The Norwood Sash & Door Mfg Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 678 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of THE NORWOOD SASH & DOOR MFG Co , AND SEARS,
ROEBUCK & Co and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
453, C I. O.
Case No C-2060--Decided July 2. , 194:2
Jurisdiction : mill work manufactuting industry
Unfair Labor Practices.
In General activities of an employee in behalf of "inside" orgamzation held
not attributable to employer where he was neither a supervisory employee nor
identified with management
Interference, Restraint, and Coeiawwn charges of, dismissed where there was
no substantial evidence in record to sustain the allegation
Company-Dominated Union charges of, dismissed where evidence was conflict-
ing and insufficient as to activities of supers isory employees and where em-
ployee who acted in behalf of "inside" organization was found to be neither a
supervisory employee nor identified with management
Collective Bargaining charges of, dismissed where among other consideiations
thei,e was no showing of anti-union animus and delays were not unreasonable
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed
Mr Drexel A Sprecher, for the Board -
Paxton d Seasongood, by Mr Lester A Jaffee, Mr. Joseph A Segal,
and Mr Simon Lazarus , Jr, of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the respondents.
Mr Wilbur Sudbrack , of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the United
Mr William Thorndyke , by Mr Ralph Becker, of Cincinnati, Ohio,
for the Carpenters '
1112' J Benson Saks, of counsel to the Board
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charges 1 duly filed by United Fur-
niture Workers of America, Local 453, C I. 0, herein called the
United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio),
issued its complaint dated September 19, 1941, against The Norwood
Sash & Door Mfg. Co, Norwood, Ohio, herein called Norwood, and
1 The original charge was filed on August 18 and a first amended charge on August
21, 1941
42NLRB,No138
&78
THE NORWOOD SASH",& DOOR MFG . CO. 679
Sears, Roebuck & Co, Chicago, Illinois, herein called Sears,2 alleging
that they had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and
(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint, accom-
panied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondents
and the United, and upon an officer of Norsado Employees' Associa-
tion , Inc., herein called the Association, a labor organization alleged
in the complaint to have been dominated and supported 'by the
respondents
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance- (1) that, by virtue of
its complete stock ownership of Norwood, Sears completely dominates
and controls the personnel and labor relations policy and practices
of Norwood; (2) that the respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the employees atNorwood's plant in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act at all times after June 1, 1937,
by encouraging membership in the Association and in United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A F of L, herein called
the Brotherhood, and discouraging membership in the United and in
United Automobile Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the
U A W., by making disparaging and derogatory remarks about the
United and other labor organizations, by stating that concerted activ-
ity and membership of employees in the United would result in loss
of employment, reduction in earnings, and other discriminatory
treatment; and by stating that activity against the United and for
the Association would result in wage increases and other preferential
treatment; (3) that at all times since about July 9, 1941, the respond-
ents have refused to bargain collectively with the United as the
exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit at
Norwood's plant; and (4) that the respondents, beginning about
July 10, 1941, initiated, formed, and sponsored the Association, and
at all times since have dominated and interfered with the Association,
contributed support to it, and interfered with the administration
thereof. On October 14, 1941, the respondents filed separate answers
in which they denied that Sears controls the labor relations policy of
Norwood and that they had committed any unfair labor practices:
Pursuant to notice, and after a continuance granted by the Regional
Director, a hearing was held from October 13 to November `4, 1941,
inclusive, at Cincinnati, Ohio, before William B. Barton;=the= Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the
beginning of the hearing, Carpenters' Union, No. 2973 of Norwood,
Norwood and Sears are herein at times collectively called the respondents
472814-42-vol 42-45
680' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ohio, Millmen, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, A F of L , herein called the Carpenters, filed a motion for
leave to intervene The motion was granted The Board, the re-
spondents, and the Carpenters were represented by counsel, and the
United by its international representative, and all participated in the
hearing - Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was af-
forded all parties A motion for a further postponement of the hear-
ing, denied without prejudice by the Regional Director piior to the
hearing, was filed by the Carpenters at the opening of the,hearing
The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner 3 At the beginning
of the hearing, Norwood moved for a bill of particulars of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint or, in the alternative, that
the complaint be made more definite and ceitain The motion for a
bill of particulars was granted by the Trial Examiner with iespect
to the allegations in paragraph VIII of the complaint, but was denied
in other respects 4 Also at the beginning of the heating, Sears moved
to dismiss the complaint as, to it The Trial Examiner at that time
reserved ruling on the motion, which was renewed at the close of the
hearing and was then denied At the close of the Board's case and
