The Cleveland Trust Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1497 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1497
Although both the driver-salesmen and the transport drivers operate
motor vehicles, the driver-salesmen are primarily salesmen , with in-
terests and conditions of work considerably different from those of
the transport drivers who are over-the-road truckers without addi-
tional duties. As the latter clearly are over-the-road truckers, and'
because one of the parties objects to their inclusion with other cate-
gories of employees, we shall, in accordance with established Board
policy, exclude them from the driver-salesman unit.2 Instead, we
shall establish them in a separate bargaining unit.
It is clear that the Employer's sales organization operates as an
integrated whole and that the interests and conditions of work of the
outlying driver-salesmen are identical with those of the salesmen driv-
ing routes in the Tampa area. In these circumstances, we do not
believe that the distances separating the Tampa area routes from the
others warrant a separate unit of the Tampa salesmen.3 As the sales-
men unit requested by the Petitioner is but a segment of a group of
employees having the same interests, we find that it is inappropriate
for collective bargaining purposes. We find, therefore, that any unit
composed of driver-salesmen must include all such employees of the
Employer, wherever their sales routes are situated
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer's
bakery operation at Tampa, Florida, excluding from each group all
other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
units appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act : 5
(1) All transport drivers.
(2) All driver-salesmen including those assigned routes outside the
Tampa area.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Chesty Foods, Inc., 98 NLRB 1185, and cases cited therein.
5 American Bakeries Company , 74 NLRB 399.
4 National Brands, Inc., 81 NLRB 1163.
At the hearing the Petitioner declared that it desired to appear on the ballot no matter
what unit or units the Board should find appropriate . Its showing of interest was suf-
ficient to justify an election in the groups herein found appropriate.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORaANI-
zATIONS. Case No. 8-CA-4.68. February 19, 1953.
Decision and Order
On May 13, 1952, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
102 NLRB No. 164.
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of the com-
plaint with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel and the Respondent each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as
the record and the exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the following exceptions, additions and modifications :1
1. As found by the Trial Examiner, the Respondent in its letter to
its employees of November 21, 1950, announced a wage increase and
increased vacation benefits. The Trial Examiner found that the
granting of this wage increase did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, and failed to make any finding concerning the announcement of
vacation benefits.
The Respondent urged as reasons for the wage increase the recent
raise in income taxes, the threat of a wage freeze, and the inflationary
trend in the national economy. However, in view of the fact that the
wage increase was announced in a letter to employees indicating the
Respondent's opposition to the Union at a time when the Union's
organizational campaign had become open and active and about 6
weeks in advance of the regularly scheduled review of wages, we are
convinced that the wage increase was intended and calculated to in-
fluence the employees to reject the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative. Accordingly, we find that such conduct constituted in-
terference, restraint, and coercion of the employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The Respondent claims that the increased vacation benefits were
granted in order to meet the competitive situation in the banking field.
However, the record shows that competing banks granted such benefits
1 We note and correct the following minor inaccuracies in the Trial Examiner ' s findings
which do not affect the validity of his ultimate conclusions or our concurrence therein :
(1) White was informed that Sorger had twice, rather than once , falsified his time report
shortly before his discharge on September 25, 1950-once on either the first of August or
of September , and again 2 or 3 days before September 25; (2) the reasons announced in
the letter of November 21, 1950, from President Gund to the employees of the bank for
the general wage increase do not also apply as reasons for the increased vacation benefits ;
(3) the National City Bank of Cleveland announced a wage increase effective September
1, 1950, and not effective October 1S, 1950.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1499
between 22 and 27 months earlier. Consequently, under the circum-
stances, like the wage increase we believe that the increased vacation
benefits were granted to influence the employees to reject the Union.
We accordingly find that the granting of the vacation benefits consti-
tuted interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
2. Although not detailed in the Intermediate Report, we find that
the following acts also constituted threats to employees which inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act:
(a) On about November 20, 1950, Golem, a supervisor, asked
employee Kaschak if she was satisfied with her job, and told her
that there were "things" going on in the department ; that he heard
that she was a member of the Union and was soliciting for the
Union; and that he hated to see her hurt herself.
(b) On June 11, 1951, Eggert, a supervisor, told employee
Studier that she had let him down and was "in the doghouse" with
Trust Officer White because she had voted for the Union, and that
she was "digging her own grave."
3. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent unlawfully aided
and assisted two antiunion committees to combat the Union, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. For reasons appearing below,
we agree.
On December 1, 1950, employee Moffitt,2 who had previously decided
to organize a committee to oppose the Union, informed Vice-President
McClelland that he wished to do something constructive to oppose the
Union. Moffitt asked McClelland if he, Moffitt, could form a committee
of employees in the bank who had similar views. McClelland re-
sponded that it was within the rights of employees to form such a
committee, but that management's "hands were tied." On the same
day or a day later, Moffitt telephoned Stark, an attorney in the legal
department of the bank, and after mentioning his conversation with
McClelland with respect to forming a committee to oppose the Union,
said that he wanted to speak with Stark to clarify the rights of the
committee and to ascertain what the committee might do as active par-
ticipants in the organizational fight. Stark told Moffitt that he would
rather not discuss the matter on the telephone, but that he would be
glad to talk with Moffitt personally.
Thereafter, on or about December 4, Moffitt, McClelland, and Stark
attended a dinner meeting which had been arranged by Stark and
paid for by either him or McClelland. At this meeting, Moffitt asked
Vice-President McClelland for the names of any employees whom
2 Contrary tc the Trial Examiner, we find that Moffitt was not a supervisor within the
meaning of tht Act at any time here material.
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McClelland knew, or suspected, would be opposed to the Union, so that
Moffitt might enlist their aid in forming a committee. McClelland
gave Moffitt the names of 4 employees, and Stark gave the names of 3,
including that of employee Arnholt. Stark cautioned Moffitt that he
could not solicit or organize during working hours.
Shortly after this dinner meeting, Moffitt telephoned all the em-
ployees who had been suggested by McClelland and Stark,3 and
formed a committee. The first meeting of this committee was held
the third week in December, when the committee decided the members
would gather facts and present their antiunion views to other em-
ployees at the bank by telephone or word of mouth.
At a second meeting of the committee in February 1951, the com-
mittee concluded that it should attempt to have its views printed-
at this stage of the campaign, however, no member of the committee
knew how this could be accomplished. Subsequently, Moffitt drafted
a letter addressed to the employees, reflecting the antiunion views of
the committee.
During the first week of May 1951, Moffitt visited Stark in his office,
stated that the committee desired to have its letter printed, and asked
whether the committee could expect the assistance of management in
financing or preparing such a letter for distribution to bank employ-
ees. Stark replied in the affirmative, adding that the request for such
assistance would have to be embodied in a letter from the employee
committee to President Gund. At this time, Stark also suggested
certain changes in the letter which Moffitt had drafted for circulation
to employees of the bank. Moffitt discussed these changes with com-
mittee members, revised the letter in accordance with Stark' s sugges-
tions, and had the letter signed by committee members. Two days
later he presented the final draft of the letter, dated May 9, 1951, to
Stark in his office, with a request that it be processed and distributed
to the employees at the bank. As previously arranged, Stark then
had Moffitt sign a letter embodying the committee's request of Presi-
dent Gund to print and mail to the employees copies of the committee's
letter at no expense to the committee.4 The Respondent, accordingly,
mailed copies of the committee's letter to the homes of the bank
employees.
Subsequently a second letter to the employees of the bank was
drafted by Moffitt and two other committee members. This letter,
dated May 18,1951, was signed by Moffitt for the employee committee,
3 About a week before Moffitt's telephone call to Arnholt , Stark told Arnholt that he,
Stark , was informed that Arnholt was opposed to the Union . Arnholt responded that he
was, and that he wished something could be done about the Union. Stark then said that
quite a few employees felt that way, and told Arnholt that perhaps he would receive a
telephone call.
* Moffitt testified , and we find , that he had nothing to do with the preparation of the
letter from the employee committee to President Gund.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1501
and given to Stark. As in the case of the first committee letter, Moffitt
was obliged to sign a letter to President Gund asking that the second
letter be copied and mailed to the employees of the bank. The second
employee committee letter was also sent by the Respondent to the
homes of the bank employees. Both of these letters were printed on
plain paper without any letterhead, giving the appearance of having
been prepared and mailed by the committee itself.
A third letter, addressed to the employees reflecting antiunion senti-
ments , was prepared by employee Wolverton and signed by employees
in his department. In the same manner as above, the Respondent
mailed copies of this letter to all employees.
