Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP. 425
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Laundry , Dry Cleaning & Dye
House Workers International Union, Local 200, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discharging employees , or by discriminating against them in any other
manner in regard to their hire, tenure of employment , or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL offer Gilbert Lopez immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position at Wash Well 2, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of his discharge.
WE WILL NOT by threatening to discontinue benefits or to close some portion
of the laundry operations or by interrogations or in such context by aiding
employees to withdraw from the Union, or in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to join or assist the above -named Union or any other labor organ-
ization, 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 , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WASH WELL No. 2, INC., WASH WELL No. 3, INC.,
WASH WELL OF TUCSON, INC., BRICKMAN CLEANERS
AND LAUNDRIES , INC., AND ROBERT BRICKMAN LAUN-
DRY AND DRY CLEANERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employee presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Resident Office, 230
North First Avenue, Federal Bldg., Phoenix , Arizona, Telephone Number, 261-3717
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Savoy Leather Mfg . Corp . and International Leather Goods,
Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case No.
1-CA1-3755. October 24, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 27, 1962, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
another certain unfair labor practice, and recommended that the
complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegation. Thereafter,
the Genera] Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief, which were concurred in by the Charging Party.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
139 NLRB No. 28.
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications:
We do not agree NA-ith the Trial Examiner's finding that Respond-
ent's conduct, with respect to encouraging the formation of an inside
union, was nothing more than an expression of preference for such
union coming within the protection of Section 8(c) of the Act. The
facts concerning the Respondent's activities with respect to an inside
union are amply set forth in the Intermediate Report and need not
be repeated here. It is sufficient to note that the remarks on Feb-
ruary 23, 1962, of Superintendent Carbone and Supervisor Devejian
to the assembled employees in support of an inside union were given
in a context of threats of possible recrimination should an outside
union be selected, and of promises of benefits were an inside union
chosen. These threats and promises the Trial Examiner properly
found violated Section 8(a) (1). In such context, the Respondent's
support for an inside union clearly went beyond a mere statement of
preference, and tended to, and was intended to, interfere with, re-
strain, and coerce the employees in the selection of a bargaining repre-
sentative. Consequently, we find that by such conduct Respondent
further violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order as
herein modified.2
' See, Alberto Culver Company , 136 NLRB 1432; Lee-Roman Manufacturing Company,
129 NLRB 980
2 In view of our finding herein that the Respondent committed a violation of Section
S(a)(1) in addition to those found by the Trial Examiner , we shall amend provision 1(d)
of the Recommended Order to read 1(e) and insert 1(d) as follows .
"Threatening its employees or promising them benefits to induce or attempt to induce
them to form an inside union "
The notice attached to the Intermediate Report will be amended by inserting the fol-
1oiLing as a fifth indented paragraph :
"We WILL NOT thi eaten our employees or promise them benefits to induce or attempt
to induce them to form an inside union
The penultimate paragraph in the notice is amended to read • posted for 60 con-
secutive days from the date of posting."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on March 21, 1962,1 by International Leather Goods,
Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director for the First Region ( Boston,
Massachusetts ), issued his complaint , dated May 3 , against Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp.,
1 All dates herein refer to 1962 The charge was amended on April 11.
SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP. 427
herein called Respondent or the Company. In material part , the complaint alleges
that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed
by Section 8(a)(1), and affecting commerce as comprehended by Section 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Re-
pondent has answered denying that it committed any unlawful acts although admitting
some facts.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine at Lawrence , Massachusetts , on June 21 . All parties were represented
at and participated in the hearing , and had the opportunity to present evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , to file briefs , and to argue orally.
Upon the entire record in this case , including the stipulations of the parties, and
from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged at Lawrence, Massachusetts,
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of schoolbags, notebooks, attache cases,
and related leather products. Annually, it receives materials and supplies valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from, and ships finished products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to, points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I find that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Early in 1962 the Union initiated an organizing drive to recruit membership
among the Company's employees. By the end of January, Respondent had knowledge
thereof. This case concerns conduct by Respondent alleged to be engaged in illegally
to combat the Union's efforts.
A. Chronology of events
Sometime in late January, Norman Carbone, Respondent's superintendent (whom
I find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, to be a supervisor as defined
in Section 2(11) of the Act), learned of the Union's organizing activities among
its employees. Not long thereafter, Carbone asked employee Raymond Kelleher
if he had "sent in" a union card. When Kelleher replied affirmatively, Carbone
inquired of Kelleher what he thought the Union would accomplish if it got in, to
which Kelleher answered that it would do the shop a lot of good.
Sometime in February, Carbone was approached by employee Paul Boucher
who reminded Carbone that he had not heard on his month-old request for a raise
in pay. Carbone replied by asking Boucher whether the latter had sent in his union
card, and upon receiving a negative reply, said to Boucher, "Well, what do you need
a raise for; the Union is coming in and they'll take care of you." Boucher inter-
preted this remark to mean that he would obtain the raise if he had nothing to do
with the Union.
