Shedd-Brown Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 742 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SHERD-BROWN MFG. CO. and UNITED PAPERWORK F3 OF AMERICA,
C. I. O. and DULY AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE OF PRODUCTION EM-
PLOYEES OF SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO., ALSO KNOWN AS SHEDD-BROWN
PLANT ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT . Ca88 No. 18-CA-
39O. January 08, 1953
Decision and Order
On May 15, 1952, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record,
including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and
positions of the parties.
The Board 1 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 Trial Examiner's findings,2
conclusions, and recommendations.
Order
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent, Shedd-Brown Mfg. Co., and Eau Claire, Wisconsin,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Paperworkers of America,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
' 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 [Members Houston , Murdock,
and Styles].
The Intermediate Report contains certain minor misstatements of fact and inadvert-
ences none of which affects the Trial Examiner 's ultimate conclusions , or our concurrence
in such conclusions . Accordingly , we make the following corrections : ( 1) During the
calendar year 1950, the Respondent's out -of-State sales amounted to over $100,000 rather
than $100,00 as inadvertently reported in the Intermediate Report ; ( 2) by the time of
the November 2, 1950, meeting 62 , rather than 60 employees as reported by the Trial
Examiner , had signed CIO application cards ; ( 3) Yvonne Goss was Superintendent Edgar's
secretary and not O. A. Bast' s secretary as reported by the Trial Examiner ; (4) Dorothy
Nimsger is inadvertently referred to as Dorothy Minster on page 760 of the Intermediate
Report.
102 NLRB No. 69.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO, 743
criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Questioning employees concerning their union membership or
activities.
(c) Threatening employees in their tenure of employment or with
the loss of their jobs if the union organization is successful.
(d) Dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Shedd-Brown Plant Association, or any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing support to it
or to any other labor organization of its employees.
(e) Giving effect to any and all contracts, or to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, with Shedd-Brown
Plant Association.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Paperworkers of America,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
whole each of these employees in the manner set forth in that section
of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy" :
Wanda Amundson
Edith Anderson
Beverly Blakely
Jacqueline Crandell
Lois Kelly
Virginia Kosmo
Nadine T. Kramer
Gladys P. McMahon
Dorothy Nimsger
Donna Olson
Betty Woodford
Bernice Posz
Betty Radle
Rachel Ross
Anita Thom
Betty Welter
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of back pay and the right of rein-
statement under the terms of this Order.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Withdraw all recognition from Shedd-Brown Plant Associa-
tion as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rate of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and completely disestablish said organization as such
representative.
(d) Post in conspicuous places at its plant in Eau Claire, Wis-
consin, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report
and marked "Appendix B."' Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for at
least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
$ This notice shall be amended by substituting fot the last paragraph thereof the
following :
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in good standing of UNITED PAPER 'sORR:ERS of AMERICA, C. I. 0.,
or any other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section A (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
This notice shall further be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommenda-
tions of a Trial Examiner " the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this
Order is enforced by a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended, 61 Stat. 1'36, herein called the Act, was heard pursuant to
due notice to all parties at Eau Clair, Wisconsin, on October 29-31 and December
4-11, 1951.
The complaint alleged in substance that Shedd-Brown Mfg. Co., hereafter
referred to as Respondent or the Company, had engaged and was engaging in
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
In substance, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged : (1) That Re-
spondent on or about, and since, October 26, 1950; by conduct specifically al-
leged, instigated, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation of
a committee of its production employees, also known as Shedd-Brown Plant
Association, hereinafter called the Association; (2) that on or about November
9 and on or about November 17 Respoudg(it discharged and thereafter failed
to reinstate Edith Anderson 2 and Anita Thom, respectively, because each of
1 Unless otherwise specified, all references to dates are to the year 1950.
I Also described in the record as Mrs. Edward C. Anderson.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 745
them refused to join the Association and because they had joined and assisted
United Paperworkers of America , C. I. 0., hereinafter called the CIO; (3)
that Respondent , from on or about November 6 to December 29, laid off certain
of its employees and on and after January 8 , 1951, reemployed a large number
of these employees but failed and refused to reemploy the 15 employees named
in the margin ' for the reason that they refused and failed to join or assist the
Association and for the further reason that they had joined or assisted the
4CIO; (4 ) that from and after October 24 Respondent otherwise engaged in
specified acts of interference with , and restraint and coercion of, its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act . Respondent by
its answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties , including the Shedd -Brown Plant Association , were represented
at the hearing by counsel or representative , were afforded full opportunity to
be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally , and to file
briefs. Motions on which rulings were reserved at the hearing are disposed of
in accordance with the findings that follow . Briefs filed by the General Counsel
and Respondent have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
rINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota
having its principal office at Minneapolis , Minnesota . It maintains and operates
a plant at Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of utility calendars and other advertising specialties . In the course and
conduct of its business Respondent causes and has continuously caused large
quantities of raw materials to be purchased and transported from and through
States of the United States other than the State of Wisconsin to its plant at Eau
Claire, Wisconsin. During the calendar year 1950 Respondent made sales of
utility calendars and advertising specialties, of which in excess of $100.00 in
value was shipped from its plant at Eau Claire to points outside the State of
Wisconsin . Respondent is, and at all times hereinafter referred to has been,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Paperworkers of America , C. I. 0., the Duly Authorized Committee of
Production Employees of Shedd -Frown Mfg . Co. and its successor, the Shedd-
Brown Plant Association , are labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The basic sequence of events
As previously indicated, Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of calendars and other advertising specialties. From 1909 to January or Febru-
ary 1950, Respondent maintained its offices and carried on its production activi-
ties at Minneapolis, Minnesota. Early in 1950, for economic reasons deemed
appropriate, Respondent moved its manufacturing operations to Eau Claire
Wanda Amundson , Beverly Blakely, Jacqueline Crandell , Lois Kelly , Virginia Kosmo,
Nadine I . Kramer , Rosa Kromrey, Gladys P. McMahon , Dorothy Nimsger , Donna Olson,
Bernice Posz , Betty Radle , Rachel Ross , Betty Welter , and Betty Woodford.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where it erected a plant to carry on those operations and where the events with
which we are here concerned took place . Its executive offices were retained in
Minneapolis.
H. F. Shedd, Respondent's president , maintained his offices at Minneapolis,
but visited the Eau Claire plant at irregular intervals generally ranging from
1 to 6 weeks. The operations at Eau Claire were under the direction of O. A.
Bast, Respondent's vice president as general manager, and Plymouth Shedd,
Respondent's secretary and a son of H. F. Shedd. Production operations, in
which approximately 140 persons were engaged at the times material herein,
were divided into 5 departments each of which, during the fall of 1950, employed
approximately the following number of employees : Bindery 110, pressroom 14,
composing room 8, art or airbrush 5, and shipping 3.
Shortly after operations began in early 1950, at a social gathering sponsored
by Respondent, H. F. Shedd ` suggested that a committee be organized to take
charge of the social activities of Respondent's employees. He informed the
gathering that Respondent would advance $150 with which the Committee could
begin its activities and that Respondent would turn over to the Committee all
profits from the operation of the plant canteen. The Committee thereafter spon-
sored a kitten ball and bowling teams for which Respondent, or the profits from
the canteen, provided the funds with which uniforms and other equipment were
purchased.
On or about October 19 the CIO began its organizing campaign with a dis-
tribution of handbills to Respondent 's employees as they were leaving the plant,
inviting them to attend a CIO meeting on October 24. Approximately 60 em-
ployees attended that meeting and 47 signed application cards for membership
in the CIO. Although most of those in attendance were women, included in
the group was James Gabriel, hereafter found to be a supervisor . In response
to a request for volunteers to solicit membership, application blanks were dis-
tributed and an organizing committee consisting of the following was appointed:
Edith Anderson, Anita Thom, Jacqueline Crandell, Bernice Posz, Gladys
McMahon, Betty Welter, and Betty Radle. On October 30 and on November 2
there was a further distribution of handbills at the same place publicizing the
CIO meeting to be held on the evening of November 2. On October 19 and October
30, Sowler , foreman of the shipping department , came out of the plant and asked
the persons distributing the leaflets to leave and stop their distribution. On
November 2 Gabriel made the same request. It was not complied with on any
occasion. By the time of the November 2 meeting, 60 employees had signed
CIO application cards. On the same day, the CIO advised Respondent, in
writing, that it had been designated as bargaining representative by a majority
of its production and maintenance employees and requested an appointment for
the purpose of negotiating a contract. On November 3 the CIO filed a petition
for certification (18-RC-924) with the Board's Regional Director.
At about the time the CIO commenced its organizing campaign, Gabriel, who
subsequently attended the first CIO meeting on October 24, began carrying on
conversations with other employees with a view to organizing an unaffiliated
union . With the permission of management , a meeting of all employees was
called for the afternoon 10-minute break period on October 26. Iverson, who
had been chairman of the social committee, presided, but Gabriel took the most
prominent part in the discussion and activities that followed.` The meeting,
4 Unless otherwise hereinafter specified, all references to Shedd are to H. F. Shedd,
president of the Respondent.
i Respondent in its brief admits that the "meeting was taken over" by Gabriel.