The Respondent spent $468 for reproducing, addressing, and mail-
ing these 3 letters to approximately 1,900 employees.
It is clear that the Respondent directly assisted and participated in
the campaign of the employee committees 5 to defeat the Union in the
impending election. The Respondent gave Moffitt the names of anti-
union employees who would serve on the committee, suggested changes
in the final draft of his letter to the employees, and, by paying for the
distribution of the 3 letters, in effect made a financial contribution to
both committees. That the Respondent had the right to voice its own
noncoercive views, perhaps similar to those contained in the committee
letters, did not privilege it to make common cause with and assist the
antiunion committees in the manner described above. Concerted
activity either for or against a union is a protected right of employees.
We regard the subsidization of such activity-even at the request of
the employee participants-to be an unwarranted intrusion upon the
right of employees freely to chose their own collective-bargaining
representative.6
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board, hereby orders that the Respondent, The Cleveland
Trust Company, Cleveland, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
d Since these committees did not exist in whole or in part for the purpose of collective
bargaining , we find that they were not labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
6 See The Timken-Detroit Axle Company, 98 NLRB 790.
Chairman Herzog would also base his finding of an unfair labor practice here on the
additional ground set forth in the Timken-Detroit case, viz, that by concealing its part in
the reproduction and distribution of the committee letters, the Respondent crewed the
misleading impression that what was actually company antiunion campaign activity was
merely unaided and spontaneous employee sentiment , and denied to employees a fair
opportunity to evaluate it.
Member Murdock would find, in accord with his dissent in the Timken -Detroit caI :e, that
the Respondent 's conduct was protected by Section 8 (c). However, since his dissenting
view has been rejected by a majority of the full Board in that case, he deems himself
bound by their decision and concurs herein without further expression of dissent.
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Granting wage increases and vacation benefits for the purpose
of influencing employees with respect to union activity, affiliation,
assistance, or designation.
(b) Assisting and supporting any employee groups organized to
oppose the selection of a collective-bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening employees for soliciting or voting for a labor
organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Financial Employees Guild,
Local Industrial Union 1757, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and
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) Post immediately at its main office and at all of its branch
offices in Ohio, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate
Report and marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region , shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for sixty (60) consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region , in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminatorily dis•
charged William Sorger.
7 This notice shall be amended by substituting the words "A Decision and Order " for the
words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " in the caption thereof. In the event
that this Order is enforced by a decree of 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
Upon charges duly filed by the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1503
herein called , respectively , the General Counsel ' and the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region ( Cleveland , Ohio ), issued an amended complaint
dated June 11, 1951, against The Cleveland Trust Company, of Cleveland, Ohio,
herein called Respondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and the complaint together with
a notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint as further
amended at the hearing in substance alleges : ( a) Respondent discriminatorily
discharged employee William Sorger on or about September 25, 1950, because
he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; and (b)
Respondent granted wage increases to the employees and increased vacations
with pay for the purpose of discouraging membership and activities on behalf
of the Union, or its affiliate; that it interrogated employees concerning their
union affiliation , activities, and sympathies ; that it sponsored and encouraged the
formation of antiunion groups among the employees by contributing financial and
other support to such groups regarding the preparation, dissemination, and
distribution of antiunion literature drafted by such groups ; that it warned
employees to refrain from assisting or becoming members of the Union or its
affiliates , or engaging in lawful concerted activities ; and that it advised its
officers and supervisors in writing that they might voice opinions and statements
derogatory to the Union, even if such statements were false.
Before the opening of the hearing , Respondent filed a written motion for a
specific bill of particulars regarding the several allegations of the complaint.
This motion was granted in part and denied in part by Trial Examiner J. J.
Fitzpatrick , to whom it had been referred for consideration and the General
Counsel , in substance , complied with Mr . Fitzpatrick 's ruling and filed an
amended complaint.
Thereafter Respondent duly filed its answer and thereafter a supplemental
answer admitting the allegations of the complaint regarding its business op-
erations , but generally denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
By way of affirmative defenses the answer in substance averred that Sorger
had been discharged for cause, and that it had been forced to grant certain wage
benefits to its employees during the Union 's organizational campaign because of
economic conditions and similar action earlier taken by competing employers
in order to retain Respondent 's working force.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was duly held from June 25 to 29, and from July
9 to July 17, 1951 , at Cleveland , Ohio, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel and the Respondent were each represented by counsel
and the Union by representatives . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af-
forded to all parties.
At the opening of the hearing, the Respondent renewed its prehearing motion
for a bill of particulars insofar as it had been denied in part by Trial Examiner
Fitzpatrick and also moved for further time in which to prepare its defense.
These motions were denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion for fur-
ther time to prepare the defense when the General Counsel rested his case-in-
chief. When the General Counsel so rested his case on June 29, I granted
the Respondent a continuance until July 9, 1951 , for further preparation.
1 This term includes counsel appearing on behalf of the General Counsel.
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the close of the hearing, I granted a motion by the General Counsel to
conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters and denied
Respondent's motion to dismiss the various allegations of the complaint without
prejudice pending consideration of the entire record.
Thereafter, oral argument was presented by counsel for the Respondent fol-
lowing which the parties were granted 20 days in which to file briefs with the
undersigned. Following the subsequent granting of an extension of time in
which to file briefs, briefs have been duly received from the Respondent and
the General Counsel.
On August 27, 1951, after the close of the hearing, a stipulation in writing
was filed with me together with a motion to correct the record pursuant to the
matters set forth in the stipulation.
An order is hereby entered to correct the record in accordance with the pro-
visions in the said stipulation and the said stipulation has been entered in the
exhibit file as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1.
Upon the entire record and from observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Cleveland Trust Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the banking
business in the city of Cleveland and the surrounding area in the northern section
of the State of Ohio.
Its main banking house and principal office is in Cleveland, Ohio, and it main-
tains 56 branch banks in Cleveland, Ohio, and nearby communities in the State of
Ohio. It operates the largest branch banking system between New York City and
San Francisco, California. It is the largest bank in the State of Ohio, the
seventeenth largest commercial bank with the sixth largest amount of savings
deposits among all of the banks in the United States, and is a member of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve System.
The bank's assets are in excess of $1,166,000 and it presently holds deposits of
some 700,000 customers amounting to over $1,000,000,000. A substantial amount
of the funds on deposit is received by mail from depositors residing outside of the
State of Ohio, and it forwards transit items to other banks doing business in
States of the United States other than Ohio, amounting to several million dollars
annually. It also issues annually letters of credit and traveler's checks in excess
of $1,000,000, some of which are payable in foreign currency, and maintains
deposit accounts in other banks in States other than the State of Ohio, aggregat-
ing several million dollars.
The Respondent concedes and the facts found above clearly show that the
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Congress of Industrial Organizations and its affiliate Financial Employees
Guild, Local Industrial Union 1757, CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introductory brief summary of labor relations and factual background:
Insofar as the record shows no substantial efforts had been made to organize
the Respondent's employees until the fall of 1950.
9 There is no substantial dispute between the parties regarding the general findings
made in this section.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1505
On the night of September 21, 1950, a preorganizational meeting was held at a
CIO hall in Cleveland, Ohio, between representatives of the Union, William
Sorger , the alleged discriminatorily discharged employee, and about 10 other
employees of the Respondent.
Just before closing time on the afternoon of September 25, 1950, Sorger was
discharged by the Respondent for the asserted reason that he had falsified his
time record on that day, and that previous thereto he had an unsatisfactory record
as an employee.
Within a week or two after Sorger's discharge, the Union commenced an open
and active organizational campaign among Respondent's employees.
During the course of the campaign the Union issued a charter to the Financial
Employees Guild, Local Industrial Union 1757, CIO, hereinafter called the Guild.
Thereafter, on April 27, 1951, the Guild and the Respondent entered into a
consent-election agreement (Case No. 8-RC-1218) approved by the Acting
Regional Director of the Board for the Eighth Region. Thereafter, on May 23,
1951, an election was conducted by the Board's agents. The tally of ballots
disclosed that there were 1,890 eligible voters on the poll list, that 1,780 ballots
were cast 733 in favor of the Union and 1,047 against, and that there were 6
challenged ballots. Following the election, the Union on May 31, 1951, filed
objections to the election, but insofar as the record shows no ruling has been
made in respect to the conduct of the election and the said representation case
has not been consolidated with the instant case for purposes of hearing.
