Piqua Munising Wood Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 782 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of PIQUA MUNISING WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY and
FEDERAL LABOR UNION LOCAL 18787
Case No. C-302.--Decided June 9, 1938
Woodenware, Toy, and Lamp Manufacturing Industry- Interference, Re-
straint, and Coercion : threat to shut down plant-Discrimination : demotion ;
charges of, not sustained-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: pro-
duction and maintenance employees , excluding clerical and supervisory em-
ployees ; no controversy as to-Representatives : proof of choice : union mem-
bership cards-Collective Bargaining : refusal to recognize representatives as
bargaining agency representing employees ; specie l forms of remedial order;
recognition as exclusive representative ; enter into agreement with representa-
tives of employees if understanding is reached.
Mr. Peter Di Leone, and Mr. Max W. Johnstone, for the Board.
.Day, Young & Veach, by Mr. Earl W. LeFever, of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the respondent.
Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Federal Labor Union Local 18787,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by James P. Miller, Regional Director for the
Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint, dated Sep-
tember 27, 1937, against Piqua Munising Wood Products Company,
-Cleveland, Ohio, the respondent herein, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act.
The complaint and the notice of hearing were duly served upon the
parties. The respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which
it denied that it had engaged in unfair labor practices.
782
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 783.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Piqua, Ohio, on October
7, 8, 9, 11,12, and 13, 1937, before Waldo C. Holden, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respond-
ent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing..
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
to all parties. During the course of the hearing, exceptions were-
taken by the parties to various rulings of the Trial Examiner. The
Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. All rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby
affirmed.
Subsequently the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report.
He found that the respondent had refused to bargain collectively
with the Union, and that it had interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in the
Act. He found further that by virtue of such acts the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within-
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act. He granted the motion to dismiss so much of the complaint,
as related to Raymond Cline on the ground that there has not been
sufficient evidence to substantiate that charge.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were thereafter filed by the-
respondent. On May 26, 1938, the respondent presented oral argu-
ment before the Board in support of its exceptions, while the Union=
presented arguments in support of the findings of the Trial Examiner.
Thereafter, the respondent submitted a brief, which has been con-
sidered by the Board. We have reviewed the exceptions and find'
them without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Piqua Munising Wood Products Company is an Ohio corpora-
tion having its principal office in Cleveland, Ohio.' The respondent.
operates three plants, located in Munising, Michigan ; Marquette,,
Michigan; and Piqua, Ohio.
At the Piqua plant, with which we are herein concerned, the re-
spondent manufactures woodenware, toys, wooden lamps, and rough
wood turnings. The principal raw material used is lumber, approxi-
mately 40 per cent of which originates outside the State of Ohio.
IIn 1934 its Articles of Incorporation were amended and the corporate name changed%
from Munising Woodenware Products Company to its present name.
784 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Approximately 60 per cent of the products of the Piqua plant are
shipped by the respondent to points without Ohio.
II. THE 'ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Federal Labor Union Local 18787 is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to member-
ship all employees of the respondent at its plant in Piqua, Ohio.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In 1934, the Union obtained a contract from the respondent, signed
by its former plant manager, which remained in effect until April
1935. Subsequently, Geffine, president of the respondent, declared
that the contract had been invalid from its inception because the
plant manager had no authority to execute it.
On October 24, 1935, the respondent posted a declaration of policy,
a copy of which was sent to the president of the Union. , It provided
for hours of work and other conditions of employment, including
nondiscrimination against union members "provided ability and ex-
perience are equal in comparison with non-union employees." The
plant continued to operate under the terms of this policy until April
12, 1937.
In November 1936, the Union, claiming to respresent the majority
of the respondent's employees, began to demand recognition in the
form of a written agreement. Acting upon the decision of the
Union membership, Hiser, an employee of the respondent and presi-
dent of the Union, submitted a proposed contract to Geffine in Cleve-
land. The Cleveland office turned the matter over to Badstuber,
manager of the Piqua plant. Badstuber met with the union com-
mittee but flatly refused to give any consideration to the proposed
contract.