SHEDD-BROWN W G. CO . 747
held in the front part of the building near the offices of Bast and Plymouth
Shedd , lasted 30 to 40 minutes and all employees were paid for the time they
were in attendance . The apparent purpose of the meeting was to arrange for
the organization of an association or committee which could present grievances
and otherwise deal collectively for the employees with management. Gabriel
spoke against "outside unions" and called attention to the benefits already
bestowed by Respondent . On the other hand, some employees expressed the view
that more effective representation could be obtained by affiliating with the CIO.
As a compromise, Gabriel asked that the Committee then in existence be given
90 days to prove its effectiveness in the expanded activity. After some discus-
sion, the assembly voted that this be reduced to 30 days. The officers of the
social committee were retained but additional members were added by nomina-
tion from the floor. Though the record is not clear as to the time when Gabriel
was elected as chairman, it abundantly appears that from and after the October
26 meeting he assumed its leadership.
Gabriel called the Committee together the following day for a meeting held
in the Company's first-aid room. Its purpose was to lay the groundwork for
future conferences with management . No company representative was present
and the meeting was in no sense of the word a bargaining conference. Notwith-
standing the nature of the meeting , participating employees were paid for the
time they were in attendance.
On November 1 the Committee met with Bast and both Shedds and the
question of effective organization was again discussed . H. F. Shedd informed
the gathering that "he knew of a man who could help [ them] out and give
[them] some information on establishing an independent organization."
Developments hereafter narrated demonstrate that the man he had in mind
was Paul J. Ocken, manager of Graphic Arts, Inc., whose offices were maintained
in Minneapolis . That corporation is a trade -service organization of employers
in 6 States who are engaged in the printing and allied crafts. Respondent
has been a member of that organization for 15 years. At the time of the hearing,
and for 2 years prior thereto, Shedd served as its president. For the 10-year
period preceding 1950, Graphic Arts, acting through Ocken, had assisted Respond-
ent in its negotiation of labor bargaining contracts with labor organizations
representing Respondent 's employees. On or about October 20, as soon as Shedd
received a copy of the CIO handbill distributed on October 19, and again on
or about November 1 when he obtained a copy of the CIO circular of October 30,
he immediately forwarded both to Ocken and consulted with him concerning
Respondent's future conduct in respect to the problems raised thereby in
Shedd 's mind.
Shedd , during the meeting with the Committee on November 1, called Ocken
in Minneapolis, informed him generally of the purpose of the meeting then
being conducted, and turned the telephone over to Gabriel. The latter told
Ocken that "he was part of a committee that wanted to organize an independent
union [but didn't] know ... the mechanics of how to go about it." He
informed Ocken that a meeting of the employees was planned for the following
evening and asked him to attend and tell the employees "from a practical
standpoint, the steps . . . to take." Ocken agreed to attend. Bast suggested
that the contemplated meeting be made more attractive to the employees by an
accompanying banquet with "free food." Though he intimated that Respondent
would bear the expense of the banquet, it was finally agreed that its cost would
be paid out of canteen funds. Bast also suggested that the banquet take place
at the Elks Club and made the necessary arrangements and reservations. It
was at this meeting on November 1 that Shedd first announced the establishment
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of a pension plan for the employees.° Under direction from Bast , Ad Klofanda
was instructed to stop all machinery in the plant at 4:25 p. m., 5 minutes ahead
of the end of the shift, so that an announcement could be made concerning the
banquet which was scheduled to take place next evening , November 2, the same
evening for which the CIO meeting had previously been publicized . On November
2, during working hours , Gabriel and other employees circulated lists throughout
the plant on which employees were asked to indicate whether they planned to
attend the banquet that evening. Similar lists were posted on the bulletin
board.
At the banquet Gabriel and Ocken spoke to the employees dealing largely
with the use of unaffiliated labor organizations throughout the country. Ocken
had previously prepared in Minneapolis and brought with him to the banquet a
number of mimeographed sheets by which prospective signers designated a
committee of 9 named employees,? including Foreman Gabriel and Iverson,
"as a committee ... to act as official representatives of the [signatory] em-
ployees to negotiate with Shedd-Brown Mfg. Co., a contract covering wages,
hours, and working conditions." A substantial number of employees signed
the designation document that evening. When the question of compensation
for Ocken was discussed by him and committee members, he disposed of the
matter by suggesting that a package or a carton of cigarettes would be entirely
satisfactory to him. No payment to Ocken was ever made by the Committee
or the Association to compensate him for the time he devoted to the Committee
or as reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in the several trips he
made from Minneapolis to Eau Claire in connection with his services. Though
only 89 employees attended the banquet, Bast, the only person then authorized
to do so, signed checks on the canteen fund for $248.15 to cover the cost of 130
dinners at $1.50 each, the number apparently reserved by Bast on the previous
day, and $53.15 for drinks.
From November 3 until November 9, Gabriel and other committee members
and employees circulated the committee-authorization lists among employees
who had not attended the banquet. By November 6 or November 7 the Commit-
tee obtained approximately 90 signatures to the authorization lists. Pursuant
to long distance telephone instructions from Ocken on November 3, Gabriel
arranged a meeting with management in which the Committee was to ask for
recognition by Respondent. It was held in Plymouth Shedd's office during the
afternoon of November 6, and was attended by committee members, Ocken, the
two Shedds, and Bast. During the meeting Ocken called Yvonne Goss, Bast's
secretary, and dictated a letter to her addressed to Respondent and predated to
November 2, advising the Company that "Shedd-Brown Mfg. Co. Employees Offi-
cial Committee" had been designated by a majority of its employees to negotiate
a labor bargaining contract with Respondent.° Signed by Gabriel as chairman
and Dan J. Silady as vice chairman of the Committee, the letter, together with
the committee-authorization lists containing approximately 90 signatures, were
9 Though Shedd testified that the contract with the insurance company for the pension
plan was signed October 16, he did not remember when the establishment of the plan was
announced to the Committee or the employees . Bast testified that while he "heard about"
the plan, he didn't know "whether any of the employees did" until after November 1.
Gabriel, in his speech to the employees on October 26 expounding the benefits already
bestowed by Respondent, made no mention of the pension plan.
4 These names were furnished Ocken by Gabriel over the telephone during the conversa-
tion of November 1. Elmer Iverson, the president or chairman of the Committee, knew
nothing about the preparation or contemplated circulation of the authorization list until
be got to the banquet.
" Ocken denied that he dictated the letter. The finding that he did so is based on the
credited testimony of Lefstad , Anderson , Iverson , and Gabriel.
SIIEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 749
presented to Bast . The latter , though admitting he made no check of the lists
to determine whether the signers were eligible employees entitled to make the
designation ,° Immediately prepared and delivered a letter , dated "November 6,
1950, 4: 30 p. m.," addressed to Gabriel and Silady, recognizing the Committee.
Blast and Shedd expressed satisfaction that organization had been perfected and
asked that negotiation for a contract be expedited as quickly as possible. Ocken
had with him, and presented to the Committee , sample drafts of labor bargaining
contracts and suggested they might be helpful in the preparation of a contract
with Respondent.,
The Committee met and discussed the contract to be submitted to the Company.
Gabriel advised the group to keep its "demands low," and forwarded the draft
agreed upon to Ocken for mimeographing . At a general meeting on November
10, the draft , which had in the meantime been mimeographed by Ocken, was
distributed to the employees . Following a brief discussion , several changes
were incorporated in the proposal. The Committee met with Shedd and Bast
on the afternoon of November 13 and submitted their proposal. The principal
differences between the two groups concerned itself with the acquisition of
seniority . The Committee 's proposal of a probationary period of 3 months was
met by a counterproposal of 6 months by the Company . The Committee promptly
accepted the counterproposal . At a membership meeting that evening, Respond-
ent's counterproposal was accepted by the employees present by a vote of 27
to 12 . The contract , effective to December 31 , 1952, and by which employees
were granted a 10-cent hourly increase , was signed on or about November 21.
On about November 28, when the previously voted life of the Committee had
expired, the employees voted 47 to 44 to continue its term . Ad Klofanda, Lloyd
Klofanda , Stanley, Glenz , and Sowler, all of them hereafter found to be super-
visors, participated in that election.
At an undisclosed date, Gabriel called Ocken on the telephone and asked that
be recommend a lawyer "that knew something about labor relations." Ocken
complied by suggesting three attorneys . Included in the group was one Eugene
O'Brien who shared offices in Minneapolis with the attorney who appeared for
Respondent in this proceeding . Though Gabriel had received no instructions
from the Committee as to which attorney he was to employ, he contacted and
retained O'Brien. In that capacity , O'Brien appeared at a meeting of the Com-
mittee on December 4, a meeting also attended by Ocken. At about that time
a constitution and bylaws by which the organization was designated as the
"Shedd-Brown Plant Association ," was submitted by the Committee and adopted
at a "general meeting."