B. Findings of Fact
1. The discharge of Sorger
William Sorger, called as a witness by the General Counsel, credibly testi-
fied without denial during his direct examination that he was first employed
by the Respondent in 1925, that for many years last past he has been regularly
employed as a stock transfer clerk in the corporate trust department of Respond-
ent's bank under the immediate supervision of Trust Officer Haffner, who in
turn worked under the direction of Trust Officer Henry White, the so-called
operations officer of the department, and Vice-President Henry Pirtle, the bank
officer in charge of the entire corporate trust department, and that he, Sorger
had never been criticized regarding the quality of his work, but he admitted
that on occasions he had been reprimanded by Pirtle or White for tardiness in
reporting for work.
According to Sorger's further credited and uncontradicted testimony he called
on Sam Sponseller, the regional director for the CIO in the Cleveland area,
sometime during the month of March 1950 and told Sponseller that he, Sorger,
and some of the other employees of the Respondent wanted to organize a union,
that a few weeks later Sorger and Alfred Vapenick, a fellow employee also
working in the corporate trust department, again met with Sponseller and another
union representative to further discuss organizing. That on this occasion the
union representatives advised Sorger and Vapenick to select a small group of
other employees interested in organizing and to arrange for another meeting
between this employee group with the union representatives, that pursuant to
this recommendation from the union representatives a meeting was arranged
for after work on the night of September 21, 1950, at the CIO office in Cleveland,
Ohio, that Sorger, Vapenick and their fellow employees Elmer Bartell, "Dave"
Washington, "Mac" Jones, Maloney, Cooper, and 3 or 4 other employees of the
Respondent , whose names Sorger was presently unable to recall, met with Spon-
seller and other union representatives to discuss tentative plans for organizing
1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent 's employees , and that Sorger and some of the other employees
present at the meeting signed application cards for the Union on this occasion!
Sorger worked as usual on Friday, September 22, the day after the pre-
organizational meeting had been held, but not on the following day, Saturday,
because the bank closed on Saturdays.
On Monday, September 25, 1950, Sorger was late for work. He did not arrive
until 8: 50 a. m. on this morning but signed in on the Respondent's daily time-
sheet as arriving at 8: 40.
The Respondent required employees to report at 8: 30 a. m. Sorger testified
that later on this morning he recalled that he had ridden to work on a later bus
than he usually took and therefore believed he arrived about 8: 50 a. m..' and that
when he checked out for lunch at noon on this day he erased the 8: 40 entry
he had made on the timesheet earlier that morning and wrote in the figures 8: 50
as the actual time he reported for work on that morning.`
About a half hour before the end of this workday, Assistant Vice-President
Kingsbury, the Respondent's personnel director, called Sorger to Kingsbury's
office. Pirtle and White were present in Kingsbury's office when Sorger arrived
there.
Kingsbury opened the conversation, according to Sorger, by stating in sub-
stance to Sorger that it would be better for all concerned if Sorger would
seek a job elsewhere and resign because Sorger was apparently dissatisfied
with his job and would be happier if he was working elsewhere, whereupon
Sorger asserts that he denied being dissatisfied with his job and asked Kings-
bury to state the reasons for the latter's position, and that he, Sorger, then
requested to be permitted to work for a few months longer to fill out 25 years
service after which Sorger would then resign. According to Sorger's further
testimony, after this last request was denied, all persons present sat around
in comparative silence for the balance of the time spent in Kingsbury' s office,
except that one of the Respondent's officials, unidentified by Sorger, asserted
that Sorger had "falsified the time records on this same morning" and told
Sorger to take time off to look for another job e On the other hand, Kingsbury,
Pirtle, and White each testified that there was no substantial break in the
conversation during approximately 45 minutes the 4 men were present in Kings-
bury's office and said that shortly after Kingsbury and Sorger began the dis-
cussion, Pirtle entered into it and related generally complaints voiced concerning
Sorger. Kingsbury, Pirtle, and White, in substance, each testified that Pirtle
accused Sorger of attempting to bring about White's demotion in 1943, after
the latter had been promoted to operations officer in the department , by asserting
to Kingsbury that White was incompetent and was disrupting the morale of the
3 Insofar as the record shows , none of the employees who attended this preorganization
meeting engaged in any further union activities until after the Union began an open and
aggressive organizational campaign 2 or 3 weeks later
'+ The record shows that a large wall clock was mounted on a wall in the room which was
plainly visible from the place where the timesheets were kept.
5 The employees had been warned a year or two earlier that they must report their time
correctly and Sorger had been previously reprimanded for making false entries regarding
his time of arrival for work.
White testified that several days before September 25, the departmental chief clerk bad
informed White that Sorger was again falsely reporting his time and White said that he
observed Sorger arrive at 8: 50 a. in on September 25, that Sorger signed in as purportedly
arriving at 8 : 40 and later at noon on this day Sorger changed the entry to 8 • 50, where-
upon White reported the matter to Kingsbury, the personnel director, and Pirtle and
insisted that Sorger be discharged
0 In aduition , Sorger further testified that he had no clear present recollection of all that
transpired at this meeting.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1507
employees; that, thereafter Sorger ridiculed White in conversation with other
employees ; that Sorger had attempted to make fellow employees dissatisfied and
to induce them to quit their employment with the Respondent ; that Sorger,
during emergency periods had refused and evaded carrying his fair share of
overtime work in the department ; that Sorger had a bad record for tardiness
which culminated on that morning in the falsification of the recorded time he
reported for work and the later alteration of the time record by Sorger on the
same day, absent an explanation to the Respondent of his reason for doing it ;
and that after Pirtle had recited the list of complaints regarding Sorger's
conduct, he, Pirtle stated that Sorger would not be permitted to work any longer
in Pirtle's department, whereupon Kingsbury, then asserted that he. Kingsbury,
would not endeavor to arrange a transfer for Sorger to another department
and told Sorger to look for another job and tender his resignation
A realistic consideration of all of the evidence in the record in conjunction
with my observation of the demeanor of the above-mentioned four persons who
gave testimony regarding this meeting has convinced me that the versions of it
given by Kingsbury, Pirtle, and White, are the more reliable.
Sorger was carried on the payroll until October 30, 1950, but was not per-
mitted to engage in any more work for the Respondent.
As a defense to the General Counsel's contention that Sorger's discharge had
been discriminatory, the Respondent asserts that Sorger was discharged for
cause and denies having knowledge of Sorger's union activities before the
discharge.
There is no dispute that Sorger requested Kingsbury, the Respondent's per-
sonnel director, to arrange a transfer for Sorger to another department in the
bank, soon after White had been promoted to operations officer in the corporate
trust department in 1943 after Sorger voiced a complaint to Kingsbury that
White was incompetent to carry on the duties of the higher position and would
disrupt the morale of the employees in the department. The record shows that
Kingsbury related Sorger's complaint regarding White to Vice-President Pirtle
and the latter thereafter called White and Sorger into Pirtle's office in an effort
to iron out any ill feeling between White and Sorger. From this time on how-
ever the personal relations between White and Sorger were never cordial and
friendly.
Some months later, Kingsbury tentatively arranged a transfer for Sorger to
another department, but Sorger refused to accept the transfer for the asserted
reason that Sorger believed promotional opportunities in the other department
too limited and Sorger continued to work in the corporate trust department
until he was discharged in 1950.
It is undisputed that Sorger from about 1944 and thereafter frequently voiced
objections concerning White's competency as a supervisor and regarding work-
ing conditions in the department to fellow employees on numerous occasions,
and that Sorger during the late war told certain of his fellow employees that
they were foolish to continue working for the bank because jobs in other in-
dustries in the area paid higher salaries.?
* Employee Phyllis Tekanic, a witness called by the Respondent, credibly testified with-
out substantial contradiction that on 2 or 3 occasions in 1950 Borger told her that jobs
paying higher wages were available at other plants in Cleveland named by Borger which
she could fill and suggested to Tekanic that she ought to apply for one of those jobs.
Rose Rothaermel, presently auditor for the Respondent , credibly testified in substance
without denial that on numerous occasions during the Second World War he, Rothaermel,
heard Borger voice complaints regarding working conditions to other rank-and-file employees
and telling them that they were foolish to continue working for the Respondent because
they could earn more elswhere , and that he , Rothaermel , at the time advised White to get
1508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is also undisputed that Sorger was frequently tardy in reporting for work
for several weeks in the fall of 1949 and again in the spring of 1950. Sorger
explained that his father had been seriously ill in the fall of 1949 and said that
he spent much of his time outside of working hours attending to matters for his
father and that he had been careless regarding reporting on time for work.
