United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 533 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

UNITED HATTERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS, ETC. 533
I will also recommend that, in the event the Respondent resumes operations, it
offer to each of the above-named employees immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and that it post in its plant copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A."
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices, there exists the danger of the
commission of other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. I will accordingly
recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
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. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 175, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Denver
Stevens, Jr., Joseph W. Lane, Clyde R. Ellison, and Kenmth Lee Holstein, thereby
discouraging membership in the above-named labor organization, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the foregoing conduct, by interrogating employees as to whether they had
signed union papers or cards, by telling an employee that Respondent was not
going to have a union and would buy a lock and lock the doors before it would
have a union, by asking employees if they wished to sign a paper before a notary
to withdraw from the Union, by telling employees that they would have to sign a
paper to withdraw from the Union if they wished to continue to work for Respond-
ent, by dictating to an employee a statement requesting that his name be withdrawn
from the union list and transporting said employee to a notary public to have his
signature to such a statement notarized and thereafter mailing the signed statement
to the Union, and by offering to reemploy one of the discriminatees if he would
sign a paper withdrawing from the Union, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a),(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affectingcommerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO and Korber Hats, Inc. Case No. 1-CB-530. May 2,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 28, 1959, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the
Act and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent had restrained
127 NLRB No. 75.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and coerced the employees of Korber Hats, Inc., in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, by picketing the Company's premises and
by engaging in a boycott campaign among the Company's suppliers
and customers in order to secure recognition as the collective-bargain-
ing agent at a time when the Respondent was not the majority repre-
sentative of the Company's employees. This conclusion was based
on the Board's decisions in the Curtis Brothers' and Alloy Manu-
facturing 2 cases. However, the Supreme Court of the United States,
on March 28, 1960, in !1V.L.R.B. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers
Local Union No. 639, etc. (Curtis Brothers, Inc.),3 held that peaceful
picketing by a minority union to compel immediate recognition as
the exclusive representative of employees does not constitute restraint
and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act,
and on April 4, 1960, denied the Board's petition for a writ of certi-
orari in the Alloy Manufacturing case.4
Accordingly, in conformance with the above decisions of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, which are dispositive of the issues
herein, we shall dismiss the complaint in the instant case.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
IDrivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Local 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Curtis Brothers, Inc ),
119 'NLRB 232, enforcement denied 274 F. 2d 551 (C.A., D C.), cert granted 359 U.S. 965.
2 International Association of Machinists, Lodge 942, AFL-CIO (Alloy Manufacturing
Company et at ), 119 NLRB 307, enfd in part and set aside in pertinent part 263 F. 2d
796 (C A 9), petition for cert, filed April 24, 1959
3 362 U S. 274
4International Association of Machinists, Lodge 942, AFL-CIO v. N.L R B , 362 U.S.
940. See footnote 2, supra. In this case the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit disagreed with the Board's conclusion that a consumer boycott campaign
under circumstances similar to those in the instant case constituted restraint and coercion
of the employees and hence violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. The Supreme Court's
denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not usually deemed conclusive as a decision
on the merits. Cf N L R.B v Vulcan Furniture Mfg. Corp., 214 F. 2d 369, 371 (C.A. 5),
cert. denied 348 U.S 873 However, that is not the case here, in view of the simultane-
ously issued decision in N.L R B. v. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, et at (O'Sullivan Rubber Corporation), 362 U.S. 329, reversing
269 F. 2d 694, which enfd. 121 NLRB 1439. Here the Board held, and the Fourth Circuit
agreed, that, in accordance with the Board's decision in the Curtis Brothers and Alloy
Manufacturing cases, a labor union violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act when it en-
gaged in picketing and conducted a consumer boycott campaign to force the employer to
recognize it as the representative of the employees at a time when it did not represent a
majority of those employees.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding against United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union, involves Section
8(b) (1) (A) allegations and was initiated by Korber Hats, Inc., herein called the
Charging Party or the Company.
Upon the entire record of the case, and from his observations of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
UNITED HATTERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS, ETC. 535
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, Korber Hats, Inc., maintains its principal office and place of busi-
ness at Fall River, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of straw hats. The Company annually ships more than $50,000 worth of its products
directly to points outside the State of Massachusetts. It is found that the Company
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union, United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The issues presented are whether the Respondent, since about November 21, 1958,
has restrained and coerced employees of the Charging Party by (1) picketing its
plant in order to cause, force, or require the Charging Party to recognize the Respond-
ent as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees,
although these employees voted in a Board-conducted election that they no longer
desired to be represented by the Respondent, and (2) appealing to certain customers
and suppliers in various parts of the United States to cease doing business with the
Charging Party.
B. The events
On March 25, 1957, the Company executed an agreement with the Union recog-
nizing the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for its production and mainte-
nance employees. The agreement was to remain in effect until October 1, 1958,
and provided for automatic annual renewal thereafter, subject to a 60-day reopening
clause. The Union gave notice under the reopening clause and sought to bargain
with the Company, making certain economic demands On October 8, 1958, the
Company declined to negotiate with the Union in view of a then pending decertifica-
tion petition in Case No. 1-RD-274.
On October 14, the Union called a strike and began picketing the Company's
premises. At the time the legend which appeared on the picket signs was as follows:
"United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, Local 121, seeks
wage increases and better working conditions for its members who work in Korber
Hat Company."