again at the close of the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss
the entire complaint The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this
motion at the hearing, and subsequently denied it in his Intermediate
Report Also at the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved
that the pleadings be amended to conform to the proof with respect
to such matters as spelling of names and dates ' There was no objec-
tion and the motion was granted Various rulings were made by the
Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing of other motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence The Board has re-
viewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi-
cial errors were committed The rulings, except those inconsistent
with our findings and order below, are hereby affirmed The parties
were granted permission to file briefs with the Trial Examiner, but
none of them did so After the hearing, the parties, pursuant to leave
granted during the hearing, argued the case orally before the Trial
Examiner
3 The continuance granted by the Regional Director prior to the hearing, as mentioned
above, was at the request of the Carpenters
* Counsel for the Board accordingly served on the respondents a bill of particulars of
the various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion alleged in paragraph VIII In
denying the motion in other respects, the Trial Examiner stated that if during the hearing
the respondents were "actually unfairly surprised by any evidence," such surprise could
"be taken care of by postponing cross-examination, or by giving the respondents addi-
tional time in which to prepare" No claim of surprise or request for adjournment was
thereafter made by the respondents -
THE WORWOOD ' SASH &_, DOOR MFG CO 681
Thereafter , the Trial Examiner issued his Inteimediate Report dated
January 19, 1942, copies of which weie duly served on the respondents,
the,Uriited, the Association, and the Caipeiiteis He found that Sears
is an employer of Not wood's employees within the meaning of the Act
and that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce , within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and ( 5)' and
`Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and iecommended that the re-
spondents cease and desist theiefrom and take appropriate affirmative
action.
On March 14, 1942, the iespondents filed with the Boaid their
exceptions to the Intermediate Repoit, and a brief in support of the
exceptions On the same day the Caipenteis filed a biief with the
Boaid Puisuant to notice duly served on the paities, a hearing was
held before the Boaid iii Washington , D C , on Maich 24, 1942 , foi the
purpose of oral aigument The iespondents and the Carpentei s were
iepiesented by counsel and paiticipated in the hearing; the United
did not appear ' `
The Board has considered the exceptions and the briefs submitted
by the respondents and the Carpenters , and hereby sustains the excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner 's findings and conclusions that the re-
spondents have engaged in unfair labor practices , within the meaning
of the Act '
Upon the entire recoi d in the case, the Boai d makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Norwood Sash,& Doot Mfg,,Co is an Ohio coipoiation with its
principal plant and place of business at Noi wood , Ohio It is engaged
in the manufacture and distiibution of storm sash , windows, and
custom-made mill work - Appioximately 95 pei cent of the i aw ma-
terials used in the operation of its plant, tisluch include lumber , liaid-
tware, paint, and glass, and which total mote than $1,000,000 annually,
are purchased by Norwood outside the State of Ohio and aie trans-
ported to its plant in Ohio Approximately 85 peicent of the finished
products made by Norwood aie sold and tianspoited outside the State
of Ohio Its sales total more than $2,000,000 annually
Seais, Roebuck & Co is a New Yoik corpoiation with its prnicipal
office in Chicago, Illinois It owns and operates a nation-wide sys-
tem of merchandising and distributing goods by means of-mail-order
houses and chain stores, the total business of which amounts to approx-
imately $600 ,000,000 annually Sears owns all the stock of The Nor-
wood Sash Dooi Mfg Co , and owns and Conti ols numei ous other
agencies of production and distiibution thioughout the United States
682 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 453, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the respondent, Norwood
Carpenters Union, No. 2973 of Norwood, Ohio, Millmen, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the respondent Norwood
Norsado Employees' Association, Inc, was an unaffiliated labor
organization 5 admitting to membership employees of the respondent,
Norwood.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
`A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Trial Examiner found that Foreman Krebsfanger in a con-
versation with employee Robert Burnett on August 6, 1941, referred
to union member Paul Davidson in uncomplimentary terms, and that
Herbert McDermid, Norwood's supervisor of maintenance, in August
1941 told a number of employees that Norwood was engaged in defense
production and that they would therefore be drafted for military
service if they went on strike. The Trial Examiner concluded that
Norwood thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
Krebsfanger's statement, however, was ambiguous both on its face
and in its context The record, moreover, contains substantial evi-
dence tending to show that Norwood had no anti-union animus and
had not opposed union organization by the employees at its plant. On
the contrary, the record shows that Norwood took affirmative action
to prevent interference by supervisors with the union activities of
employees, had informed employees of its "intention to conform fully
with the provisions of the Wagner Act," had posted excerpts from
the Act, and had advised employees of their right under the Act to
organize and to engage in concerted activities.