Because of a shortage of materials, Respondent found it necessary to lay off
20 employees on November 6. On December 1 the Company commenced the
normal seasonal layoff of its employees and 23 employees were laid off on that
day. Of this aggregate of 43 employees , 37 were rehired between December 6
and December 15 to fill temporary requirements . On and between December 20
and December 29, 85 employees were given the last seasonal layoffs. Commenc-
ing in January 1951 , 62 of these employees were recalled . It is the contention
of the General Counsel that Respondent 's failure to recall the 15 employees named
in footnote 3, supra, when work became available , was occasioned by their mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of the CIO, or their refusal to join or support the
Association . The details of this phase of the case together with the alleged out-
right discharge of Edith Anderson and Anita Thom in November 1950 will be
further considered in section III, B , infra, of this report.
9 Included were the signatures of eight supervisors.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about January 3, 1951, the Association, by resolution, voted :
... to insert in [its ] contract the following rider . "It is agreed by a
majority to make as a condition of employment - membership in the Shedd-
Brown Plant Association . All persons affected are to fill out application
blanks and dues deduction blanks within 30 days of January 3rd , 1951, or 30
days after commencing work."
A copy of the resolution was posted on the bulletin board . Though the record
does not disclose whether or not the Company ever agreed to attach a "rider"
incorporating such a union-security clause into the contract , Miss Drace, Bast's
secretary and in charge of personnel and payroll records, testified that from
January 1951 to the time of the hearing she deducted 50 cents per month from
the wages of all but approximately 15 employees and delivered the proceeds
thereof to the Association.
In addition , Forelady Glenz told Shirley Seever that she had better sign for the
Association "for [her] own good ." Foreman Gabriel told Fred H. Thurston that
if he didn't join the Association he would not be working very long and at the
same time handed him a checkoff blank. Lefstad, who had resigned from the
Committee in December 1950 because of Gabriel's domination thereof, was told
by Gabriel that if he didn't sign up he would be "through" at the end of 30 days.
After Donna Bateman returned to work early in March 1951, she had a conver-
sation with Gabriel in which she asked him what would happen if she didn't join
the Association. He replied, "Well, they probably won't fire you right away, but
they will find a good reason later on." Gabriel admitted having made similar
statements to other employees whom he asked to sign membership and checkoff
cards and suggested that if they did not sign , Respondent might find fault with
their work and that they accordingly took chances of being discharged.
B. Concluding findings
1. Supervisory personnel
Before considering the ultimate issues raised by the pleadings, it becomes nec-
essary to determine the status of the persons whose conduct the General Coun-
sel seeks to impute to Respondent. No question was or could be raised by Re-
spondent concerning its liability for the conduct of Shedd, its president, Bast, its
vice president and general manager, Edgar, the plant superintendent, or Ad Klo-
fanda, foreman of the bindery department. At the hearing, however, Respond-
ent contended, obliquely in some instances and directly in others, that Lloyd
Klofanda, Gabriel, Glenz, Sharp, Sowler, Stanley, and Iverson were not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and that their activities could not there-
fore be legally imputed to the Company.
As previously indicated, Respondent's production activities were divided into
5 departments , each performing a separate and distinct function . The largest
of these was the bindery department, employing approximately 110 persons and
which was concededly under the general supervision of Ad Klofanda. The
latter testified, however, that he shared that authority, as well as his desk at the
front of the plant, with his son Lloyd and that in determining who to recom-
mend for reemployment he consulted with and received recommendations from
both Lloyd and Floorlady Glenz. Neither Lloyd 10 nor Glenz was engaged
directly in actual production. Their time was devoted exclusively to super-
vision , assignment of work , transfer of employees , and the instruction of pro-
10 Lloyd Klofanda was not called as a witness.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 751
duction workers . It was Lloyd Klofanda who instructed Jerome McSorley and
Glen Olson on November 1 "not to report to work the next day, but ... to report
instead to the Elk 's Club for the banquet" and that they would be paid for their
full time for the entire night shift nevertheless . Apparently Lloyd had the
authority to so direct the men , for both of them received their full night's pay,
though neither reported for work at the plant . Bast testified that Lloyd "is
classified more or less as an assistant supervisor" and that he "didn't want
[Glenn] to work . [ He] wanted her to supervise the [80] girls " in her depart-
ment. She reported to either Ad or Lloyd Klofanda , her "immediate
supervisors."
The pressroom is operated by approximately 14 employees under the general
supervision of Sharp. Half of his staff are cylinder press operators and the
remainder operate job presses . Sharp had authority to assign work and transfer
employees . According to Gabriel , however , while Sharp was able to determine
whether work done by the job presses was "right or wrong," he was not qualified
to supervise the operator of the job presses and delegated that task to Gabriel."
The latter instructed the operators how to run those presses and it was his re-
sponsibility "to see to it that the work got put out." He gave orders to em-
ployees, and transferred employees from one press to another , and when job
press operations were not running smoothly , Gabriel was consulted by either
Sharp or Bast , and sometimes by both . When Vern Mueller went to Bast and
asked for a raise, he was told by Bast that he would have a check with Gabriel
and Sharp . On the following day Bast called Mueller to the office, informed
him that he had talked to Gabriel and Sharp, and granted the increase. On the
day Mueller was discharged , Gabriel ordered him to report to Bast 's office
where the latter informed him that because Gabriel had reported his work as
unsatisfactory he would be discharged on the following day.
Sowler was referred to by employees as foreman of the shipping department
and assigned work to the 3 to 4 employees in the department . Bast testified
that he was "the supervisor of the shipping department and stock room." When
Jacqueline Crandell wanted to be transferred from the bindery to the shipping
department, Floorlady Glenz told her to see Sowler , which she did.
Iverson had charge of the composing room normally employing a staff of 5 to 8
employees and had authority to assign work and transfer employees from one
job to another.
Approximately five employees were employed in the art or airbrush depart-
ment . Bast testified that Louida Stanley was the head artist who gave direc-
tions and instructions to the other artists . Ad Klofanda testified that Stanley
was in direct charge of the "air brush department as supervisor ," that he held
her responsible for its operations , and never dealt directly with any of the other
employees in that department . Bast at several points in his testimony referred
to Stanley as a supervisor and placed her in the same category as Ad and Lloyd
Klofanda , Glenn, and Sowler.
According to Bast, Respondent kept a personnel record for each employee
to which resort was had on rehirings after layoffs . On this card , he testified,
"information is added . . . when an employee leaves." When questioned as
to the source of this information , Bast testified that it came from the "super-
visors of each department" and specifically named Ad Klofanda , Lloyd Klofanda,
Glenn, Sharp , Gabriel, Sowler , and Iverson . The utterances of all these persons
might "reasonably be interpreted [by the employees ] as the voice of authority"
(N. L. R. B . v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., 133 F . 2d 295, 301 ( C. A. 6), even
though some of them were not "high in the factory hierarchy ." I. A. M. v.
12 Sharp did not testify.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, 80, 81, affirming 110 F. 2d 29. All of them had "au-
thority ... to transfer, ... lay off, recall ... responsibly to direct [other
employees ], ... or effectively to recommend such action ," as provided by Section
2 (11) of the Act. This provision is to be construed "in the disjunctive"
(N. L. R. B. v, Budd bffg. Co., 169 F. 2d 571, 576 (C. A. 6), certiorari denied
335 U. S. 908 ), "and the possession of any of the authorities listed ... places
the employee invested with their authority in the supervisory class." Ohio Power
Co. v. N. L. R. B., 176 F. 2d 385, 387 (C. A. 6), certiorari denied 338 U. S. 899.
On the entire record I find that Ad Klofanda, Lloyd Klofanda, Glenz, Sharp,
Gabriel, Sowler, Stanley, and Iverson were supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Interference, restraint , and coercion
In violation of the proscription imposed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act„
Respondent, through its officers and supervisory personnel, interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of their unfettered right
to freely organize and participate in union activities.
(1) On or about September 19 Bast asked Nadine Kramer whether she
belonged to the CIO.
(2) On October 26 Bast told Edith Anderson that he had "fought the [CIO]
before and would again , even if he had to close up the plant and leave town."
(3) In October Lloyd Klofanda told Rachel L. Ross "that Mr. Bast would
move out of Eau Claire before he would see a union come in."
(4) On November 2 Plant Superintendent Edgar asked Edith Anderson whether
she was going to the CIO meeting that night.
(5) On or about November 9 Gabriel approached Donna Bateman several
times and asked her to sign the committee designation . She declined to do so.
On one such occasion , he not only asked her why she didn't sign , but added
the warning that he'd like to see [her] around," the implication being clear that
if she declined to join, her employment would be terminated.
(6) On or about December 15 Bast told Thurston that Dorothy Nimsger
"won't be around here very long because [he's] getting rid of all those people
who are connected with the CIO organization."