He admitted that Pirtle reprimanded him for being tardy early in November
1949 and, in substance, that Pirtle told Sorger that he, Sorger, was setting a
bad example to the younger employees and must arrange to arrive at work on
time.
Pirtle credibly testified that Sorger was one of the worst offenders regarding
tardiness and that soon after he had personally reprimanded Sorger for this
delinquency he, Pirtle, drafted a letter on or about November 8, 1949, and
required all of the employees in the corporate trust department, including
Sorger, to sign it.
Among other things, this letter (in evidence) stated :
I have requested you in the past to make it a habit of being prompt in
attendance in accordance with the office rules. . . . Many of us are prompt
in arriving at 8: 30 every morning and work regularly until the closing
hour of 5: 00. There are others who make it a practice not to arrive at
the appointed time and some of these and others leave before the closing
time. This is not fair to those of our associates who observe the office
hours. I have spoken to some of them from time to time about their
attendance but the practice continues.
Upon the continuance of such practice I shall be obliged to arrange for
replacement of those who do not cooperate by leaving home early enough to
enable them to observe the appointed time of arrival. I do not propose to
make an exception in this respect of any employee in the Department.
[Emphasis supplied.]
s s s t s • s
Please let me know that you have read this memorandum by writing your
name on the margin.
A few months later, namely in March 1950, Sorger admitted that he again was
late for work over a period lasting several weeks. He asserted that the reason
was due to the fact that his wife was pregnant and confined to a hospital, and
that it was necessary for him to prepare breakfast for two minor children and
start them off to school before leaving home.
Pirtle credibly testified that when he learned of Sorger's tardiness at this
time he, Pirtle, called Sorger to Pirtle's office intending to discharge Sorger but
relented when Sorger informed Pirtle of the reason for his current tardiness
and that Pirtle then urged Sorger to report for work on time as soon as the
emergency was over .8
Despite these earlier reprimands or warnings given to Sorger regarding his
tardiness, he signed in on the Respondent's daily timesheet as arriving at 8: 40
a. in. on September 25, 1950, although he did not arrive until 8: 50. Sorger later
rid of Sorger because Sorger was disrupting morale in the department whereupon White
replied, according to Rothaermel, that he, White, was unable to effect Sorger's discharge
because Pirtle would not agree to it The record indicates that Pirtle and Sorger had
been long-time friends and that the wives of these tao men had also worked together in
the bank for many years before marriage and still maintained friendly social relations
and that for these reasons Pirtle hesitated to impose major reprisals against Sorger.
8In view of the earlier reprimand administered by Pirtle to Sorger together with the
written warning given by Pirtle regarding tardiness a few months earlier, it appears that
Sorger used bad judgment in failing to notify Pirtle of the reason for his current tardiness
before Pirtle administered another reprimand.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1509
changed the 8: 40 entry to 8: 50 when he checked out for lunch on that same
day. White, on this same morning , had noted Sorger's late arrival and checked
the timesheets shortly after Sorger signed in and after ascertaining that Serger
had misstated the time insisted that Sorger be discharged.
As previously found above, Sorger was discharged at the end of this working
day for the asserted reasons, among others, that he had sought to bring about
the demotion of White, that he had attempted to induce other employees to
quit their employment, that he had a bad record for tardiness , and that he had
falsified his time record on that same day.
Pirtle, Kingsbury, and White, the only management officials or representatives
who were concerned with his discharge, each testified in substance that they were
the only management officials or representatives involved in Sorger's discharge.
They categorically denied having any knowledge regarding any union or con-
certed activities among the employees before the discharge was effected. Each
of them impressed me as being reasonably trustworthy and reliable witnesses
and because their testimony has not been convincingly discredited or impeached
I credit their above sworn testimony that they lacked knowledge regarding
Sorger's union activities before Sorger was discharged.'
In concluding that the record falls to show the Respondent lacked knowledge of
Sorger 's union activities before discharging him I have not overlooked other testimony in
the record given by bank guards, Cannell and Bartell, each of whom were called as witnesses
by the General Counsel , and William Atkinson, a vice president in the loan department of
the Respondent's bank , and Nora Cannell ( Cannell 's wife ), the latter two having been called
as witnesses by the Respondent.
It appeared at the hearing that Cannell had signed a statement on February 5, 1951, for
Field Examiner Vincek, in which Cannell purportedly stated in substance that Vice-
President Atkinson asked Cannell the day after the first union meeting "How was the
meeting last night ?", that Cannell told Atkinson he would find out about it; that on that
same day everybody in the bank knew about it and was talking about the meeting and also
knew that Sorger or some employee in the corporate trust department was leading the
union movement ; that on that same afternoon Cannel! reported back to Atkinson that
Sorger was one of the leading advocates for the Union; and that 90 percent of the em-
ployees engaged in petty cheating regarding signing in for work and that the supervisors
are not concerned regarding such cheating but only objected to any employee earning
overtime pay.
At the hearing, before being confronted with the above statement , Cannell testified that
on one occasion during the fall of 1950 , Atkinson asked him on some date Cannell was
unable to fix "How was the meeting last night?" and that this was the only conversation
Cannell ever engaged in with Atkinson concerning union activities . Cannell further
testified that he was intoxicated on the night Vincek interviewed him, that he has no recol-
lection concerning the conversation that ensued between Cannell and Vincek at the
interview, and that substantially all of the information appearing in the statement and
attributed to Cannell is false.
Cannell 's wife, Nora , called to testify by the Respondent also testified that Cannell was
intoxicated on the night Vincek interviewed her husband and said that she asked Cannel!
not to talk with Vincek on this occasion.
Bartell , a witness called by the General Counsel , testified on direct examination that
Cannell had asked Bartell about the meeting which had been held on the night of
September 21, 1950 , but said that he, Bartell , did not mention the names of any other
employees who attended it. On cross-examination Bartell admitted that during an
interview by Respondent 's counsel held about 2 weeks before the hearing , he told said
counsel that Cannell ' s inquiry regarding a meeting was made the day after a union
meeting had been held at either the Hollanden Hotel or Carter Hotel during the latter
part of October or early in November 1950 . A few days later , Bartell informed the
Respondent's counsel that he had been mistaken about the date because he had ascertained
after reading a statement given by Bartell to Board 's field examiner on February 1, 1951,
he, Bartell , had fixed the date of Cannell 's inquiry regarding a meeting as of September 22,
1950.
Atkinson, when called to testify by the Respondent , categorically denied that he had ever
mentioned or discussed union activities with Cannell except for one occasion after the
250983-vol . 102-53-96
1510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Interference , restraint , and coercion
The complaint alleges in substance and the answer denies that the Respondent
interfered with the organizational rights of employees during an organization
campaign , by granting wage increases to its employees for the purpose of dis-
couraging membership in the Union, that it thereafter aided and assisted anti-
union employee groups to combat the efforts of the union adherents regarding
the selection of a bargaining represenative, and that it threatened and warned
employees to refrain from assisting or joining the Union.
There is no dispute that the Union began an intensive drive for membership
soon after Sorger had been discharged on September 25. On numerous occasions
the Union circulated literature by mail and otherwise to the employees stating
claimed benefits obtainable by organization and also held numerous open organi-
zational meetings for the Respondent's employees at various places in the city of
Cleveland and up to and after a consent election was held on May 23, 1951. Dur-
ing the same period, the Respondent issued many written statements to the
employees asserting that this union was too radical to properly represent the
Respondent's employees.
The first two of the open organizational meetings were held on or about the
nights of October 19 and November 2, 1950, at the Hollenden Hotel and the Carter
Hotel at Cleveland, Ohio, respectively. These meetings were attended by many
of the employees. Thereafter on November 21, 1950, George Gund, Respondent's
president, issued a general letter to all of the Respondent's employees which
stated that "outsiders" were attempting to organize the employees and that
Sponseller and Davies, the organizers in charge of the campaign, had no previous
experience or knowledge of the banking business and therefore were not qualified
to represent banking employees.
In brief summary, the letter (a copy of which is in evidence) among other
things states :
Our employees have a right to join a Union and to try to convince others
to join so long as the union campaign is carried on during non-working time
of both the person doing the soliciting and the person being solicited.