We are of the opinion, and we find, that there is no substantial
evidence in the record that Norwood has interfered with, restrained,
or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act .6
" This labor organizaton was dissolved on August 21, 1941
G In connection with McDermid's "work or fight" statement , the respondents have
moved, since the hearing, for leave to adduce as additional evidence a photostatic copy of
an article In the Cincinnati Enquirer of June 10, 1941, reporting a statement made by
General Hershey, Director of Selective Service, which the respondents claim justified the
remarks made by McDermid In view of our finding , above, it is unnecessary for us to
rule on this motion.
THE NORWOOD SASH & DOOR MFG. CO. 683
B Interference with, domination, and support of the Association
The complaint alleged, and.the Trial Examiner found, that Nor-
wood dominated and interfered with the formation and administra-
tion of the Association and contributed support to it. In so finding,
the Trial Examiner placed substantial reliance on the activities in
behalf of the Association of employee Donley, for whose activities
Norwood is held responsible because "Donley at times exercises super-
visory authority" and because "a substantial number of employees at
the Norwood plant identify Donley with the management."
Donley, a millwright, is the highest paid employee and, in terms
of service, the oldest employee in Norwood's millwright department.
The supervisor or foreman of that department is McDermid. It is
undisputed that Donley has no power to hire, discharge, or discipline
employees or to recommend any such action, and that he has never
in fact exercised such power. He is hourly paid, receives compen-
sation for overtime work , punches a clock , wears the same general
work clothes as 'other employees, and makes out daily job tickets
which are signed by his foreman, McDermid Donley does not par-
ticipate in Sears' stock purchase plans, does not receive an annual
bonus, does not attend labor relations classes conducted by Norwood
for its supervisory personnel, and has never been instructed by Nor-
wood as to what attitude to take in union matters. In all these
respects, Donley occupies the same position as non-supervisory em-
ployees generally.
In addition , Klein, a fellow millwright , testified that he has worked
almost daily with Donley, has never considered Donley "a boss," has
never heard him referred to as a'foreman , assistant foreman, or super-
visory employee, and has himself at times told Donley how to do
carpentering maintenance work , which is Klein's specialty. Klein
testified further that, if a job requires several millwrights, McDermid
generally gives instructions to one of the millwrights, who in turn
explains the work to the others McDermid has thus given instruc-
tions to various millwrights from time to time, including Klein and
Donley, for transmission to the others The record also shows that it
is common practice in the Norwood plant for an older employee to
show inexperienced employees how to do certain work Donley, as
the most experienced millwright, has at times done this, but other
millwrights have also done it
These facts do not, in our opinion, warrant a finding that Donley
is a supervisory employee or may reasonably be identified with
management. He exercises no more authority than is usual for a
skilled millwright or than his fellow millwrights seem to exercise.