(7) Gabriel 's campaign of threats to induce employees to join the Association,
a campaign described in his own testimony as follows :
If I would run into somebody . . . that was kind of hesitant and didn't
know whether they should or shouldn 't join, I kept prodding, kept asking,
and if I continually got no, no, I would talk a little stronger, for the good
of it, and then if that didn 't work , I would suggest the bad things that was
involved if they belonged to some other organization , and if that didn 't work,
... I stated that , well , it's like this , if I were in your position and another
organization was representing the employees and I refused to join up, well,
wouldn't be long , I just wouldn 't be working here, maybe I 'd quit, maybe
they would find fault with my work , but I told them I had seen it happen
before, and that 's . . . what will happen now, ... you take the chances.
I made statements similar to that , trying to convince them to belong to our
organization.
(8) After Bast returned from his vacation early in 1951 , he told Thurston and
Leonard Larson:
if the CIO got in there he was going to sell the plant and get out of
town . . . [he had] all the money [he needed , he'd] just sell out and close upi.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 753
The foregoing findings concerning Bast are made on the credited testimony of
the named witnesses to whom the interrogation or remarks were addressed.
Some of the incidents, but not all, were denied by Bast. There was no denial by
Lloyd Klofanda of his statement to Rachel Ross "that Mr. Bast would move
out of Eau Claire before he would see a union come in." In any event, the em-
ployees whose testimony has been credited as above indicated impressed me
favorably by their demeanor on the witness stand. Bast, on the other hand, was
extremely evasive and forgetful on important phases of the case where directness
was to be expected. The statements attributed to Edgar, like those found to
have been made by Lloyd Klofanda, were u,ndenied. Those attributed to
Gabriel were not only undenied, but were corroborated, in substance, by Gabriel
himself.
3. Domination, interference, and financial contribution to the Committee and the
Association
Section 7, the cornerstone of the Act, guarantees employees the "right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, [and] to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing." To implement and
make these rights effective, Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) make it unlawful for an
employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in section 7, [or] to dominate or interfere with the formation
or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other
support to it." These interdictions against employer intrusion into the organiza-
tion and representation of employees must be effectively observed if the
fundamental objectives of the Act are to be realized. The obligation which
the Act imposes upon employers to keep hands off when their employees are
seeking to exercise their guaranteed right of freely choosing a bargaining repre-
sentative is even more stringent when competing labor organizations are vying for
the employees' favor. The economic hold which an employer wields over his
employees makes the latter group highly sensitive to the advantages in their
employment that they consider are likely to flow if their choice of a representa-
tive coincides with the wishes of their employer, and the disadvantages that
may attend if their choice is opposed by him. Accordingly, it has been uniformly
held that where an employer, in a situation involving rival labor organizations,
accords such treatment to one of the rivals as will give it improper advantage or
disadvantage in its contest for the employees' favor, the Act has been violated"
Application of the foregoing principles to the record in this proceeding establishes
conclusively that Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of a labor organization of its employees and contributed financial
and other support thereto.
Though Shedd, in a letter given to all employees shortly after beginning their
employment, asked that a committee of employees be appointed to meet with
management to discuss "questions that [might] arise," the Committee that was
elected early in 1950 shortly after operations began, functioned only for social
purposes. Until the CIO organization campaign got under way in October, the
Committee had held only two meetings. It was not until October 26, 2 days
after the first CIO meeting and of which Respondent had knowledge, that there
was any movement to enlarge the scope of the Committee's activities so as to
include collective bargaining concerning terms and conditions of employment.
122Y. L. it. B v. Link-Belt Company, 311 U S 584 ; Harrison Sheet Steel v. N. L. it. B.,
194 F. 2d 407 (C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. v. Kropp Forge Co., 178 F. 2d 822 (C. A. 7), cert.
den. 340 U. S. 810; N. L. it. B. v. Reynolds Wire Company , 121 F. 2d 627 (C. A. 7) ; and
Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. N. L. it. B., 142 F. 2d 371 (C. A. 8).
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It was at that meeting that the Committee became a labor organization as that
term is defined in the Act" Detroit Edison Company, 74 NLRB 267, 273.
The October 26 meeting , attended by all the employees with Respondent's
acquiescence ; ` was held in the plant and all employees were paid for the ap-
proximately 30 minutes they were in attendance beyond the 10-minute break
period for which the meeting was scheduled . Respondent thus made its first
illegal contribution to the formation of the Committee as a labor organization
at its very birth. Though Iverson was chairman of the committee , "the meeting
was taken over" by Supervisor Gabriel who had attended the CIO meeting 2
days earlier.
Of even greater significance in weighing Respondent 's influence in the creation
of the Committee and in its activities thereafter is the role played by Ocken
and the manner in which he was injected into the picture . Ocken was the paid
servant of Graphic Arts, Inc., a 6 -State employer organization , of which Shedd
was president . During the 10 years immediately preceding the commencement
of operations in Eau Claire, Ocken had assisted Respondent in the negotiation
of labor bargaining contracts with its employees in Minneapolis . Indeed, on the
very day that Shedd , without any request for assistance by the Committee,
recommended Ocken as "a man who could help [them] out," Shedd had been in
conference with Ocken at Minneapolis as to the problems raised for Respondent
by the circulation of the CIO handbills . During that conference , the substance
of which Ocken memorialized in a letter to Shedd on November 1, the latter
informed Ocken that the CIO was then "engaged in an aggressive campaign to
organize [ Respondent 's] employees" and that Ocken had been consulted to help
Shedd in determining "what policy [Respondent ] should follow in connection
with this matter." [ Emphasis supplied.]
Nor did Ocken 's service in the interest of Respondent end when he assumed
the role of consultant and advisor to the employees ' committee . After the CIO
filed its petition for representation ( 18-RC-924 ) on November 13, Ocken, at
Shedd 's request , appeared in that proceeding in Respondent's behalf . When the
charge in the instant proceeding was filed on December 7, 1950 , Shedd "turned
over the matter of handling that charge to Mr . Oaken ." Though Ocken did not
enter an appearance , on the record at the hearing in this proceeding , he was in
attendance during the entire hearing herein at Eau Claire , most of the time
being seated with Respondent's attorney at a separate counsel 's table.
Participation in the affairs of the Committee by one so closely allied as Ocken
was with the affairs of Respondent cannot be countenanced in the administra-
tion of the Act . In less flagrant cases, the courts and the Board have not hesi-
tated to find such participation violative of Section 8 (a) (2). Superior En-
graving Company, 83 NLRB 215, enforced 183 F . 2d 783 (C. A. 7), cert . den. 340
U. S. 390 ; Clark Phonograph Co., 78 NLRB 34, enforced 176 F . 2d 341 (C. A. 3).
A similar finding is entered here.
The record establishes conclusively that from the time operations began early
in 1950, Respondent has maintained and operated the canteen at its own ex-
pense and contributed the profits derived therefrom , first to the Committee, and
then to the Association . Its contribution , in this respect , consisted of the grant
of space , lights, etc., the services of 2 employees approximately 2 hours a day,
17 "The term 'labor organization ' means any organization of any kind , or any agency
or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which
exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work." Section
2 (5) of the Act.
14 Floorlady Glenz and Gabriel went " through the plant" and announced the meeting.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 755
and such bookkeeping and clerical service as the operation required. By
this contribution, the Committee and the Association were not only able to pay
for the social and athletic activities sponsored by it and the dinner of November
2, but also enabled Bast to turn over, in the spring of 1951, approximately $400
to Mencill Anderson, the treasurer of the Association. While contributions by
an employer of the type of service above described to a purely social committee
are permissible and commendable, here, the contribution on and after October 26,
1950, was granted to a labor organization at a time when a question of repre-
sentation between competing labor organizations was pending. It realistically
showed the employees that the Committee and the Association could expect
Respondent's financial support. In any event, whatever its purpose, Section 8
(a) (2), explicitly, and without limitation as to motive, forbids such financial
support by an employer. Coal Creek Coal Company, 97 NLRB 14; James R.
Kearney Corporation, 81 NLRB 26; Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670;
Superior Engraving Company, 83 NLRB 215, enforced 183 F. 2d 783 (C. A. 7),
cert. den. 340 U. S. 930. Respondent gave additional illegal assistance to the
Association on and after January 1951 by checking off association dues. Vir-
ginia Electric and Power Company v. N. L. R. B., 319 U. S. 533 ; Bluefield Garment
Manufacturers, 75 NLRB 447.
Further evidence of the partisan position taken by Respondent is the disparate
treatment accorded the two organizations and the unlawful and hasty recogni-
tion granted the "Employees' Official Committee" on November 6. It will be
recalled that when CIO organizers were engaged in distributing handbills in
front of the plant in October and November, Foremen Sowler and Gabriel asked
them to stop the distribution. In contrast, not only were Gabriel and others
allowed to distribute committee notices and other committee documents in the
plant, but Respondent made its bulletin board available to the Committee for
posting purposes and permitted its supervisors and employees to announce meet-
ings of the Committee and the Association in the plant and on company time.