During the Union's campaign two employees, Darge and Raymond, came to
Edward Schoenfeld, Respondent's treasurer and factory manager, whom I find to be
a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act, and suggested to him "it might be
advisable to consider an internal union" comparable to that of another employer
in the building. Schoenfeld, who considered this suggestion a sound one, then
transmitted this information to Superintendent Carbone. Darge and Raymond then
approached Carbone, told him that some employees wanted an "inside union," and
asked him if there existed "any chance of having a closed shop union inside."
Carbone replied by instructing them to get the employees together and then to talk
it over "with the office."
As a result of this conversation, and at the request of Darge and Raymond,
Carbone called an assembly of all employees for 3 p.m., February 23. Carbone
testified that this meeting was scheduled by him to call to the attention of the
employees the suggestion that they might want an inside shop union.
About 3 p in., February 23, pursuant to word which was passed among the em-
ployees at Carbone's request, they assembled in the vicinity of his desk. Three
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other supervisors also were present. Carbone then spoke to the employees. In
his opening words, he remarked that "the Union's outside and they're trying to get
in." Then he told them that "we were one big happy family" and that the shop could
handle their problems. Continuing, Carbone told the employees that if the Union
got in Respondent would have to put padlocks on its doors because it would not be
able to meet the Union's demands Emphasizing this, he observed that "Don't think
they couldn't [close down] because the padlocks could be provided," and there
was nothing anyone could do about it. Another loss to employees if the Union got in,
Carbone stressed, would be to limit the number of working hours to 40 or 44 a week;
but he assured them that if they rejected the Union they would continue to work
a couple of nights overtime a week as they did then. During the course of his speech
to the congregated employees, Carbone alluded to the fact that the Company had
financial problems resulting from its recent move from Haverhill to Lawrence, and
that its books were open for inspection by the employees. He concluded by men-
tioning that an inside shop union bargained for employees of another employer
downstairs in the same building occupied by Respondent; that the inside shop union,
which had been started by those employees themselves, was "working out fine";
that Respondent's employees could start a similar union for themselves, electing a shop
steward to handle their problems and grievances; that Mr Schoenfeld, Respondent's
treasurer and factory manager, would always listen to their steward with an open
mind; and that dues paid to their own shop union would be placed in a fund, held
by Respondent, from which employees would either be reimbursed or from which
they could borrow "for sickness or hospitalization or anything like that " Finally,
'Carbone promised that, if the employees did not accept the Union, Respondent
would consider granting additional benefits to them by way of raises in pay and
longer vacations.
Carbone was followed by Tony Devejian, a supervisor as defined by Section 2 (11)
of the Act, who repeated most of Carbone's sentiments "in a shorter time "
Among other things, Devejian urged the employees to take their problems to
Factory Manager Schoenfeld, who he said was a reasonable man. Devejian also said
that Schoenfeld would do the best he could for them on extra benefits, such as paying
part of the premium on Blue Cross or Blue Shield hospitalization 2 insurance, and
granting longer vacations, if Respondent picked up financially and an inside shop
union was chosen
About 3:15 p.m., when Devejian had finished, Frank Coppola, a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, who was also present, requested Carbone
and Devejian to leave the area with him, and told the employees to stay for the
purpose of discussing among themselves whether they wanted an inside union. The
employees remained until 3:30 p.m., the scheduled quitting time, but they lost no
compensation for the time they were away from work from 3 to 3.30 p in
B. Concluding findings
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the whole record, I further find
as follows:
1. Interrogation
Carbone's inquiries propounded to employees Kelleher and Boucher regarding
their union activities and sympathies have not been shown to be for the purpose
of ascertaining the extent of the Union's representation for any legitimate objective.
Accordingly, I find this interrogation to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees
contrary to the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Offers or promises of benefits
In his talk to Boucher, Carbone told him in effect that he could get a raise in pay
if he had nothing to do with the Union. And in his speech to the employees on Feb-
ruary 23, Carbone promised them, to induce them to lose interest in the Union,
economic benefits by way of part payment of hospitalization premiums, longer vaca-
tions, and raises in pay And Devejian promised additional economic benefits 3 if
2 Respondent does provide such insurance for its supervisors at present , and also for one
employee who was formerly a supervisor
4 This conclusion is not affected by the fact that Deveiian conditioned his promises upon
an improvement in Respondent's financial condition Even conditional offers run afoul of
the law if they are made to wean or sever employees from rights which Section 8(a) (1)
guarantees to them safe from employer interference
SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP. 429
the employees selected their own inside union and repudiated the outside Union. I
find that the foregoing statements contravene Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
This result is consonant with N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 304 F. 2d
368 (C.A. 5), where unconditional increases in benefits given during an organizing
campaign were held not to be coercive even though they may persuade employees
not to vote for a union. However, where the benefits are conditioned upon a rejec-
tion of the union, as here, the situation differs because employees are put in a squeeze.