His claims to other employees that he was speaking for someone higliei
,684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in authority are, a suspicious circumstance, but aie not of themselves
enough to establish that he was in fact stating Not wood's position or
acting on its behalf We find that his activities in aiding-the Asso-
ciation do not constitute unfair laboi practices on the part of
Norwood I
In finding domination and support of the Association, the Tilal Ex-
aminer also relied on other evidence, including evidence of \certaln
conduct and statements of Foremen Vonada, Konermann, and Kiebs-
fangei The testimony as to these matters is conflicting, in any
event, it is not in our opinion sufficient of itself to sustain the Tilal-
Examinei„s findings We find that the, record does not contain
substantial evidence that Norwood dominated or interfered with
the formation or administration of the Association or contiibuted
to its support
C The refusal to barge-in collectively
On July 10, 1941, Halmi, president of Noiwood, ieceived a letter
fiom Wilbur Sudbrack, inteinational representative of the United,
stating that the United iepiesented a majoiity of Noiwood's em-
,ployees and asking that a conference be airanged foi the puipose of'
discussing a collective bargaining contract,, Immediately upon
receipt of the letter, Halmi telephoned Shefferman, Sears' labor rela-
tions director in Chicago, to whom 'Halms looked for guidance in
matters of labor relations Shefferman was out of town, and Halms
spoke 4o Hooke, another employee in Sears' personnel department,
who advised Halmi to send the lettei to him to-take up with Sheffer-
man Halmi then forwarded the letter to Chicago
On July 11, 1941, Davis and Tarter, employees at the Norwood plarit,
spoke to Bauer, president of the United, about forming a shop commit-
tee to be composed partly of members of the United and partly of non-
members Bauer agreed to the formation of this committee The
next morning, Bauei and Davis spoke to John H Townsend, Noi wood's
personnel director, about holding a meeting with Halmi 7 Townsend
arranged with Halmi for the requested meeting, which took place in
Halmi's office later that morning Davis, Bauer, and five other em-
ployees, two of whom were members and three non-members of the
United, served on the committee At this meeting on July 12, 1941,
Bauer told Halmi that the group was a grievance committee Both
Bauer and Davis indicated to Halms that the employees were dis-
satisfied with their wages, and suggested the possibility of having some
arrangement w ith the management for handling grievances Halmi
stated to the group that he would have nothing to do with the forming
4 Bauer told Townsend on this occasion that lie was president of the United
THE NORWOOD SASH & DOOR MFG CO- 685
of a committee, but that, if a committee was formed, he would be
glad to meet with it the following Monday, and that any such commit-
tee should be representative of all the employees s Regarding wages,
Halmi expressed the opinion that the difficulty could be adjusted,
telling the group that Norwood had been working on a plan for a
general increase in wages but had discontinued for fear of "the Wagner
Act" upon hearing that the United was organizing the employees in
the plant Halmi informed Bauer during the meeting that he would
answer Sudbrack's letter of July 9 as soon as he heard from Chicago,
where he had forwarded it 9 Before the' meeting ended, Bauer ex-
plained that whether there was to be a committee, would depend on.the
action taken at a' meeting of United members that afternoon, which
he promised to report to Halmi Accordingly, on Monday, July 14.,
Bauer reported'to Halmi that the United had held a meeting at which
it had been decided that there would be no committee to meet with
Halmi unless it was a committee of the United
About 4 30 p m on July 16, 1941, Sudbiack, having received no
reply to his letter of July 9 to Halmi, telephoned Halmi The latter
was not in his office, and Sudbrack, upon being requested to leave
his telephone number, said that he would telephone Halmi the next
morning Halm remained in his office that morning, July 17, but
Sudbi tick ,failed to telephone until that after noon, by which time Halmi
had left his office Sudbi ack left no telephone number at Ai hich Halm 1,
could call him, despite the fact that he was asked to do so each time,
telling Halmi's office girl that he was "in and out a, good deal " Halmi
-anticipated that Sudbrack would telephone again and accordingly re-
mained in his office, contrary to his usual custom, on July 18, 19, 21,
and 23 However, Sudbrack did not call again
On July 21, 1941, Halmi again attempted to reach Sheffeiman in
Chicago by telephone However, Sheffeiman was out, and Halmi
spoke to Hooke, who told Halmi that Shef£erman was expected back in
a few'days and that, immediately upon his return, Hooke would advise
Halmi
The next day. July 22, 1941, a committee of the United called at
Townsend's office and asked to see Halmi 10 Halmi was aw ay from
the plant at the time but, upon being advised of the request when he
returned to his office, instructed Townsend to tell the men that he had
to leave again, but that he expected advice within a few days regarding
the letter of July 9 and that he would then meet with the committee.
Townsend conveyed this information to the committee
8lIalmi also said that the committee would have to be constituted according to law.