Similarly, the haste with which Respondent granted recognition to the Com-
mittee on November 6 was in sharp contrast to the complete silence and indiffer-
ence it accorded the CIO's similar demand of November 2. In its brief, Re-
spondent argues strenuously that the CIO at no time established that it, in fact,
represented a majority of the employees. I find it unnecessary to determine that
issue in this proceeding. The record establishes that it was not until the hear-
ing that Respondent even suggested the foregoing as a reason for ignoring the
CIO, or its demand for recognition, nor did it ever demand that the CIO prove
its alleged majority status. In contrast, on November 6 Bast, without first
making a check of the authorizations presented by the Committee, granted it
immediate recognition. In addition, Respondent encouraged the Committee to
maintain its position as bargaining representative for the employees by allow-
ing the entire membership, as well as its Committee. to meet in the plant and by
paying them for the time devoted to such membership and committee meetings.
The disparate treatment accorded the two organizations could only have been
intended to bring realization to the employees that the benefits of collective
bargaining would be sooner achieved if the Committee, rather than the CIO, were
their bargaining representative.
The record herein consists of 1,613 pages of testimony and voluminous ex-
hibits. It would unnecessarily lengthen this report to detail all the evidence
found in that record to establish that Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (2)
of the Act. The factual and concluding findings already made lead only to the
conclusion that Respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of a labor organization of its employees and contributed
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
financial and other support thereto. By such conduct Respondent also interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. Bryan Manufactur-
ing Company, 94 NLRB 1331, enforced 196 F. 2d 477 (C. A. 7) ; Harrison Sheet
Steel Company v. N. L. R. B., 194 F. 2d 407 (C. A. 7) ; and Superior Engraving
Company, 83 NLRB 215, enforced 183 F. 2d 783 (C. A. 7).
4. The discharge of Edith Anderson
Edith Anderson, who commenced work for Respondent on March 6, 1950, was
among the first employees hired by Respondent. Pursuant to directions, she
devoted approximately half of her time to the operation of the canteen and
rendering nurse's aid service to the employees, in which latter work she had
previously been engaged. The remainder of her time was devoted as " fill-in" in
all phases of the work done in the bindery department. She attended the CIO
meeting of October 24, signed an application for membership that evening, and
was appointed a member of its organization committee in the plant. At that
meeting, she obtained application cards for CIO membership and on the following
days talked "for the CIO" to 20 or more employees, Her activities in behalf of
the CIO were so pronounced that employees referred to her as "President of the
CIO." Gabriel, who had attended the October 24 CIO meeting, and Waldo
Lefstad, facetiously suggested to her that she change the sign over the canteen,
of which she had charge, so as to describe that location as "CIO Headquarters."
Although she had added her name to the list circulated among the employees on
November 1 indicating an intention to attend the committee banquet on Novem-
ber 2, she did not do so, but instead attended the CIO meeting that evening. On
the following day when Gabriel asked her to sign the committee designation she
declined to do so, and informed him she "was for the CIO."
On the afternoon of November 6, Mrs. Anderson suffered an attack of laryn-
gitis and informed her forelady, Glenz, that if she did not improve by the next
morning she would not report for work on that day. On the following day her
husband phoned Foreman Sowler, with whom Mrs. Anderson normally drove to
the plant, and informed him that his wife would be unable to report for work that
day. Her condition not having improved sufficiently on November 8, Mrs. An-
derson phoned Sowler and informed him of that fact.
She reported for work on Thursday, November 9, and was told by Mrs. Drace,
Bast's secretary, that Superintendent Edgar wanted to see her. Edgar inquired
whether she knew anything about a bottle of alcohol he had allegedly found in
the furnace. Upon receiving her assurance that she knew nothing about it, he
informed her that he would give her "the benefit of the doubt" and dismissed the
incident without further discussion. At about 1 p. m. of the same day, she was
directed to again report to Edgar. He then told her that she would be relieved
of her duties as a nurse on the following Monday and that another nurse had
been employed and was to report on that day. She asked for an explanation for
the change but received none. While he told her that she could continue to work
in the plant, he advised her not to do so, "that [,she] would be subject to layoff
and would have to get another uniform" and that ... if he were [she], he
wouldn't" continue to work.
Her throat troubled her again that afternoon (Thursday) and she found it
necessary to gargle several times, a treatment observed by and discussed with
Forelady Glenz. By the following morning she had completely lost her voice
and did not report for work that day. On the next workday, Monday, November
25 As distinguished from the white uniform she was then using.
SHF;DD-BROWN MFG. CO. 757
13, at about 7 a. in., her husband called Mrs. Drace to report her continuing
throat condition . Mrs. Drace transferred his call to Edgar who informed him
that Mrs. Anderson "was done at the factory ." Her throat having improved, she
sought and obtained an interview with Edgar on the following Wednesday, No-
vember 15. She asked to be told the reason for the discharge and was informed
that it was because she ,had thrown the alcohol bottle in the furnace.
In its brief, Respondent unequivocally denied that Mrs. Anderson was dis-
charged and asserted , instead , that "she quit as of November 10, 1950." The un-
disputed evidence is, however , that Edgar told Mr. Anderson on November 13 that
his wife "was done at the factory" and that he repeated that announcement
directly to Mrs. Anderson on November 15. Accordingly , I find that Respondent
discharged Mrs. Anderson on November 13, 1950.
There remains for consideration on this phase of the case the question of
whether the General Counsel has sustained the burden of proving that Mrs.
Anderson was discharged for the reason alleged in the complaint . The first fact
to be here considered is whether or not Respondent had knowledge of Mrs. An-
derson 's activities in behalf of the CIO or her antipathy to the Committee. The
record compels the conclusion that the General Counsel has sustained that
burden in both respects . At the first meeting of the CIO , in the presence of
Gabriel , Mrs. Anderson was appointed a member of its organization committee ;
her station at the plant was known to Gabriel and other employees as "CIO
Headquarters" ; she was referred to by employees as its "president"; she had ex-
pressed her preference for the CIO as against the Committee to both Gabriel
and Edgar and at the plant meeting of October 26 had criticized the manner
in which the Committee was conducting its affairs.
I am equally convinced that it was because of her CIO activities that Mrs.
Anderson was discharged . Of persuasive effect in arriving at that conclusion is
the variance between the undisputed testimopy that she was discharged, and
the position now taken by Respondent that she , vole tarily quit. Suspect also
is the reason assigned by Superintendent Edgar that she was discharged because
of the alcohol bottle incident. According to Edgar , he found such a bottle in the
furnace on November 8 . Mrs. Anderson , however , had not been in the plant on
either November 7 or November 8. No testimony was offered to show that Mrs.
Anderson was in any manner responsible for the incident . Her denial of any
knowledge concerning the matter stands unimpeached and is credited. I can
only conclude , therefore , that the accusation was concocted as a subterfuge to
lay the groundwork for her subsequent discharge . Edgar did not testify and
no explanation was offered why this incident was laid at the door of Mrs.
Anderson . On the entire record I am convinced and find that Edith Anderson
was discharged on November 13 because of her activities on behalf of the CIO 16
5. The discharge of Anita Thom
Anita Thom commenced employment for Respondent on June 26 and was
discharged on November 17. Her first work was in the bindery department
where she was engaged in folding and sacking calendars , placing them in en-
velopes, and gathering pads for calendars . Most of this gathering of pads was
done at a round table at which a large number of girls were seated. On the
10 While Forelady Glenz testified in general terms that Mrs Anderson was a slow worker
and engaged other workers in unnecessary conversations , no specific record or instances to
support these generalizations were developed by her testimony or that of any other witness.
Furthermore , no mention of these alleged shortcomings was made when Mrs. Anderson was
discharged by Edgar It is reasonable to assume , therefore , that they played no substantial
part in the decision to discharge her. -
250983-vol. 102-53-49
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
table, which revolved, were stacks of calendar pads, each stack for a month of
the year. As the table revolved, the girls picked off the top sheet of each stack
until 12 sheets to complete the calendar for the year were collected. Mrs. Thom
was hired at 75 cents an hour, but received an increase of 5 cents about a
month later. Early in September , Bast transferred her to the press department
where she operated a job press under the supervision of Gabriel. A month
after that transfer , she received another increase of 5 cents an hour.
She attended the first CIO meeting on October 24 and was made a member
of its organization committee . At the plant she distributed CIO application
cards and talked to a large number of employees about the advantages to be
gained in representation by the CIO to such an extent "that every one in the
plant" knew of her interest in that Union.
On October 5 she strained a tendon in her left wrist while operating a job
press but continued operating the press until after the morning break on Octo-
ber 9. At that time, Gabriel sent her to Edith Anderson, the nurse, to have her
wrist bandaged and assigned her to "deholing" calendars , a task she could per-
form with her right hand. On October 25, the day after the CIO meeting and
the day before the committee meeting in the plant, Bast instructed Mrs. Ander-
son to notify Mrs. Thom to take the rest of the week off "to rest [her] arm."
Accordingly, she was not allowed to work, and was not present in the plant
on Thursday, October 26, when the committee organization meeting was held.
