the Act;,we must-order the respondent
,to cease and desist from in any manner infringing the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
26 See N L R B. v. Express Publishting Co., 312 U. S. 426, 437.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since we have found that the respondent did not engage an unfair
labor practices by discharging Michael Leo Ryan, we shall dismiss the
complaint as to him.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and'upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following :
J
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Independent Union of
Employees of Leland-Gifford Co., unaffiliated,-are labor organizations,
within the meaning of,Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Independent Union of Employees of Leland Gifford Co.,
and by contributing support to it, the respondent, Leland-Gifford Co.,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor, practices,
-within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section (6) and (7) of
-the Act. -
5. By discharging Michael Leo Ryan on February 2, 1942, the
-respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ,
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Leland-Gifford Co., Worcester, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, suc-
-cessors, and assigns shall : -
1. Cease and desist from : - -
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Inde-
pendent Union of Employees of Leland-Gifford Co., or with the, forma-
tion or administration of any other labor organization of its employees
and from contributing financial and other support to the said organiza-
tion or any other labor organization of its employees; '
(b) Recognizing Independent Union of Employees of Leland-
Gifford Co. as the representative of any - of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of, employment-,
% LELAND-GIFFORD CO. 147
(c) Giving effect to the contract of September 16, 1941, with Inde-
pendent Union of Employees of Leland-Gifford Co. or to any exten-
sion, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any
superseding contract with it which may now be in force;
(d) 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 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 Independent Union of Em-
ployees of Leland-Gifford Co. as the representative. of any 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 said
Independent Union of Employees of Leland-Gifford Co. as such
representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant'
at Worcester, Massachusetts, and maintain for a period of at least
sixty (60) 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), and (d) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
and (3) that the contract with Independent Union of Employees of
Leland-Gifford Co., dated September 16, 1941, and any modifications,
supplements, extensions, or renewals thereof, and any superseding
contracts, are invalid under the National Labor Relations Act, without
prejudice, however, to the assertion by the employees of any legal
rights acquired thereunder;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First 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, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated against Michael Leo Ryan within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) 'of the Act, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MR. JOHN M. HouSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
521247-43-vol 48--11