On December 4, 1936, the Union, through a committee composed
entirely of employees of the -respondent, renewed its demand for a
written agreement at a meeting with Geffine and Badstuber. Geffine
declared that he would not recognize the American Federation of
Labor but that he was willing to deal with a committee of em-
ployees. When Hiser asserted the Union's claim to represent 93 per
cent of the employees in the Piqua plant, Geffine replied : "I don't care
if you have a 100 per cent; it is not a question of membership, it is
a question that there is nothing we can enter into a contract about."
Badstuber admitted that Geffine,made this statement.
After several fruitless conferences with Badstuber about the agree-
ment. the union committee was called in by Geffine on April 9, 1937.
DECisi6NS AND ORDERS 785
He reaffirmed his policy against entering into a contract with the
Union 2 but offered a new declaration of policy which contained a
,classification of employees and a 5-per cent increase in the hourly
wage rate of each classification. As a further concession, the re-
spondent prefaced this instrument with a declaration that it was
the result of negotiations between the management and the em-
ployees,3 so as to give it the appearance of a contract. It was to
remain in force until July 1, 1937. The committee agreed to it and
accordingly it was posted on the bulletin board of the plant on
April 12, 1937.
While there were other meetings between the committee and the
respondent to discuss grievances, the next significant meeting oc-
.curred in June, when a further increase in wages was discussed.
'Geffine informed the committee that while raising wages was not
feasible at that time, he would try to give the men steady work
and would not shut down for inventory, but "if there will be too
much labor unrest, he would shut down for a month or more, or
maybe shut down and leave it down." Since Geffine did not testify,
this statement stands uncontradicted.
On July 8 Raymond Cline, a union employee, was demoted.
Thereafter the Union protested his demotion to the management
but was unable to secure an adjustment. Cline's case will be more
fully discussed hereinafter.
All the attempts of the committee to negotiate an agreement with
the respondent having been unsuccessful, the Union on July 27, 1937,
sought the help of Taylor, American Federation of Labor organizer
for the district. At 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day Hiser
posted a notice on the plant bulletin board advising the employees
that a union meeting would be held at 4 o'clock with Taylor present.
An hour after Hiser's announcement was posted, the following notice
was posted on the bulletin board by Badstuber :
In view of pending negotiations with another corporation for
the sale or lease of part or all of this plant and equipment, we
are closing this plant • down for' 'inventory purposes, effective.
tonight. Employees will be advised when they are to report
for work.
Signed : V. P. GEFFINE, President.
The respondent claims that the Cleveland office received informa-
tion only on the afternoon of July 27 that the Robin Hood Wood
Products Company of California, the corporation referred to in the
2 The members of the committee testified that Geffine told them he would "cut (shut)
the place down first" before recognizing the Union . Geffine was not called at the hearing.
3 "At a meeting of officers , management and employees of the Piqua Munising Wood
Products Company of Piqua , Ohio, the following agreement was made 11
786 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
above notice, was shipping equipment to Piqua and that the taking
of an inventory thus became urgent.
The plant was closed down accordingly at 4 o'clock that afternoon
and the union employees began to picket the plant. The following,
day the committee and Taylor met with Badstuber to discuss the
agreement and Cline's demotion. When Badstuber stated that he
could not decide anything without Geffine's approval, Taylor re-
quested that, a conference be arranged between Geffine, the commit-
tee, and himself. Badstuber agreed to notify Taylor after he had
communicated with Geffine to arrange for the date of such a meet-
ing, but Taylor received no further word from the respondent con-
cerning the proposed meeting.
On August 3, 1937, the respondent mailed the following letter to
all its employees.
On July 27, 1937 our plant closed in order to take inventory.
This inventory will be completed by the night of August 4th,
and the plant will be open for operation Thursday morning,
August 5th,' at the regular time.
THE PIQUA MIINISING WOOD PRODUCTS CO.,
M. E. BADSTUBER, Plant Manager.
The plant was opened in the morning of August 5, but no one re-
ported for work. Two employees started toward the entrance but
after talking to those on the picket line, neither of them entered.