Not only had Mrs. Thom failed to request this layoff , and protested its imposi-
tion, but the nurse had expressly reported that in her opinion Mrs . Thom was
able to continue the work in which she was lthen engaged . Lefstad testified,
without contradiction, that Gabriel, who had attended the CIO meeting on
October 24 with Mrs. Thom, told him before the committee meeting of October
26 that Mrs. Thom "was a troublemaker ... and that he would arrange it so
that she wouldn't be at work when [they] had the meeting."
Mrs. Thom returned on the first workday that followed, October 30 , and con-
tinued deholing calendars through the first few days in November. On November
2 Gabriel asked her to sign the petition appointing the Committee as bargaining
agent. She declined to do so and informed Gabriel that she had signed up with the
CIO and proposed to "stay there." On November 16 Gabriel again asked her
if she had signed the committee "contract " and when she replied that she had
not done so, Gabriel said to her : "You'd better, or you'll never get your name on
the seniority list." "
On the following day, November 17, during the afternoon break, Mrs. Thom
made two calls from a telephone at Sowler' s desk in the shipping department.
During the conversation, she noticed a "disturbance on the line, like someone
picking up the extension to make another phone call." It was during the same
break period that Gabriel told Lefstad that he had seen Mrs. Thom go to
Sowler's office to make a telephone call and that he had listened in on another
extension and ascertained that Thom had called the CIO office and informed them
that the Association was going to have a meeting the following Monday. Gabriel
told Lefstad that he had "been waiting to get some dirt on her," referred to her
as "a spy for the CIO,. . . a troublemaker," and suggested they they "should
do something about it." A few minutes later Bast came out of his office and
engaged Gabriel in conversation. At the conclusion thereof, Gabriel returned
to Lefstad and told him that Mrs. Thom was going to be laid off. Shortly
thereafter Thom was called to Bast's office and informed by him that she was
being discharged as of 4: 30 p. in. that day. She asked for an explanation, and
Bast replied : "All you do is talk, talk, talk. None of the bosses want you in
11 Line 4, page 767 of the transcript is corrected to read as quoted in the text.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 759
their departments because all you do is talk." She was discharged that day
and was never recalled to the plant.
The only testimony offered by Respondent in support of the reason assigned
by Bast for discharging Thom was contained in the following conclusory testi-
mony by Glenz : "She was a very stubborn worker and did an awful lot of talking.
We tried to cut her down on the talking , but she just kept right on doing it."
No specific instances or abuses were described, and while Glenz on a number of
occasions cautioned the girls, as a group , to minimize their conversations, she
admitted that she had never criticized Mrs. Thom individually in this respect.
On the other hand , Bast testified that, especially in October and November, all
the employees engaged in pro and con talk with respect to their choice of a
bargaining representative and that nothing could be or was done about it.
Thom's personnel record indicates that she was discharged for the following
reasons : "Work unsatisfactory. Could not be tolerated any longer by department
supervisors . Slow, wasted time, talking, etc. Broke plants rules and regula-
tions." Though both her supervisors testified, no evidence was offered that the,
quality of her work was unsatisfactory . Indeed, the record indicates the cony
trary. Both Ad and Lloyd Klofanda commended her for her work, Ad's last
commendation having been bestowed "around the middle of November." In her-
comparatively short employment of less than 5 months she received 2 wage in-
creases. When Bast transferred her from the bindery to the press department and
granted her a 5-cent increase , he told her that there was "a lot of jealousy in
the plant because [he ] picked [her] over some older employees." Bast's selection
of Thom aroused so much resentment that he found it necessary to call a
meeting of all the girls in the plant and justified his selection on the ground,
among others , that she "was a good worker." Nor was any testimony offered
in what respect she "could not be tolerated any longer by department supervisors."
On the entire record I am convinced and find that Thom was discharged because
of her membership in and activity on behalf of the CIO. Among the factors
which have led me to that conclusion are Respondent 's acts of interference,
restraint , and coercion found in III B , above ; its domination of, and interference
with , the formation of the Committee, the life of which would be doomed if the
CIO drive succeeded ; the precipitate nature of her discharge almost immediately
after Gabriel threatened "to do something" about her activities as a "spy for
the CIO" and "a troublemaker." On the entire record' I find that Thom was
discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act,
6. The failure to recall 15 other employees in 1951
It is undisputed that between December 20 and 29, 1950, Respondent found
it economically necessary to impose a seasonal layoff of the greater portion of
its staff. Between January 8 and April 23, 1951, the Company reengaged 62
of these employees and tendered work to 3 others which was declined. It is
the position of the General Counsel , in substance , that an analysis of the work
record , labor affiliations and activities of the 15 employees named in footnote 3,
all of whom had signed cards accepting membership in the CIO , and that of the
employees who were recalled , coupled with Respondent 's unlawful conduct here-
tofore found, compel the conclusion that these 15 persons were not rehired because
of their CIO affiliation and activities and because they refused to join or support
the Association.
To sustain the burden resting on the General Counsel , it was incumbent on
him to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had knowl-
edge of the CIO membership or activities of the 15 employees presently under
consideration.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The intense campaigns of both the Committee and the CIO, openly carried on
as they were, lead' to the conclusion that he has sustained the burden just men-
tioned. Having played the vigorous role in the creation and domination of the
Committee heretofore portrayed, it would be extremely unrealistic to assume
that Respondent had no knowledge concerning the labor affiliations or activities
of all its employees. Especially is this so " in a small plant, like the present one."
Quest-Shoe Mark Brassiere Co., Inc. (130 employees), 80 NLRB 1149, enforced
185 F. 2d 285 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc., 127 F. 2d 438,
440 (C. A. 1). Crandell, Posz, McMahon, Welter, and Radle were appointed to
the CIO organization committee on October 24 in the presence of Gabriel who
thereby acquired actual knowledge of such appointment, and all of them were
thereafter active in the solicitation of membership in the plant. Furthermore,
on November 6 Bast received from the Committee documentary evidence identify-
ing all of the employees who had designated the Committee. Notably absent
therefrom were the names of 13 of the 15 employees now under discussion. (The
2 exceptions, Rosa Kromrey and Dorothy Minster, will be discussed later.)
Certainly from that time on Respondent knew the identity of those of its em-
ployees who would not lend their support to the company-dominated union.
Even if direct evidence of the Company's knowledge of the CIO membership or
activity of these employees were lacking such knowledge could be inferred from
its strong animus, its questioning of, and threats to employees concerning CIO
membership, its admittedly close contact with its employees, and its knowledge
of the Association's membership. N. L. R. B. v. Link Belt Company, 311 U. S.
584; F. W. Woolworth Company v. N. L. R. B., 121 F. 2d 658 (C. A. 2).
Turning now to the motive that prompted Respondent not to recall these em-
ployees, consideration must be given to Respondent's reaction to the efforts of
its employees to select a bargaining representative. The findings heretofore
entered clearly demonstrate its hostility to the CIO, an animus which foretold
that discrimination would be indulged in, if necessary, to keep that organization
from achieving a majority status in the plant. N. L. R. B. v. Robbins Tire &
Rubber Co., 161 F. 2d 798 (C. A. 5). They also establish the active role played
by Respondent in the selection and maintenance of the Committee and the
Association as the bargaining representative of its employees.
Another factor upon which the General Counsel relies is the disparate treat-
ment accorded CIO adherents when Respondent renewed normal operation in
1951 and began the recall of old employees and the hiring of new. Such "dis-
proportionate treatment [if established], may be very persuasive evidence of
discrimination and may create an inference leaving it to an employer to give
an adequate explanation [of the failure to recall]." N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Steel
Foundry Co., 142 F. 2d 306 (C. A. 7) ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
107 F. 2d 555 (C. A. 7).
In making the calculations on this phase of the case we have here a situation
different from that generally presented. While most of the employees desig-
nated either the CIO or the Committee as their choice of bargaining representa-
tive, some designated both. Thus, while 67 employees had designated the CIO,
33 of this group also designated the Committee, leaving only 34 who had desig-
nated the CIO exclusively. Subtracting the same 33 dual designations from the
102 who designated the Committee, we find only 69 who had designated the
Committee exclusively. Included in this group of 69 , however, are the 8 persons
heretofore found to be supervisors and Yvonne Goss, Bast's private secretary,
leaving only 60 rank-and-file employees who had exclusively designated the Com-
mittee as their bargaining representative. In the case of the dual designations,
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 761
the record does not enable me to determine which organization was the true
choice of all who fall in that dual category . Accordingly , in the calculations
that follow , I have only made use of the exclusive designations.
On the foregoing basis, the record establishes that of the 94 rank -and-file
employees who made exclusive designations , 34, or 36 percent , designated the
CIO, while 60, or 64 percent, selected the Committee or the Association . Turning
now to the recalls , the evidence establishes that of the 41 out of 66 employees
recalled in 1951 who made exclusive designations , we find that they were
recalled at the time , and in the number and proportion shown in the following
table :
Those who Those who
No recalled designated designated
Date Total No. who made the CIO Association
recalled exclusive
designation
No Pct No. Pct.