' Bauei subsequently conveyed this mfoimation to Sudbrack
'art appears to have been a common practice in the Norwood plant foi emplolees to,
make airangements through Townsend when they wanted to meet with Halmi
;686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 23 , 1941 , the United filed with the Board 's Regional Office
for the Ninth Region a petition for investigation and certification
of representatives The next day, Halmi, Sudbrack , and Regional
Director Phillips of the Ninth Region met at Phillips ' request. Halmi
stated at this meeting that he was confused by the situation Phillips
suggested to him a determination of the problem arising from the
petition by an election , 11 a counting of cards, or a consent election,
stating that most employers agreed to consent elections Phillips
advised Halmi that, since a petition had been filed by the United,
Norwood "had better be very careful about negotiating with anybody,
with any group at all, until this was cleaned up" Phillips also sug-
gested to Halmi at this meeting that he obtain advice about the situa-
tion from Shefferman Halmi on this occasion informed Phillips and
Sudbrack that Noiwood was a member of an employers ' association
known as the Lumber and Millwork Association , Incorporated, that
this association was party to a contract with the Brotherhood recog-
nizing the Brotherhood as collective bargaining representative for its
members only in the plants of the members of the Lumber Associa-
tion, and that negotiations for renewal of this contract were pending
Immediately after the conference , Halmi telephoned Chicago for
the third time, and again spoke to Hooke, in the absence of Shefferman
Upon being apprised of the fact that the United had filed a petition
for investigation and certification of representatives , Hooke told
Halmi that there was no longer any need to answer the United's
letter of July 9, and that Halmi should forward a copy of the petition
to Sears, after which they would advise bun further.
On the same day, July 24, 1941 , Halmi left Cincinnati for a confer-
ence with government officials in Washington on war housing He
did not return until July 30, when he found a copy of the United's
petition in his office , and immediately mailed it to Hooke
On July 31, 1941 , Halini managed to reach Shefferman in Chicago
by telephone and was told that Shefferman would be there only 1 day.
Halini went to Chicago at once by airplane , and was advised by Shef-
ferman that , since Norwood "had dealt previously on an industry-
wide basis for several years" and since the United's letter of July 9
apparently contemplated a plant unit , an issue had arisen for the
Boaid to resolve Halmi returned to Cincinnati on August 5, 1941.
On August 6 , 1941, Bauer and two other members of the United's
bargaining committee informed Townsend at about 1 30 p. in. that,
unless Halmi met with the committee , there would be a work stoppage.
About 1 hour later, Townsend came to Bauer's department and told
Bauer to assemble the committee members, as Halmi would meet them
"Apparently Phillips referred at this point to an election directed by the Board after
a hearing
THE NORWOOD SASH & DOOR MFO. CO. 687
At the meeting which followed, attended 'by Halmi and Young on
behalf of, Norwood and by Sudbrack and the members of the-bargain-
ing committee on behalf of the United, the main topic of discussion
was the possibility of a consent election. Sudbrack urged Halmi to
agree to a consent election, and accused Norwood of "stalling." Halmi
explained that he had been trying to communicate with "the labor
relations man,5) " and said that he would let the Board know the next
day at the latest what the position of Norwood would be concerning,
the proposed consent election He also pointed out that Regional
Director Phillips had told him not to negotiate with any labor organ-
ization, while the United's petition was on file.
Later the same day, a committee of the Association asked Townsend
for a meeting with Halmi The request was granted, and Halms
met with Davis and the other committee members the next day,
August 7, 1941. The Association's committee apparently did not
know that the United had on July 23, 1941; filed with the Board a
petition for investigation and certification of representatives. In any
event, Davis, who acted as spokesman for the committee, informed
Halmi and Young of the incorporation of the Association and stated
that the committee wanted ' to talk about wage increases. Halms
replied that, since the United had filed a petition with the Board, he
could not carry on any negotiations until certification of a bargaining
agent, and that he had already thus informed the United Davis
then inquired as to whether the Association could be placed on the
ballot in the ensuing election, and Halmi answered, "Why, you fel-
lows,will have to find that out for yourselves; I cannot give you any
advice or tell you what to do."