The plant has been picketed ever since it was shut down on July 27.
From the events set forth above, we find that in its consistent
efforts to discourage membership in the Union, as evidenced by
Geffine's antiunion statements and the circumstances surrounding the
shut-down of July 27, the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The Union claims that the production and maintenance employees
of the respondent, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. The respondent neither introduced evidence on the appropriate
unit nor objected to the unit sought by the Union.
We find that the production and maintenance employees of the
respondent excluding clerical and supervisory employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that
said unit will insure to employees of the respondent the full benefit-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 787
of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
Testimony on behalf of the respondent established the fact that
at the time of the shut-down there were 135 employed in the ap-
propriate unit. Hiser claimed at the hearing that the Union had 116
members, but introduced in evidence only 82 membership cards.
Badstuber, plant manager, and Purcell, plant superintendent, after
examilii"lig the membership cards, testified that two of the cards were
signed by former employees of the respondent, who had quit in the
early part of 1937. Of the remaining 80 cards, 68 were dated prior
to August 8, 1937, but 12 were not dated. One of the undated cards
was signed by Wachler. Since Wachler was a member of the union
committee at least since November 1936, it is obvious that he had
signed his card prior to August 8. Accordingly, at least 69 employees
of the respondent signed union membership cards prior to August 8.
1937. Purcell testified that a few of the union members indicated to
him or to others their withdrawal from the Union. One of the girls
whom he claimed to have made such a statement, Vida Houser, testi-
fied at the hearing that she was a member of the Union. Since no
evidence was introduced with regard to the other alleged withdrawals,
we cannot give credence to Purcell's testimony-'
We find that on August 8, 1937, the Union has been designated as
their bargaining representative by a majority of the respondent's
employees in the unit above-described as appropriate. Pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was, therefore, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain .
In an attempt to settle the dispute, on August 8, 1937, Geffine in-
vited the committee for a conference. After disposing of the Union's
jiroposed contract by stating that "he would not be bothered with it,
that he would not recognize the Union," Geffine presented his plan.
He had a new declaration of policy drawn up, which he offered to the
committee. Unlike the one posted on April 12, this notice does not
in any way purport to be a bilateral agreement between management
4 when asked what information he had about the alleged withdrawal of some of the
girls from the Union , Purcell testified as follows : "There was a group of girls of the
plant and I walked by and heard one of them mention, 'well, all the girls have dropped
out of the Union ' And these girls were in that group ; and I assumed from that that all
-the girls dropped out that were members."
788 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and employees but merely states, that : "In reopening our, plant on
next Monday, Aug. 10, 1937 we are posting the following notice on
the bulletin board." The only definite promise it contained was the
continuance of the 40-hour week, 8-hour day schedule. It also pro-
vided that wages would be increased "as soon as profits shall permit,"
and that the respondent "will endeavor" to keep the plant open until
April 1938, shutting down only for annual inventory. Aside from
a nondiscrimination clause similar to the one contained in the October
24, 1935, notice, there was an indirect reference to the Union in the
following paragraph :
The shop will be operated as an open shop and in order to
make it a success the management must have cooperation from
its employees and be freed from unreasonable interference.
The union membership voted the same evening to refuse Geffine's
offer. At the same time they reaffirmed their decision to have Taylor
and the committee represent them in negotiations with the respondent
and went on record against participating in a meeting.where Geffine
planned to address all the employees of the plant.
On August 9, when Hiser called Geffine on behalf of the committee
requesting another meeting, he was told that they could come over
to Geffine's hotel room. About '11: 30 a. m., as the members of the
committee arrived before the hotel, they were joined by Taylor who
had just driven into town. When Purcell noticed Taylor in the
hotel lobby, he hurried upstairs to Gefl'me's room and immediately
returned to inform the men that they could not see Geffine. Cohon,
a customer of the respondent who was present, told Taylor that "if
you just leave town, everything will be all settled, and the boys will
go back to work." Taylor approached Badstuber, asking him to
arrange for an appointment with Geffine, and was first informed
that they would let him know about it at 3 o'clock. When further
pressed for a definite answer, Badstuber refused his request. The
committee did not meet Geffine that day.