Jan -------------------------------------------------- 17 11 1 6% 10 91%
Feb-------------------------------------------------- 18 9 0 0% 9 100%
Mar------------------------------------------------- 23 14 5 36% 9 64%
Apr-------------------------------------------------- 8 7 5 71% 2 26%
Total ----------------------------------------- 66 41 11 27% 30 73%
Admittedly , the above aggregates do not present such a great disparity as to
compel an inference of discrimination . On the entire record, however , it would
be unrealistic to limit the effect to be given this table by undue reliance on the
aggregates alone. Of greater significance is the order and relative proportion
of CIO and Association adherents of the first recalls made in 1951. Of the 20
employees recalled in January and February 1951 who made exclusive desig-
nations, only 1 had designated the CIO , while 19 had designated the Association.
While most of the work performed by the female employees was unskilled and.
of a nontechnical nature, experience was an admitted asset. Respondent's
plant being the only one of its kind in Eau Claire , a small community ,'e e-.-
perienced operators were otherwise unavailable . Having fortified itself with
such a large percentage of association members in January and February 1951,
but still being in need of 31 additional employees in March and April, Re-
spondent had no choice , if it wanted the advantage of experience , of hiring
more CIO adherents in the latter months . As the General Counsel points out
in his brief, Respondent was "scraping the bottom of the barrel ." It was
in March 1951 that Respondent began the hiring of new employees . In all,
45 girls were engaged in the bindery department in 1951 who had not previously
been employed . Of the 10 employees recalled in March and April who had
designated the CIO, the record does not establish that any of them, with the
possible exception of 1, had taken any active part in the CIO campaign or affairs.
Nor is it without significance that of the 21 employees who made exclusive
designations and were not recalled , 17 had designated the CIO as their bar-
gaining choice and only 4 had selected the Committee or the Association. Of
even greater consequence is the fact that every 1 of the 7 female members of the
CIO organization committee was either disoharged outright or not recalled
after the December layoffs. On the other hand every 1 of the 5 available female
1° Population 36,000 according to the 1950 census.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members of the association committee who remained on that committee during
and after December 1950 was rehired in 1951.19
Further evidence of a specific intent to discriminate in favor of committee
or association members is found in an undenied statement attributed to Gabriel.
Lefstad testified that sometime in December when the layoffs were taking place,
association adherents noticed that :
... some of the girls that had been laid off since the banquet were pretty
strong for this independent Union and they figured they should be kept on
... rather than some of the girls that hadn't joined the organization.
When this protest was made to Gabriel, he replied that he had just been in the
office while Bast was talking to Ocken on the telephone; that during that con-
versation Gabriel asked to speak to Ocken and told him that some of their
"strong supporters" were being laid off ; that Ocken asked to talk to Bast again
so that he could "set him right, . . . that the [Association] members should
be kept on and those that hadn't joined the organization should be the first
laid off."
We come now to the explanation offered by the Company for its failure to
recall the employees presently under consideration. As previously noted, Re-
spondent in its answer denied it was guilty of the discrimination pleaded in the
complaint. In its brief it asserts that Respondent's Exhibit No. 14, and the
employees' personnel files from which the aforementioned exhibit was prepared,
"show the exact reasons why [these 15 employees] were not rehired." An
examination of those exhibits discloses that the reasons assigned therein are
couched in the most general and vague terms, viz: "Laid down on the job,"
"slow worker," "troublemaker-very bull headed," "arrogant," "talks a lot,"
etc. Notwithstanding the practical need that may have existed for summarizing
on such exhibits, if, in truth and fact, these employees were denied reinstate-
ment for the reasons assigned therein, it was reasonable to expect that the oral
testimony of the supervisors offered in support thereof would be more specific
and concrete. In this respect, with the exception hereafter noted, Respondent
has utterly failed. Mrs. Glenz, under whose immediate supervision these em-
ployees worked, was specifically asked to describe the quality of their work or
to give the reasons why they were not considered satisfactory workers. Her
answers consisted of a mere repetition or paraphrasing of the various generali-
ties contained in Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 and in the most part was limited
to conclusory statements of 1 or 2 sentences. Ad Klofanda, the superintendent
of the bindery department, limited himself almost exclusively to a reading or
paraphrasing of the reasons found on Exhibit No. 14 to which he constantly
referred while testifying.
Upon consideration of all of the testimony, I am convinced that Respondent's
vague and general criticisms in reality played no part in its determination not
to recall 14 of these 15 employees. Such general criticisms as "very independ-
ent," "troublemaker-very bull headed," "arrogant," "troublemaker and very
mouthy" are of a nature so easily equated with an employer's resentment of the
legitimate activities of his employees in seeking a bargaining representative
other than the one he prefers and to which he has rendered financial and other
11 In this connection special mention should be made of Betty Woodford, one of the alleged
discriminatees She had been elected vice president of the social committee in April 1950
and, with its other members, had been "blocked" in as members of the Association
Committee at the November 2 banquet, which she did not attend. During the latter part
of November she expressed strong resentment at the action of the Committee and resigned
therefrom.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 763
assistance , that I am convinced that here also they consist of a rationalization
or articulation of Respondent's hostility to these employees because of their
membership in or activity on behalf of the 010.
Furthermore, there was no credible testimony that any of these employees
were ever warned individually of their alleged shortcomings . The record also
establishes that during 1950, Respondent discharged at least 18 employees for
varying degrees and kinds of incompetency, yet none of the 15 employees under
discussion were so discharged.
On or about October 30, when Respondent had not yet been apprised as to
which of its employees would support the Committee, Respondent gave notice
to 20 girls of its intention to impose an economic layoff on November 6. None of
the 15 employees under discussion were included in that layoff except Blakely,
Kelly, and Kramer. Apparently the remaining 12 girls here under consideration
must have been deemed more competent than those that were laid off." But even
Blakely, Kelly, and Kramer were recalled on December 14 when work again
became available, while 6 of the 20 laid off on November 6 were not so recalled.
Of these 6, 2 were never recalled : Hazel Martin because she was "no good at
all" and Elaine Stover because she was "slow, no ambition." Of the 4 others
not recalled in December, as were Blakely, Kelly, and Kramer, Violet Dean was
not rehired until March 26, 1951, Mary Evans until April 23, 1951, and Betty
Johnson and Reva Sippel until May 29, 1951.
Concerning the remaining 12 alleged discriminatees who were not laid off
in November, Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 establishes their work record as
follows :
Name Date laidoff Recalled
Amundson -------------------------------------------------- 12-1 12-15 to 12-20
Crandell----------------------------------------------------- 12-1 12-15 to 12-20
Kromrey--------------------------------------------------- 12-1 not recalled
Nimsger----------------------------------------------------- 12-1 12-15-declined due to illness
Olson-------------------------------------------------------- 12-1 12-15 to 12-20
Radle------------------------------------------------------- 12-1 not recalled
Ross--------------------------------------------------------- 12-1 12-14 to 12-20
Woodford--------------------------------------------------- 12-1 12-14-declined due to illness
Kosmo, McMahon, Posz, and Welter survived all earlier layoffs in 1950, Kosmo
until December 21, McMahon and Welter until December 27, and Posz until
December 29.
According to Respondent's records, Radle was not rehired in mid-December
because she was "no good at all, talked all day, never did her work right, in the
rest room a lot." Significantly, however, she was not selected for layoff on
November 6 when 20 girls were laid off, nor was she discharged outright in 1950
because of her incompetence, as were 18 other employees. Glenz admitted she
had never specifically warned Radle concerning any alleged shortcoming, and
her testimony concerning Radle was extremely vague and couched in the most
general terms. On the other hand, 2 or 3 weeks before Radle was laid off on
December 1, Glenz listened in on a vigorous discussion by a group of approxi-
mately 8 employees, including Radle, concerning the relative merits of the CIO
20 Respondent, in its brief, asserts: "No person in the plant was entitled to be rehired
as a matter of right. There never was any seniority arrangement until well along in
1951 when a seniority list was established by agreement between the management [sic]
employees Committee."
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the Association. Radle espoused the CIO cause. At about the same time,
Mildred Erickson and Frances Paul, 2 association committee members, asked
her to sign the association designation. Paul warned her "that those who didn't
sign were going to be the first laid off." Radle refused to sign the designation.
On the record made here, it was the duty of the Company to give "an adequate
explanation" for its method of selecting the recalls. Montgomery Ward & Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 107 F. 2d 555, 559 (C. A. 7) ; F. W. Woolworth Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
121 F. 2d 658, 661-662 (C. A. 2). This, Respondent has failed to do with respect
to the 15 employees named in footnote 3, supra, except only in the case of Rosa
Kromrey. Its explanations as to the other 14 "did not stand up under scrutiny.
This fact in itself strengthens the inference [of discrimination] ... from the
other facts in the case." N. L. R. B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills, 127 F. 2d 438,
440 (C. A. 1).