Union had held an open and publicly announced meeting for the employees when Atkinson
merely asked Cannell how the meeting came out last night. Atkinson further testified that
he first learned of union activities at the bank on October 2, 1950 , when one, Trenkamp, a
customer , told Atkinson that a union was organizing the bank employees
From their demeanor on the witness stand at the hearing, I concluded that Atkinson,
Cannell , and the latter 's wife were reasonably trustworthy and reliable witnesses , whereas
Bartell , appeared to he vague and uncertain while giving his testimony . Accordingly, I
credit the testimony of the two Cannells and find that Cannell was to some extent under
the influence of intoxicating liquor and that his mind was muddled when he gave his
statement , thus casting doubt upon the reliability and accuracy of the matters contained
in this statement . Therefore , I will deny the formal admission of the statement in evidence
for the purpose of impeaching Cannell's testimony at the hearing.
The Respondent asserts that Vincek deliberately induced Cannell , an intoxicated person,
to sign a false statement . I do not agree with this contention . Cannell testified at the
hearing that he does not consider himself drunk if he can walk about without staggering
and is able to carry on a conversation . He asserted , however, that his mind was muddled
and that he could not think clearly at the time of the interview by Vincek and testified
that he has no present recollection of what he may have said to Vincek during the inter-
view. It was the first occasion that Vincek had ever talked with Cannel and Vincek may
well have believed Cannell to be an agreeable, garrulous , and an unduly voluble conver-
sationalist rather than a person too intoxicated to comprehend the purport of his remarks.
Under the circumstances , I am of the opinion that Vineek is not open to censure for
taking the statement from Cannell which the latter signed voluntarily and without
objection.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1511
They also have an equal right to refuse to join the Union and to convince
others that they should not join. If they have joined they have a right to
withdraw. An antiunion campaign must also be limited to non-working time.
We [management representatives] cannot threaten or intimidate em-
ployees in the making of their choice. Nor can we promise any economic
benefits for opposing the Union.
This letter also instructed management representatives to refrain from interro-
gating employees regarding union activities and specifically instructed manage-
ment representatives not to ask any employee :
1. If he has joined a Union.
2. If he knows who has joined.
3. If he has attended Union meetings
4. If he knows who has attended a meeting and what happened.
The letter also called attention to certain benefits presently enjoyed by the
employees: such as group life and accident insurance carried without cost to
the employees and the pension plan for employees which had been in effect for
many years.
The letter then announced that a general wage increase would be presently
granted to the employees as of November 15, 1950, rather than delay them until
January 1, 195120 and that employees with over 19 years' tenure would receive
a 3 weeks' annual vacation instead of the 2 weeks' vacation heretofore granted
them, because of the recent increase in the cost of living, the increase in the
Federal income-tax rates imposed on all persons, and the possibility of a threat-
ened wage freeze in the immediate future."
2. The second wage increase given to the employees on April 1, 1951
The Union carried on an intensive and active campaign during the fall and
winter of 1950 and also the spring of 1951.
On March 16, 1951, the Union filed a petition for certification of representatives.
Thereafter on April 1, 1951, the Respondent granted a second general increase
to its rank-and-file employees. The explanation regarding the reason for the
second increase is not convincing. Kingsbury merely testified in substances that
although Gund's announcement of the November 15 increases expressly stated
that the said increase was an advance payment of the usual January wage in-
crease, given to the employees, the employees seemingly expected to receive
m The Respondent, according to the letter, additionally stated that the Respondent had
established a policy of granting general wage increases. in January and July of each year
and also of reviewing salaries of lower paid employees in April and October of each year.
The record shows that the latter increases mentioned above only affected 15 or 20 percent
of the employees.
11 Kingsbury, the Respondent's personnel director, testified credibly without contradiction
that during the late summer or early fall of 1950, he had made a wage survey in the
Cleveland area and pursuant to this survey Kingsbury ascertained that the National City
Bank of Cleveland, one of the Respondent's principal competitors, had announced a wage
Increase for its employees effective on October 15, or 1 month before the Respondent's
November 15, 1950, increase was granted, that one of the other competing banks in
Cleveland was then considering granting a cost-of-living wage increase to its employees,
that the turnover of employees of the Respondent's bank was rapidly increasing in the fall
of 1950, that the 2 largest bank competitors of the Respondent had previously granted 3
weeks' vacation with pay to employees with long tenure, and that for these reasons
Kingsbury recommended the early granting of a general wage increase together with 3
weeks' vacation with pay to all employees with over 19 years' service and that on or about
October 15, 1950, President Gund told Kingsbury that he, Gund, had recommended
advancing the date of the next general wage increase and a 3-week vacation to employees
with over 19 years tenure.
1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another general increase in January and that the Respondent thereafter decided
to give them another general cost-of-living increase on April 1, 1951, and advance
the date of the increase that normally would be made on July 1, 1951, to bring
their current salaries within the limit of the 10-percent increase permitted under
the Wage Stabilization provisions of the Federal Government.
On April 27, 1951 , the Respondent entered into a consent-election agreement
with the Union for a bargaining unit consisting of all employees of the Company
at its main and branch offices including elevator operators , messengers , secre-
taries, and janitorial employees , but excluding in substance all management rep-
resentatives , professional employees , guards, and other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
D. Assistance rendered to so-called employee committees
1. The so-called Moffitt Committee
The record indicates without dispute that a few days after the Respondent
distributed its November 21, 1950, letter criticizing outsiders for attempting to.
organize the employees, Wayne Moffitt then chief clerk at the Detroit 117th Street
branch, decided to organize a committee to combat the efforts of the Union to
organize the employees.12 Moffitt went to Vice-President McClelland, the vice
president in charge of all the Respondent's branch bank operations, under whom
Moffitt worked, and asked McClelland if the latter believed Moffitt could engage
in such activities. McClelland told Moffitt that he, McClelland, saw no reason
why the employees could not engage in such activities but that management's
"hands were tied." A few days later Moffitt made another call upon McClelland
and asked the latter to give Moffitt the names of any employees McClelland
believed might be opposed to the union organization and that on this occasion
McClelland named employees Elmer Sacha , Roland Duncan , James Givens, and
Ellsworth Penty, all of whom were employed at one of the various branch banks
operated by the Respondent , as employees believed by McClelland to be opposed
to the Union.
At or about this same time Moffitt also had a conversation on the telephone
with Hawley Stark, one of the house counsel for the Respondent in the legal
department at the bank. According to Moffitt's credited and undenied testimony,
Moffitt informed Stark that he, Moffitt, had been talking to McClelland regarding
the formation of a committee to combat the Union and asked Stark to advise
Moffit regarding the matter. Stark, at the time stated he did not wish to discuss
the matter on the telephone.
As a result of these conversations between Moffitt, McClelland, and Stark,
Moffitt was invited to dine with McClelland and Stark at a restaurant in Cleve-
land one night in December 1950. At the dinner a general discussion ensued
between the three men concerning Moffitt's desire to organize an antiunion
committee. The record fails to show the details of the conversation between
the three men on this occasion, but according to Moffitt, Stark, at the dinner,
informed Moffitt that he, Stark, believed that employees Harry Arnholt and
Gorham Townley, both employees at the main banking office of the Respondent,
were also employees who had expressed antiunion antipathies.
A short time after this dinner meeting, Moffit telephoned the several employees
(whose names had been furnished to Moffitt by either McClelland or Stark) at
their homes after work and arranged for the group to meet together for dinner
>, Moffitt was responsible for all bookkeeping , clearance , and teller work at the branch
and when any special emergency work was required it was Moffitt's duty to pick out and
assign 1 of the 13 or 14 men under his supervision to the emergency job.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1513
one night in December 1950, at a downtown restaurant in Cleveland. Sub-
stantially all of the men invited by Moffitt to attend this dinner attended and
according to Moffitt an informal discussion regarding further steps the group
might take to oppose the Union were discussed but no concrete plan was
formulated.
The same group, or committee, again met together for lunch one day in
February 1951 at Quad Hall in Cleveland 18 As this luncheon was held on a
working day the discussion regarding their future plans, according to Moffitt,
-was brief and it was only determined that they should draw up some form of
written protest attacking union organization at a future date.
After this February luncheon meeting the so-called committee apparently
continued to exist in a more or less moribund state until about May 1, 1951, for
the record fails to show any substantial activities upon the part of Moffitt or
other members of the committee until after the Respondent and the Union
entered into a consent-election agreement on April 27, 1951, for an election to be
conducted by the Board on May 23, 1951. After the election agreement was
signed, the Respondent by letter dated April 27, 1951, and addressed to all
employees, in substance, notified the employees that a secret election would be
conducted under the auspices of the Board and that no person could ascertain
how any employee voted. Among other things this letter stated:
You have a right to join the Financial Employees Guild and an equal
right to refuse to join it. You have the right to vote for it and an equal
right to vote against it.
This is a most important election.