On August 19, Taag, a' field examiner from the Regional Office for
the Eighth Region, met with Purcell. Taylor, and the committee.
The proposed contract offered by the Union was discussed, after the
respondent's Cleveland office had confirmed Purcell's authority to
negotiate for an agreement. When Purcell, having read the con-
tract, began to voice his objection to it, in its entirety, Taylor insisted
on considering each clause separately. Whereupon the first para-
graph containing only the names of the contracting parties was read.
Purcell immediately refused to accede to the first paragraph on the
ground that he doubted whether the Union represented a majority.
Taag then suggested a consent election. Taylor agreed to it, but
Purcell could not give an answer without consulting the Cleveland
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 789
office. No evidence appears in the record that an answer was ever
given. Counsel for the respondent admitted during his oral argu-
ment before the Board that the respondent refused to agree to a
consent election, since the Act did not require it. Upon Purcell's
definite rejection of the first paragraph the negotiations terminated.
While the respondent was ready and willing at all times to dis-
cuss grievances with the employees composing the union committee,
it never recognized them as representatives of the Union but only as
a committee of employees. The declarations of policy drawn up by
the respondent after negotiations with the committee made no ref-
erence to the Union, and when the issue of recognizing the Union
to be one of the contracting parties was presented squarely in the
first paragraph of the agreement discussed on August 19, it met with
the respondent's unequivocal refusal. Further evidence of the
respondent's determination to ignore the Union as the chosen repre-
sentative of its employees is found in the fact that it refused to deal
with Taylor. The only reason given for the strenuous objection
against Taylor was his status as a "professional organizer." The
respondent was so careful in avoiding any semblance of union rec-
ognition that it would not risk entering into negotiations with any-
one as representative of its employees who was not employed by it.
The respondent's contention that it was reluctant to recognize the
Union in the absence of proof that it represented a majority of the
employees carries no weight in view of its refusal to agree to a
consent election. Moreover, Geffine reaffirmed several times during
conferences with the committee the respondent's policy against rec-
ognizing the Union, and it is significant that he was not called by
the respondent to contradict those statements.
We find that on August 8, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
representative of its employees with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. We also
find that by such refusal the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged demotion of Raymond Cline
Raymond Cline had been employed by the respondent for approxi-
mately 10 years on various jobs. For 9 months prior to the shut-
down he worked as a band saw operator. On June 8, 1937, he was
replaced on the band saw by a newly engaged operator, who was a
faster worker, and Cline was transferred to the bore machine where
his rate of pay was 5 cents less than on the band saw. A few days
790 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before July 27 he was again put on a different machine, where his
rate of pay equalled that of the band saw operator.
Cline had been a member of the Union for 18 months but had
never been outstandingly active. He was an average workman, who
made his quota and a small bonus. The evidence fails to sustain
the allegation that the respondent demoted Cline because of his
union membership. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in
so far as it concerns his demotion.
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 respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Federal Labor Union Local 18787 is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The production and maintenance employees, exclusive of clerical
and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
3. Federal Labor Union Local 18787 was on August 8, 1937, and
at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all
the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with the
representatives of its employees on August 8, 1937, and thereafter,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. 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.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
7. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
ORDER
791
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, Piqua Munising Wood Products Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union
Local 18787, as the exclusive representative of all its production and
maintenance employees, except clerical and supervisory employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, 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 :
(^) Upon request, bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union
Local 18787, as the exclusive representative of its production and
maintenance employees, except clerical and supervisory employees, in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other con-
ditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached on any
such matters, embody said understanding in an agreement for a
definite term, to be agreed upon, if requested to do so by said Union;
(b) Post immediately notices in conspicuous places in its plant, and
maintain said notices for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days
from the date of posting, stating (1) that the respondent will cease
and desist in the manner aforesaid; and (2) that the respondent will
bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union-Local 18787 as directed
in paragraph 2 (a) of this order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth 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
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act, by demoting Raymond Cline.
106791-3S-vo1 vu-51