This "operates as a part of an overall scheme that puts substantial pressure on the
employees and prevents them from exercising a free choice as to whether they wish
to establish a union." N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, supra.
3. Threats
Both Carbone and Devejian in their addresses made on February 23 threatened
employees that the plant would close if they designated the Union as their bargain-
ing representative, and Carbone also warned them they would suffer a reduction in
overtime if the Union came into the shop. I find that these utterances contravene
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Proposing an inside union
Although Respondent's supervisors proposed the formation of an inside shop union,
I find that this conduct was not unlawful. Under Section 8(c) of the Act, an em-
ployer may express preference for one labor organization over another, or he may
state that he does not like affiliated unions, or no unions at all. The proposals in
the instant case, in my opinion, do not transgress the boundaries of Section 8(c) be-
cause they substantially consist of an expression of preference for an unaffiliated
union. Accordingly, I find that they do not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
For the same reason, I do not find violations of Section 8(a)(1) in the remarks of
Supervisor Coppola. However, it is immaterial to this finding that the employees
abandoned their alleged desire for an inside union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The illegal activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent as set forth in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. In my opinion
Respondent's violations are not flagrant. Accordingly, a broad order is not war-
ranted.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and of the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp. is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By (1) interrogating its employees concerning their union membership, ac-
tivities, and desires; (2) by offering or promising its employees economic benefits
if they have nothing to do with the Union and to induce them to refrain from joining,
remaining members of, or assisting the Union; and (3) by threatening to padlock
its doors and to withdraw some existing benefits if employees selected the Union as
their bargaining representative, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act as alleged in the complaint
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law , and the entire
record in this proceeding , it is recommended that the Respondent , Savoy Leather
Mfg. Corp ., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union membership,
activities , or desires.
(b) Offering or promising its employees economic benefits if they have nothing
to do with the Union and to induce them to refrain from joining, remaining mem-
bers of, or assisting the Union.
(c) Threatening to padlock its doors or shut down its plant and to withdraw or
reduce existing benefits, including overtime , if its employees select the Union as
their bargaining representative.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the enjoyment of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post in its plant at Lawrence, Massachusetts , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix ." 4 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the First Region, shall , after being duly signed by a representative of the
Respondent , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to make certain that said notice is not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region , in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.5
It is further recommended that unless Respondent shall within the prescribed
period notify the said Regional Director that it will comply, the Board issue an
Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action . It is further recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects.
* If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order"
shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the notice shall be further amended by substituting the words "Pursuant to a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "Pursuant to a
Decision and Ordei "
e In case this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be
modified to read • "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their member-
ship in, activities for, or desires concerning International Leather Goods,
Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT offer or promise our employees economic benefits if they
have nothing to do with said union and to induce them to refrain from joining,
remaining members of, or assisting said Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to padlock our doors or shut down our plant and
to withdraw or reduce existing benefits, including overtime, if our employees
select International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the enjoyment of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
AUTOMOTIVE PROVING GROUNDS, INCORPORATED 431
All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union , AFL-CIO.
SAVOY LEATHER MFG . CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate with the Board 's Regional Office, 24 School Street,
Boston 8, Massachusetts , Telephone Number , Lafayette 3-8100, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Automotive Proving Grounds , Incorporated and United Rubber,
Cork , Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO
Armstrong Tire and Rubber Company and Louie E. Wright and
Herman Lloyd
Automotive Proving Grounds , Incorporated and Armstrong Tire
and Rubber Company, Armstrong Tire Test Fleet and Louie
E. Wright , Paul B . Smith , and Fred W. Geissler. Cases Nos.
16-CA-1492, 16-CA-1551, and 16-CA-1552-2-3. October 24, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 6, 1962, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent Automotive Proving Grounds, Incorporated had engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. He also found that the Respondents named
in Cases Nos. 16-CA-1551 and 16-CA-1552-2-3 had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respondents and
the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
^ A major portion of this Intermediate Report consists of some 18 pages from Respond-
ents' briefs and a portion of the General Counsel's brief, which the Trial Examiner states
he "adopts as his own" because he is "unable to improve on this recitation " of the facts.
While it does not appear that this practice has resulted in prejudice to any of the parties,
Chairman McCulloch and Member Fanning do not believe that an Intermediate Report,
reciting and adopting to this unusual extent the allegations of either of the adversaries
in this proceeding , is a desirable exercise of the Trial Examiner 's function to provide the
Board with his own recitation of the facts and recommended findings.
139 NLRB No. 33.