You should, therefore, weigh all of the facts carefully before reaching
your decision.
Whatever your decision-be sure to vote!
At or about the same time that the Respondent's letter regarding the election
was distributed, Moffitt and Sacha on behalf of the committee each drafted
letters discussing the problem of representation. The two men thereafter met
informally with the various members of the so-called Moffitt committee group
and discussed suggestions regarding further arguments that should be in-
cluded in a statement to be released by the committee. Thereafter Moffitt
formulated a revised draft to serve as the committee's expressed policy regard-
ing the Union as a bargaining representative.
On some day during the first week of May, Moffitt called upon Stark at the
latter's office and submitted the committee's proposed draft concerning repre-
sentation and objections to the Union as bargaining representative to Stark.
After reading the draft, Stark suggested to Moffitt that certain deletions be
made and Moffitt thereafter redrafted the committee's proposed release and
submitted it to the various committee members for signature before work began
in the morning, during employees' lunch hours, or after business hours in the
various departments wherein the committee members worked.
This letter" dated May 9, 1951 (in evidence) was signed by 21 members of
the so-called Moffitt committee.
After obtaining the signatures, Moffitt handed the letter to Stark with a re-
quest that the Respondent have sufficient copies made for all of the employees
in the bargaining unit and that the Respondent, also at its expense, mail copies
u On January 15, 1951, Moffitt was transferred from his chief clerk job and assigned to
take charge of a training school established to instruct new inexperienced employees in
the clerical work required by the Respondent . The record is not clear whether or not he
has continued to be a supervisory employee as definied in the Act.
u Attached hereto as appendix B.
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the letter to all of the said employees . Following Moffitt's above request to
Stark that the "committee 's" letter be sent out by the Respondent, Stark in-
formed Moffitt that he believed the Respondent would be willing to undertake
this expense and handed Moffitt a copy of the letter 15 for Moffitt's signature.
Copies of the said letter were thereafter caused to be made by the Respondent
and mailed to all of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit. Thereafter,
on May 18, 1951, Moffitt, as chairman of the so -called committee drafted -a second
letter ( in evidence ) presenting further purported arguments why the committee
believed the employees should vote against the Union at the election and he also
handed this letter to Stark . After reading the letter Stark handed Moffitt
another letter prepared by the Respondent for the signature of Moffitt similar
in context to the letter dated May 10, 1951, set forth above, requesting the Re-
spondent to circulate copies of the committee 's second antiunion letter to the
employees . Thereafter sufficient copies of the second letter were caused to be
made by the Respondent who again caused said copies to be mailed to each of
the employees in the bargaining unit .16
2. The so-called Wolverton Committee
John P. Wolverton, a witness called by the General Counsel , credibly testified
without contradiction that he had been employed in the Respondent 's real estate
loan department for about 18 years, under the top supervision of Harry Temple-
ton, the vice president of the department . He further credibly testified in sub-
stance without contradiction that he was opposed to the union organization among
the employees and wanted to do something about it, and that he went into work
early one morning in the latter part of April 1951 to talk with Vice-President
Templeton regarding the matter . He told Templeton he wished to do something
to convince the employees that they should vote against the Union , whereupon,
according to Wolverton, Templeton replied: "Before you do anything remember
this : management has nothing to do with this." Nothing concrete developed
from this conversation because at the time he, Wolverton, had no definite plan
in mind. Wolverton further testified that 2 or 3 days later he told Templeton
that he, Wolverton, expected to draft something in writing critical of the Union's
attempt to organize and represent the employees and that on this occasion
Templeton replied, "Well, o. k.; be sure you are right before you go ahead."
According to Wolverton's further testimony he thereafter spent considerable
time after work several days drafting and revising a letter to be presented to
the employees in the real estate loan department for their approval . Before
submitting it to the employees he called upon Templeton at the latter 's office
and handed the letter to Templeton to read , but the record failed to show what
Templeton 's reaction was regarding the matters set forth therein . Thereafter,
according to Wolverton, lie presented the letter 17 to fellow employees in the
department requesting them to read it and sign it if they wished to do so.
Forty-one of the employees in the department signed it.
After the letter had been signed , Wolverton took it into Templeton' s office and
handed Templeton the letter and then asked Templeton what he, Wolverton,
had better do with it, whereupon Templeton in substance told Wolverton to
discuss the matter with Mr. Stark. Wolverton thereupon went to Stark's
15 Attached hereto as appendix C
10 The above findings are in the main based upon the credited and undented testimony of
Moffitt and the stipulation entered into by the parties on the record that the Respondent
in substance caused copies of all of the so-called "Committees" letters to be prepared and
mailed to the homes of all employees in the unit at a cost, including cost of postage, of
$4,6824
17 Attached hereto as appendix D.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1515
office and presented the letter to Stark requesting the latter to read it. Accord-
ing to Wolverton, Stark said, "I am busy ; when I get time I will," whereupon
Wolverton left Stark's office. Three or 4 days later, according to Wolverton,
Stark called Wolverton on the telephone and requested Wolverton to come to
Stark's office. Upon arriving in Stark's office, Stark said, "About this letter
you have written, can we use it? Can we circularize it among employees?"
Whereupon Wolverton replied that the letter itself requested that it be cir-
cularized among the other employees and Stark then said, "I think that we will
use it. Is that all right?" Whereupon Wolverton replied in substance that is
what the employees who signed the letter desired. Following this colloquy
Stark asserted, "We would want something else from you" and then handed
Wolverton a letter dated May 15, 1951, addressed to Respondent's President,
Gund, for Wolverton to sign which reads as follows :
Mr. George Gund, President
The Cleveland Trust Company
Cleveland, Ohio
Dear Mr. Gund :
Some of the employees in the Real Estate Loan Department from time to
time have been discussing the union question and what the May 23rd elec-
tion means to them. We have decided that we want all our fellow employ-
ees to know just how we feel about this very vital question.
Several of us have prepared a memorandum and circulated the same among
the employees of the Real Estate Loan Department, and Appraisal Depart-
ment and the Escrow Department, which memorandum has been signed
by many of us. It is our desire to have copies of this memorandum made
and circulated among the employees of the bank.
None of the signers of this memorandum has the funds necessary to have
such copies made and mailed to the employees. None of the signers of
this memorandum wants to have any part in a so-called Company Union
or to be a representative of all or any part of the employees of the Bank
for collective bargaining, or for any other purpose.
We therefore ask that the Bank, at no expense to us, cause copies of this
letter to be made and mailed to the employees of the bank.
Very truly yours
EMPLOYEES OF TIIE REAL ESTATE LOAN
APPRAISAL AND ESCROW DEPARTMENTS.
By : (S) John W. Wolverton
Myrtle B. Ball
L. L. Pittent
Wolverton signed the letter on behalf of the employees in his department who
had signed his letter. Thereafter Respondent caused sufficient copies of the
said letter prepared by Wolverton to be printed and thereafter mailed copies
of said letter to all of the employees in the bargaining unit at Respondent's
expense."
E. Other alleged acts constituting interference, restraint, and coercion
Evidence was adduced by the General Counsel for the purpose of showing
that several minor supervisors of the Respondent interrogated employees con-
cerning union activities or in one instance a minor supervisor permitted an
"The above findings in this section are based upon the credited and undenied testimony
of Wolverton.
1516 DECISIONS OF ' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
antiunion employee to make a speech derogatory of the Union to employees
working in her unit during working hours. When it is considered there are
approximately 200 supervisory employees with various degrees of authority
employed by the Respondent in conjunction with the fact that the Respondent's
president had stated in several letters issued to the employees generally that
they were free to engage in union activities outside of working time and to join
and vote either for or against the Union, I do not feel it necessary to consider
these incidents in detail because at most they are isolated incidents and conse-
quently any adverse finding if made would be merely cumulative.19
F. The issues and conclusions
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, the General Counsel
in effect contends that: (1) William Sorger was discharged on September 25,
1950, because he joined and assisted the Union; (2) or, in the alternative, be-
cause Sorger engaged in concerted activities with the other employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection thereby
discouraging membership in labor organizations; (3) the Respondent granted
general wage increases to its employees on November 15, 1950, and thereafter on
April 1, 1951, for the purposes of influencing employees to reject the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative; and (4) Respondent illegally aided
and assisted antiunion employee committees to combat the efforts of other
employees in connection with the selection of a bargaining representative.
Regarding the General Council's first contention, the Respondent asserts that
it was without knowledge concerning any union activities on the part of Sorger
or other employees before discharging Sorger and as a further defense asserts
that Sorger was discharged for lawful cause.