On August 7, 1941, also, Halihi telephoned Shefferman in Chicago
and, upon being told that the latter was in Philadelphia, telephoned
him there. Halmi told Shefferman of the August 6 meeting with
the United and of the latter's insistence upon a consent election, and
asked Shefferman what the nature of such an election was Sheffer-
man explained the situation to Halmi, and advised him that Sears
and its subsidiaries have a number of agreements with both C I O.
and A F. of L unions at various plants, that it is therefore Sears',
policy not to consent to an election where there is any dispute as to
the appropriate unit or any doubt as to a union's majority status, and
consequently that the only proper thing to do was to proceed to a
hearing on the United's petition for investigation and certification -of
representatives. Halms thereupon notified Regional Director Phillips
that Norwood would not agree to a consent election, but wanted the
Board to hold a hearing and determine the appropriate unit. There-
t
12 Haimi apparently had reference to Shefferman of Sears, Roebuck & Co
M8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOkRD
after, on August 14; 1941, the United called a strike in the Norwood
plant and placed' a picket line around the plant The strike lasted
until September 22, 1941, and the plant did not operate during the
strike
Meanwhile, the hearing on the United's petition had been set for
August 18, 1941 Two days before the healing date, representatives
of the United, Norwood, and the Association met and discussed the
question of the apps opi rate unit, and agreed oil a unit substantially
similar to the unit alleged to be appropriate in the complaint herein,
as amended Norwood indicated at this meeting a willingness to hold
a consent election among the employees in the agreed unit, with the
names of the Association and the United on the ballot The United
promised to give an answer on August 18, 1941, the date 'set for the
hearing on its petition It is not clear whether on that date any
i epresentative of the United made any specific statement either to the
respondents or to the Association regarding the proposed consent
election, but on August 18 the United asked leave to withdraw its
petition 13 and filed a charge with the Board alleging that Norwood
had violated Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act On August 21, 1941,
the United filed the first amended charge mentioned above,'' pursuant
to which the complaint in the present proceeding was issued
On the same day on which the United filed its fiist amended charge
the Association voted to dissolve, and shortlyafteiwaids, on August 25,
1941, a charter was issued to the Carpenters, which had obtained some
members among Norwood's employees
On August 27, 1941, Sudbiack conferred with Oscar Grossman and
Hooke, representing Sears, and William Fitts, representing the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor Hooke suggested, and there was some dis-
cussion of, the possibility of a consent election with the names of both
the United and the Carpenters on the ballot The United, however,
refused to agree
The next day', August 28, 1941, Sudbrack, a committee from the
United, and Don Pond, editor of a paper published by District 50 of
the United Mine Workers of America, conferred with Hooke Hooke
again proposed a consent election as suggested the day before, but
the United would not agree Hooke then suggested a "yes and no
election" with only the name of the United on the ballot Sudbrack
agreed to advise Hooke the next morning as to the acceptability of
such an election The United representatives also contended at this
conference that settlement of the strike was the important issue, and
they proposed two alternatives as possible ii ays to settle it (1) rec-
13 On August 22, 1941, the Board issued an order permitting withdrawal of the United's
petition
14 The first amended charge alleged violations of Section 8 (1), (2), and (5) of the At
THE \ORWOOD SASH 'R, DOOR MFG CO 689
ognition of the United as iepiesentative of the employees in the plant,
'nth later negotiation of a contract . a wage Incl . ease, and withdrawal
of the charges, or (2) recognition of the United for its members only,
a wage mciease foi members only, and disposition of the charges in,
normal couise by the Boaicl
On the morning of August 29, Sudbi ack was told by Hooke that
"the company" wouldhagiee to a consent election Later in the day,
Sudbiack advised Hooke that the United would not agi ee to an elec-
tion in which the name of the Carpenteis appeared on the ballot
On September 4, 1941, Halmi and Young met in Halmi's office with
Sudbrack , Pond, a committee of the United , and Tom Boylan, a
representative of the National Maritime Union They discussed the
two alternatives for settlement of the stiike which Sudbrack had
submitted to Hooke on August 28, 1941 Halmi said that he did not
know why the United went on strike He indicated that the first
proposition , which would grant the United exclusive recognition, was
unacceptable without proof "in a legal way" that the United had a
majority He opposed the second proposition , which would grant
the United recognition and a wage increase only for its members,
because it would cause uniest in the plant, but indicated that he would
consider this proposition Halmi also offered to "ti y to think up some
kind of a counterpi oposal " The group agi eed to meet again the next
day
The agreed meeting of September 5, 1941, was held in the'office of
Regional Director Phillips. The group was the same as that which
had met the day before , except that Phillips was present and that
Ralph Marcus , a representative of the United Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers of America , was there in place of Boylan Marcus
urged Hahni to accept one of the proposed alteinatives for settlement
of the strike Halmi refused to do so, and indicated that he would
prefer to proceed with hearings befoie the Boaid 75 He did not submit
any counterproposal, but agieed to meet with Phillips the following
day Accordingly, lie met with Phillips the next morning, and they
were joined by Sudbrack , Pond, and -two other representatives of the
United Again there was discussion of the two alternative strike-
settlement proposals Sudbrack asked why there could not be an
agieement for the United 's members only , since the respondents had
previously been a paity to such an agreement with an A F. of L.