In its brief, Respondent argues that "it is probably a sufficient answer to this
charge [of discrimination] . . . that during the year 1951, 29 persons who
were members of the CIO were hired or offered re-employment and . . that 19
of these persons accepted their employment and went to work for the Company
in the year 1951." In this connection, however, attention should also be called
to the aggregate number of employees employed in the bindery and art depart-
ments in 1951. According to Respondent's own records, the total complement
of employees in these departments mounted as follows :
1951
February 1---------------------------------------------- 25
March 1------------------------------------------------- 46
April 1-------------------------------------------------- 67
May 1--------------------------------------------------- 76
June 1-------------------------------------------------- 74
July 1 --------------------------------------------------- 75
August 1 ------------------------------------------------ 102
September 1--------------------------------------------- 96
In any event, there is no merit to the contention that the inference of dis-
crimination is rebutted by the fact that Respondent recalled some CIO adherents.
"An employer's failure to discharge all the union adherents does not necessarily
indicate an absence of discriminatory intent as to those he did discharge."
W. C. Nabors Company, 89 NLRB 538, enforced, 196 F. 2d 272 (C. A. 5) ; Duro
Test Corporation, 81 NLRB 976; Stewart Warner Corporation, 55 NLRB 593.
It was neither necessary nor economically advisable to discharge or fail to recall
every CIO member or adherent in order to discourage CIO activities. Such
discouragement may be effected by making "an example" (N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt
Co., 311 U. S. 584, 602) of some of the CIO adherents. N. L. R. B. v. National
Garment Co., 166 F. 2d 233, 238 (C. A. 8), certiorari denied 334 U. S. 845;
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra, and F. W. Woolworth Co v.
N. L. R. B., supra.
On the entire record, I find with respect to the 14 employees named in footnote
3, supra, other than Rosa Kromrey, that Respondent failed to recall them in
1951 when work became available because of their CIO membership or activity
and that it was motivated by a desire to destroy or weaken their adherence to
the CIO. By reason thereof, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
of the Act.
7. The alleged discrimination against Rosa Kromrey
Kromrey was among the first persons employed at the plant in February 1950.
She signed a CIO application card at the meeting on October 24, but was not
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 765
otherwise active in its affairs . She also attended the committee banquet on
November 2, and on the following day designated the Committee as her choice
of bargaining representative.
For approximately 1 month after she was first employed , she worked at the
gathering tables and was then transferred to a Sheridan gathering machine.
During the latter part of April , Glenz transferred her back to the round table,
because she was "very hard to get along with ." She expressed resentment con-
cerning the reason assigned for the transfer . During the afternoon of Novem-
ber 29 , while approximately 16 girls were idly sitting around the tables because
there wasn 't "enough production for all the girls," Glenz asked Kromrey and two
others to clean several cupboards in the printing department . She did as di-
rected but filed a written grievance with the Association Grievance Committee
because of the assignment and met with its members about an hour later. Also
in attendance at the meeting were Glenz and Ad Klofanda . She complained
that she "didn 't like being shoved around , cleaning cupboards , and this and that,"
and that "Betty Tibbits [was ] being shown too much favoritism around the
place." Klofanda remarked that he wished he "had five more girls like Betty
Tibbits" and Glenz explained that Kromrey had been selected for the cleaning
job because she was "tall ." Klofanda gave her a layoff notice immediately
thereafter.
In November or December , Glenz was informed that Kromrey had "threatened
to get [her] one way or the other and talked filthy about [her ]." The threats
were of such a nature that Glenz reported them to the police department. She
was there told that "if these remarks continue . . . [ the department] can
pick her up."
I am convinced and find that Respondent has given "an adequate explana-
tion" for the termination of Kromrey 's employment. In addition to the fears
she engendered in Glenz ' mind , she apparently was a girl who, on at least two
occasions, did not willingly respond to directions of her supervisors . On all the
testimony I am constrained to conclude that it was because of the foregoing inci-
dents that Glenz and Klofanda decided to terminate her services . Accordingly,
I find and conclude that the General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that Kromrey was not recalled in 1951 for the reasons alleged
in the complaint . As to her, therefore , I shall recommend that the complaint
be dismissed.
8. The alleged failure to comply with Section 9 ( f), (g), and (h) of the Act
In its brief, Respondent asserts that "the record wholly fails to disclose that
the United Paper Workers of America have complied with Section 9 (f) (g) (h)"
of the Act dealing with the filing of labor organization reports and non-Commu-
nist affidavits . There, for the first time , the Company asserts that " the provi-
sions of these sections are jurisdictional [ and that] no relief can be granted
unless full compliance is established ." There is no merit to this contention.
Several courts of appeal have squarely held "that the Board [is] not required
to allege and prove compliance , and that compliance with such provisions [is]
not jurisdictional ." N. L. R. B. v. Red Rock Co., 187 F. 2d 76 , 78 (C. A. 5),
certiorari denied 341 U. S. 950 ; N. L. R. B . v. Wiltse, 188 F . 2d 917, 924 (C. A. 6) ;
N. L. R. B . v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co., 180 F . 2d 840, 844 (C. A. 4) ;
and E. B. Law and Son. v. N. L. R . B., 192 F . 2d 236 (C. A. 10).
In any event , "the fact of compliance by a labor organization which is re-
quired to comply, is a matter for administrative determination and is not liti-
gable by the parties. Moreover , [ I am] administratively satisfied that both
the charging union and its parent organization have been in compliance at all
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
times material herein." Ronanna of Texas, Inc., 98 NLRB 1151, footnote 2
and cases cited therein
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of, and contributed support to, the Committee and
the Association. It will therefore be recommended that Respondent withdraw
all recognition from the Association as representative of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and com-
pletely disestablish it as such representative. Carpenter Steel Company, 76
NLRB 670.
I also recommend that Respondent cease and desist from giving effect to its
contract with the Association dated November 21, 1950, or to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or any superseding contract or
agreement which may now be in force. Nothing in this recommendation, how-
ever, should be taken to require Respondent to vary the wages, hours, or other
substantive features with its employees which Respondent established in the
performance of such contract, as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented,
and superseded. It is also recommended that Respondent reimburse its em-
ployees for any association dues deducted from their wages and paid to, or being
retained for, the Association, by paying to each of them a sum of money equal
to the total of such dues deducted from his or her wages. Virginia Electric and
Power Company v. N. L. R. B., 319 U. S. 533; Salant d Salant, Inc., 88 NLRB 816,
818.
Having found that Respondent has discriminated against the employees named
in Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, in regard to their
tenure of employment, it is therefore recommended that Respondent offer the
employees named in said appendix immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that Respondent
make whole the employees named in Appendix A for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them by pay-
ment to them of a sum of money equal to that amount which they normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the time of Respondent's
discrimination as heretofore found to the date of offer of reinstatement, less
their net earnings during said period. Exact computations shall be made in
accordance with the Board's usual policies. See Chase National Bank, 65 NLRB
827; F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289; and Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
It will also be recommended that, on reasonable request, the Respondent make
all pertinent records available to the Board and its agents.
In the case of Edith Anderson and Anita Thom, who were discharged on
November 13 and 17 respectively, from which time they are entitled to be
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO. 767
made whole , the record does not enable me to determine the date either of them
would normally have been laid off in December when the economic reduction
of staff was effected . Similarly , with respect to the entire group of employees
named in "Exhibit A," the present state of the record does not enable me to
determine when, absent the discrimination heretofore found, each of them would
have been reemployed after Respondent began its recalls in January 1951. All
these matters may, however, be ascertained at the compliance stage.
The violations of the Act which Respondent committed are, in the opinion
of the undersigned, persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices pro-
scribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is to be
anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes
of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In
order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices , and thereby minimize the
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist
from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Paperworkers of America, C. I. 0, and Duly Authorized Committee
of Production Employees of Shedd-Brown Mfg. Co., and Shedd-Brown Plant
Association , are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of.
the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of,
and by contributing support to the Committee and the Association, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
employees listed in Appendix A hereto annexed, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
6. By failing to recall Rosa Kromrey , Respondent has not engaged in any
unfair labor practice.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
Wanda Amundson
Edith Anderson
Beverly Blakely
Jacqueline Crandell
Lois Kelly
Virginia Kosmo
Nadine T. Kramer
Gladys P. McMahon
Dorothy Nimsger
Donna Olson
Bernice Posz
Betty Radle
Rachel Ross
Anita Thom
Betty Welter
Betty Woodford
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix B
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 in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist UNITED PAPERWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
Wanda Amundson
Edith Anderson
Beverly Blakely
Jacqueline Crandell
Lois Kelly
Virginia Kosmo
Nadine T. Kramer
Gladys P. McMahon
Dorothy Nimsger
Donna Olson
Bernice Posz
Betty Radle
Rachel Ross
Anita Thom
Betty Welter
Betty Woodford
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH Shedd-Brown Plant Association as the represen-
tative of any of our employees for the purposes of dealing with us concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or
other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any suc-
cessors thereto for any of the above purposes. We will reimburse our
employees for any dues to said Association heretofore deducted from their
wages.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of UNITED PAPER-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any labor organization. We will not discrimi-
nate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on
behalf of any such labor organization.
SHEDD-BROWN MFG. CO.
By ------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.