Since Sorger was discharged 4 days after the first preorganization meeting held
by the Union, a suspicion is aroused that the Respondent in some manner learned
of Sorger's leading part in bringing about this meeting, but the record fails
to show convincingly that the preorganizational activities were openly engaged
in and that it was not until a week or two later that the Union's drive to organize
the employees was openly and aggressively started.
Furthermore (insofar as the record shows), the three Respondent's repre-
sentatives involved in Sorger's discharge were the only employer representatives
concerned with Sorger's discharge. They each categorically denied having any
knowledge regarding any union activities before the discharge. They further
asserted that such purported activities had no bearing upon Sorger's discharge.
The testimony of these witnesses was not convincingly discredited or impeached
at the hearing, and each of them impressed me as being trustworthy witnesses.
Accordingly, their sworn testimony in this respect has been credited.
Therefore I find that the first contention of the General Counsel has not been
sustained by substantial and convincing proof.
In respect to the General Counsel's second contention, namely, that Sorger was
discharged for engaging in protected concerted activities, I also am constrained
to find that this contentiou lacks substantial merit. It is true that Sorger for
many years had openly criticized working conditions at the bank but the record
fails to show that he was ever reprimanded or visited with reprisals because he
voiced such complaints. It is also true that the personal relations between Sorger
and White, the operations' officer in the department, had been strained for many
1 The record fully discloses that there was considerable activity engaged in by union
employees as well as nonunion employees during working time and that no employee was
visited with reprisals for engaging in such activities.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1517
years, that Sorger for a long period of time had built up a bad record for tardiness
and that Sorger on occasions had advised fellow employees in the department to
quit their employment with the Respondent and seek jobs with other employers.
Sorger had been warned about his poor attendance record about a year before he
was discharged and again reprimanded for tardiness about 6 months before he
was discharged or long before any union activities were initiated in the bank.
Despite these reprimands and warnings given Sorger regarding his tardiness
record, he falsified his time record on the morning of the day he was discharged
and the Respondent asserts that he was discharged primarily because of his
falsification of his time record, his seeking to induce other employees to quit their
employment, and the dissension that existed between Sorger and White, his
supervisor. Pirtle, vice president of the department, testified in substance that
he paid little attention to complaints voiced by employees concerning working
conditions because such complaints are common in most places of employment.
Therefore, in my opinion the Office Towel Supply Company case, 97 NLRB 449,
cited by the General Counsel as authority for a finding that Sorger's discharge
was based upon protected concerted activities is not controlling. The reasons
advanced by the Respondent, namely, the strained relations existing over many
years between Sorger and White, Sorger's suggestions to other employees that
they quit their employment, and Sorger's bad record for tardiness coupled with
his tardiness on the morning of discharge accompanied as it was by a false entry
on the timesheet seems Justification for Sorger's discharge.
In respect to the General Counsel's third contention regarding the wage in-
creases, the Respondent argued that the first increase given to the employees on
November 15, 1950, was due to the fact that during that year there had been a
substantial increase in the cost of living, that Federal income taxes had just
recently been increased, that there were imminent rumors of the imposition of a
wage freeze, and that the Respondent had started to make an economic survey of
the wage conditions in the Cleveland area during the late summer of 1950 because
of a sudden turnover in employment among its employees. Respondent further
,contended that as a result of this survey and after ascertaining that other
employers had been raising wages in the area, it determined to advance the date
of its next general increase which customarily would not have not have occurred
until January 1, 1951, to November 15, 1950. Under the circumstances, namely,
the inflationary trend in the national economy, the recent raise in the income-tax
rates, and the threat of a wage freeze it is concluded and found that the Respond-
ent did not, by the granting of this increase, violate the Act.
In respect to the April 1, 1951, increase, however, the undersigned is con-
strained to find that this increase was granted in an effort to influence the
employees to vote against the Union which had filed a petition for representation
about 2 weeks earlier. No satisfactory explanation for advancing the time of
this increase rather than to wait until another increase was due on July 1, 1951,
was offered. At most, Vice-President Kingsbury testified that the employees
were hoping and expecting to receive another increase on January 1 of this year,
despite the fact that the Respondent had clearly stated that the November 15,
1950, increase was merely an advanced increase that orinarily would not have
been received until January 1, 1951. In view of the Respondent's fixed policy
to grant two general increases a year, namely, on January 1 and July 30, it
seems unlikely that it would have also advanced the time of payment of another
increase if it had not been owing to the filing of a representation petition by the
Union. When it is also considered that a few weeks later or shortly after May
1, 1951, the Respondent aided and assisted dissident antiunion employee com-
mittees to actively combat the efforts of union adherents to designate the Union
1518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as their collective-bargaining agent a fair inference arises that the April 1,
1951, increase was in fact granted to influence the employees to reject the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative and that therefore such conduct
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Regarding the last issue raised, namely, that the Respondent illegally aided
and assisted dissident antiunion employee committees to combat the efforts of
other employees in connection with the latter's efforts to designate the Union
as their collective-bargaining representatiN e, I am constrained to agree with
the General Counsel's contention that such conduct constitutes a violation of
the Act.
Employees who associate themselves as a common group to concertedly combat
the efforts of other employees seeking representation by a formally organized
labor organization are clearly participating in a labor dispute within the meaning
of Section 2 (9) of the Act thus constituting them, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. In my opinion it is immaterial that the
so-called employee committees were not formally organized for the purpose of
bargaining collectively with the employer regarding working conditions gen-
erally but merely to participate in a labor dispute concerning representation.
Such committees are nonetheless labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act.
But because the General Counsel stated on the record that he made no conten-
tion that these so-called committees were labor organizations, and the complaint
fails to allege an 8 (a) (2) violation no finding will be made that the Respondent
aided and assisted a labor organization within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2)
of the Act. Nonetheless, it is clear that by aiding and assisting these employee
committees during the height of an organization and election campaign to combat
the efforts of fellow employees to freely select a collective-bargaining representa-
tive, the Respondent has interfered with the rights of employees to freely
organize within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.
The "Employee Committees' " letter in evidence clearly seeks to effect the
defeat of the Union at the election in order that the employees may continue to
bargain individually with the Respondent. By assuming the cost of preparing
about 1,900 copies each of the "Employee Committees' " letters and thereafter
mailing copies of the said letters to each employee in the bargaining unit, the
Respondent actively participated in the preelection antiunion campaign of the
committees. Such conduct by an employer, in effect, is also tantamount to solici-
tation by an employer to his employees to favor 1 of 2 opposing factions of em-
ployees during an election campaign. There can be no doubt, and I find, that Re-
spondent's above conduct constitutes interference with the rights of employees
to freely organize.
Furthermore, since the record plainly shows that Moffitt was a supervisor at
the time he first organized the so-called Moffitt committee, and further shows
that Respondent's vice president, McClelland, and Hawley Stark, house counsel
for the Respondent,20 furnished Moffitt with the names of other antiunion em-
ployees who together with Moffitt formed the organizational nucleus of the
said committee, the undersigned further finds that the Respondent also aided
and assisted the said committee during its preorganization stages. Such con-
duct also clearly constitutes interference with the right of employees to freely
organize within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.
m It is also noted that Stark formally entered his appearance as one of the Respondent's
attorneys at the hearing.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1519
Upon the basis of all the foregoing and the entire record, I conclude and find
that (1) by granting wage increases to the employees on April 1, 1951, to influence
the said employees to vote against the Union at the pending election, (2) by
aiding and assisting dissident antiunion employees organizations to combat the
efforts of union adherents in seeking to designate the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative, and (3) by soliciting employees to support the anti-
union organizations in their efforts to defeat the union adherents at the election,
the Respondent has interfered with the rights of employees to freely organize
within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act, thereby also violating Section 8 (a)
(1) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute
unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing
commerce, and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain acts of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion. It will therefore be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom.
It has also been found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act by : (1) Granting wage increases to its employees for the purpose of
influencing them to vote against Financial Employees Guild, Local Industrial
Union 1757, CIO, at a scheduled election ; (2) assisting and supporting the so-
called Moffitt and Wolverton "Employee Committees" to combat the efforts of
other employees seeking to designate the above-named Union as collective-bar-
gaining representative for the employees in the said election; and (3) soliciting
its employees to assist and support the said "Employee Committees" in their
efforts to defeat the union adherents in the election.