labor organization Hahm said that that agreement was made under
different circumstances Halnii inquired of Phillips how the charges
could be-settled, and Phillips suggested a consent couit decree Halmi
is It appears that Halmi had reference to a healing preliminary to an election directed
by the Board
472814-42-vol 42-44
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9
indicated that he would consult with his attorneys about the matter.16
On September 18, 1941 , Norwood promised that , if the strike were
called off by noon the next day, employees could return to work on
September 22, 1941 , without discrimination The United terminated
the strike , and the employees returned to work on September 22 as
agreed. I
On findings substantially similar to those made by us above, the
Trial Examiner has concluded that on July 10, 1941, and at all times
thereafter, Norwood refused to bargain collectively with the United
as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate
unit We are not persuaded that his conclusion is supported by the
findings Even if we are to assume that the United on and after
July 10, 1941 , represented a majority of the employees in an appro-
priate unit, it does not clearly appear that Norwood's failure to extend
recognition to the United or its delay in entering into negotiations
with the United was unreasonable Halmi's attempts to reach and
confer with Shefferman took a substantial amount of time, but we
believe that he sought and obtained advice in good faith and not for
the purpose of causing delay The entire course of events in question
covered only approximately 2 months, during which no specific delay
or postponement was caused by Norwood on merely arbitrary grounds
It-is perhaps true that no substantial issue was raised by Norwood
either as to the appropriateness of the unit requested of as to the
claimed majority status of the United, but it does appear from the
record that both those questions were discussed by the parties to some
extent From July 23 until the United withdrew its petition on
August 18, 1941, Halmi was presumably relying on the Regional
Director 's admonition that, because of the filing of the petition, Nor-
wood was not to bargain with any labor organization During the
latter part of the 2-month period, the discussions among the parties
were substantially devoted to settlement of the strike and to the
possibility of a consent election , and the record shows that with respect
to these problems Norwood dealt with the United Norwood's in-
sistence that the name of the Association be placed on the ballot in
any consent election may not be considered as reflecting on its good
faith, in view of our finding in Section III, B , above, that Norwood
did not dominate or support the Association Nor is there any charge
or contention that the Carpenters is not a bona fide labor organization.
On all the facts, and in the absence of any substantial showing of
anti-union animus on the part of Norwood, we find that the record
does not sustain the allegation that Norwood refused to bargain
collectively with the United , within the meaning of the At
ie There was also discussion at this meeting of alleged activity by Norwood' s foremen
in opposition'to the United Halmi denied knowledge of such activity, and stated that
he had had the foremen warned again and again not to engage in it
THE NORWOOD SASH & DOOR MFG CO. 691
Since we have found that Norwood did not engage in any of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, we deem it unnecessary
to decide whether Sears is an employer of Norwood's employees, within
the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and we shall dismiss the
-complaint in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
i ecord in the case, the Board makes the following
CONCLusioNs OF LAW
(1) The operations of the iespondeiits, The Norwood Sash & Door'
iVlfg. Co. and Sears, Roebuck & Company, constitute a continuous
flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. -
(2) United Furniture Woikeis of Ameiica, Local 453, affiliated
with the Congress of'Industrial Organizations, and Carpenter's Union
No 2973 of Norwood, Ohio, Millmen, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, are labor organizations, and Norsado Employees'
Association, Inc , was a laboi organization, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
(3) The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (5) of the Act
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National-Labor Relations
Boai d hereby orders that the complaint against the respondents, The
Norwood Sash & Door Mfg. 'Co., Norwood, Ohio, and Sears, Roebuck
& Company, Chicago, Illinois, be, and it hereby is, dismissed