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by the Respondent
are of such a character and scope that, in order to insure the employees their
full rights guaranteed them by the Act, it will be recommended that the Re-
spondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in their right to self-organization"
It will be further recommended that the allegations of the complaint that the
Respondent discharged William Sorger on September 25, 1950, in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Congress of Industrial Organizations and its affiliate Financial Employees
Guild, Local Industrial Union 1757, CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and
"See May Department Stores Company, doing buaines8 a8 Famous -Barr Company V.
N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By discharging William Sorger on September 25, 1950, the Respondent did
not violate the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist FINANCIAL EMPLOYEES GUILD, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION 1757,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases or increase vacation benefits for the
purpose of influencing employees with respect to union activity, affiliation,
assistance, or designation.
WE WILL NOT assist and support any organization of our employees engaged
in a labor dispute concerning representation with other employees.
WE WILL Nor solicit our employees to favor one employee organization
engaged in a representation dispute with other employees.
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY,
Employer.
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.
Appendix B
May 9, 1951.
Cleveland Trust
Fellow Employee :
You have been addressed as associates; there is an element that would like
to call you brother or sister.
We address you as fellow employee because we are all employees of the bank,
whether we work in the Clearance Department, on the books, behind the tellers
window, or in any one of the many other departments of the bank.
This letter is written and signed by us because we are deeply concerned
over the outcome of the election to be held May 23. We feel that you, too,
must surely want to weigh the facts very carefully, as do we, before placing
your banking futures in the hands of men whose interests are primarily slanted
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY 1521
towards union welfare , not toward employee welfare. It is our intent to present
some interesting points-not to become involved in a mud slinging campaign.
On the subject of outsiders-we certainly are not so naive as to think that
Sam Sponseller (and this is not to be construed as a personal affront to a man
who is doing his job, such as it may be) is attempting this organization out of
the goodness of his heart and to help us. Or is it possible that all this interest
is being shown because the organization of "US" would put many thousands of
dollars, annually, into somebody's coffers? This, plus any amount which the
union may at any time feel like assessing us.
The union organizers have said that the boys who left for the service of our
country have not received a fair deal, since they were not paid to the end of
the pay period in which they left. Interesting, yes, especially when we found
that each fellow who left for service received a check after he arrived in camp-
a check for two weeks pay. You have also heard that two of our pensioners
were taken off pension. We checked into that one, too. They were-but only
after they were deceased! Both sides of a story are more enlightening than a
one sided version !
The Union organizers also said from 70 to 80% (depending on how hard you
were to convince) were already signed up, and that we, as individuals, had
better hop on the bandwagon. Now, we know that these statements were untrue.
At least one extension had to be granted by the Labor Relations Board in order
for the agitating group to muster even the required 30%. We ask you how
much of our faith and our future should we place in the hands of a group that
deliberately misrepresents.
Do we want to place our future relationship with the bank in the hands of this
union ? Surely the prospects of a strike against, or the picketing of, our bank are
very unhappy and disagreeable thoughts to all of us. At the same time, any sug-
gestions as to how you and we are going to live without income during any pro-
longed disturbance have been conspicuously absent-all this , in addition to the
deduction of union dues and special assessments which may be made for political
action and strike funds whenever the union deems it necessary. As yet, the union
has not even made mention of the amount of dues which would be deducted from
our pay envelopes. But then, perhaps we are not expected to wonder or to ask-
they will take care of that later?
None of us would consider entering into a long term business association with
a stranger without knowing more than we employees know about the Financial
Employees Guild, its leaders-particularly Sam Sponseller-and its and their
history and background. If the Union should win, we employees would be enter-
ing into an association which might well last for the rest of our terms of employ-
ment with the bank. Yet we are asked to turn over to Sam Sponseller and his
organizers our future welfare at our bank and to make this decision on the basis
of some glib talk and a few promises . We are unwilling to surrender our indi-
viduality to such an organization. We have always been able to discuss our in-
dividual problems with our officer staff, and we see no reason why we should give
up this personal right-and we don't think you want to surrender it either.
Think before you leap !
You and we know that it is far better for promotions to be based on merit, as
has always been the policy of our bank, than on union seniority. We must
seriously consider what the consequences might be if we shackle ourselves with
the burden of carrying on our shoulders the inevitable weak links of any such
group as is attempting to organize us.
There is not meant to be any hidden meaning anywhere in this letter. If
anyone is slyly able to point out some to you, it will be because we got the ball
across the plate , and the truth is causing someone to smart a little.
1522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is said that truth is always the victor in the end, and surely the absurd
statements and false assertions made by the union, from time to time, have vio-
lated the very principle of truth which is of primary importance when the work-
ing futures of some 2,000 employees are at stake.
Yours With The Right and Duty To Vote,
EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE :
[21 signatures of the so-called committee members appeared at the foot of
the letter.]
Appendix C
May 10, 1951.
Mr. George Gund, President
The Cleveland Trust Company
Cleveland, Ohio
Dear Mr. Gund :
Some of us employees have been meeting from time to time to discuss the
union question and what the May 23rd election really means to us. We have
decided that we want all our fellow employees to know just how we feel about
this very vital question.
This group, which calls itself the "Employees Committee", therefore has
written and signed a letter under date of May 9, 1951, addressed to "Cleveland
Trust Fellow Employees." The Committee desires to have copies of this letter
made and circularized among the employees of the Bank.
Neither this Committee nor the signers of this letter have the funds necessary
to have such copies made and mailed to the employees. Neither this Committee
nor the signers of this letter want to have any part in a so-called Company Union
or to be representatives of all or any part of the employees of the Bank for col-
lective bargaining, or for any other purpose.
We, therefore, ask that the Bank, at no expense to us, cause copies of this
letter to be made and mailed to the employees of the Bank. This letter is
being written at the direction of the Employees Committee and the members
thereof have full knowledge of the contents hereof.
Very truly yours,
EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE
By: /s/ Wayne D. Moffitt.
Appendix D
LET'S KEEP THE RECORD STRAIGHT-AT LEAST SO FAR AS THE REAL
ESTATE LOAN DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED
Whereas, we, of the Real Estate Loan Department of the Cleveland Trust
Company, are aware that an election is soon to take place to decide whether or
not we are to be known as a union shop affiliated with the CIO, and because
of which we make the following declaration of principles.
1. We recognize the fact that wherever or whenever one man works for
another that it is only human for him to feel, at times, that he is underpaid or
imposed upon. We prefer relying on the integrity of the existing management
and officer personnel to maintain equitable relationship, rather than to so-called
union leaders either inside or outside the bank's employ.
2. We believe in maintaining our independent status as bank employees and
we deplore the regimentation and inflexibility of rules that always accompany
membership in a union.
3. We believe that bank employees require varied and special talents and
because they do they cannot sensibly be classed, or graded or rated. Conse-
TULE RIVER COOPERATIVE GIN, INC. 1523
quently the only ones who could benefit from unionization would be the least
deserving and, conversely, the competent, industrious or otherwise superior
worker would be deprived of his well-earned reward.
4. We deplore the continuous clashing between labor and management in those
places where unions exist ; the constant friction, the lack of cooperation, the
definite cleavage between management and the worker aggravated by the con-
tinual agitation of the union leaders. We prefer to continue in the same spirit
of mutual benefit between officers and employees that has prevailed here for
so many years.
5. We are members of an institution serving the public which means that our
relationship to that institution and to the public must be flexible and free from
the restraint of rules and controls imposed by outside influence. We believe that
any influence tending to sever or disrupt this relationship is detrimental to us
as employees, to our institution and to the public as well.
6. We believe that all employees should take an active part in this determina-
tion of the question of relationship of employees with management. It is a well
known fact that the efforts of a vocal and active few often prevails over the
better judgment of the restrained majority. Let's not say to ourselves "It can't
happen here." It is our right to go on record as opposing this minority group
and we hereby do so. We invite employees of all other departments and
branches who feel as we do to likewise register their opposition to this move-
ment. In order to accomplish this we are requesting that this letter be circulated
among the other employees.
[41 signatures of the employees of the Real Estate loan department are sub-
scribed thereon.]
TULE RIVER COOPERATIVE GIN, INC. and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 197 , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 20-RC-
2042. February 19, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed. under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was duly held before Albert Schneider,' hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a corporation, organized under the State of
California cooperative law, with its principal office at Woodville,
California. It is engaged in the ginning of cotton exclusively for
its approximately 300 grower members. It operates 4 ginning plants
in California : 2 in Woodville, a third in the area between Tipton and
Pixley, and the fourth near Tulare.
During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952, the Employer ginned
approximately 28,000 bales of cotton valued at about $5,000,000, for
102 NLRB No. 158.