In February or March 1958, prior to the strike and while a petition for the with-
drawal of union-shop authority was pending in Case No. 1-UD-13, certain union
officials had addressed a union meeting of the Company's employees. On this occa-
sion Nicholas Gyory, an International representative, addressed the group and urged
them to withdraw the petition, explaining that if this were not done they would all
be out of a job, as the Union had the money to break the Company and put it out of
business no matter where the Company went.' The election in the UD proceeding
was conducted in May, 35 employees voting against and 12 in favor of the union shop.
On November 6, a decertification election was held pursuant to the Board's Deci-
sion and Direction of Election in Case No. 1-RD-274 (unpublished). The tally
of ballots issued on November 21 showed that of approximately 42 eligible voters, 34
cast ballots against the Union, no vote was cast for the Union, 1 was challenged, and
1 ballot was void. On January 19, 1959, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Results of Election overruling the Union's objections to the
holding of the election on the Company's premises behind the picket line which the
Union had contended was unfair to the seven or eight strikers who refused to cross
the picket line in order to vote.
A few days after the tally of ballots was issued on November 21, the picket sign
was changed to read as follows: "United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers
1 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of employees Georgiana Lambert,
Mary Sullivan, and Helen Conroy. Upon the basis of the Trial Examiner's observations,
Gyory's denials are not credited. International Vice President Frank Cynewski was also
present at this meeting but was not questioned on this subject.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union is conducting an organization drive among the Korber Hat
employees to eliminate the substandard wages and conditions that exist in the Korber
plant." In about the middle of January 1959, the picket signs were changed again
to read: "This is organizational picketing. Join our union and enjoy our benefits,
United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union."
The picketing which began on October 14 and was in progress at the time of the
beginning of this hearing in the middle of March 1959, was described by members
of the police force as orderly During this period except for the few weeks preceding
the beginning of the hearing pickets did, however, in the presence of representatives
of the Union, engage in certain name-calling of working employees The names
which these employees were called were antagonistic and were hardly calculated to
cause these working employees to join the Union. There was also an incident in
which a working employee engaged in name-calling of pickets.
In a letter dated December 29, 1958, which the Union sent to some of the working
employees, it pointed out the advantages of unionization including higher wages
available at another straw hat manufacturing plant in town which was unionized and
stated that a representative of the Union would call at the addressee's home to discuss
the matter. On the date of this letter and prior thereto union representatives called
on about four employees at their homes. Subsequent to this letter and the issuance
of the complaint on February 9, 1959, union representatives visited the homes of
two employees in February. In March prior to the opening of the hearing, the union
representatives talked to about three employees away from the picket line. There-
after through April 1, union representatives made about seven calls upon employees.
In some instances employees were seen or efforts were made to see the same employees
away from the picket line on more than one occasion Union representatives also
made efforts to interest working employees as they crossed the picket line as early
as December 11. In February 1959, at the picket line, International Representative
John Kuliesh talked to employee Georgianna Lambert in the presence of employee
Mary Sullivan, both of whom were known opponents, and Union Organizer George
Gilbert. In the course of this conversation according to the credible testimony of
Lambert and Sullivan, Kuliesh stated in effect that the plant would be unionized
again, that he would be their bargaining agent whether or not they wanted it, that they
had nothing to do with it, and that the Company would come crawling back for a
contract.2
The Union's newspaper of December 15, 1958, refers to the activities at the Com-
pany's plant as a strike which began on August 14 and which had then entered its
third month. Further, that the strike began after the Company refused to negotiate
for a new contract, had developed into a "battle of briefs." The article concludes
that the Union's leadership is confident of eventual "vindication" and "victory." The
same newspaper of February 15, 1959, continues to refer to these activities as a strike
which began after the Company refused to consider the Union's demands for a wage
increase. Further, that the strikers and the Union are determined to continue their
fight until they receive a "fair hearing" and a "fair settlement," and that the Union
is continuing its organizational work among the Company's employees.
While the events were talking place in Fall River, the Union also engaged in
certain conduct in Baltimore and in New York City.
In Baltimore a business agent of the Union telephoned a distributor of men's hats
in early December 1958, and informed him that if he did not refuse to accept certain
merchandise from the Company that the firm would be picketed. The distributor
stated that he would not agree to refuse to accept the Company's merchandise and
the Union began picketing the premises the following day. The picketing was
thereafter discontinued pursuant to a court order.
In November or December 1958, the general president of the Union, Alex Rose,
met with a group of jobbers in New York City. Rose urged the jobbers to buy
union-made goods and told them of the Union's dispute with the Company. Rose
also declared that if the jobbers continued to handle the Company's merchandise
they would be picketed and he would not permit shipments to the jobbers of other
lines of merchandise which the jobbers handled.
In New York City, during January and February of 1959 at the request of
International Vice President Herman Finklelstein and Union Official Sam Levy, two
suppliers of the Company ceased doing business with the Company.
2 Kuliesh's inconsistent testimony is not, on the basis of the Trial Examiner's observa-
tions, credited Gilbert was not questioned as to this incident
UNITED HATTERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS, ETC. 537
C. The conclusions
Although the Union engaged in organizing activities as shown by (1) the change
in the wording of its picket sign about November 21, 1958, stating that it was en-
gaged in an organizing effort, (2) the letter of December 29, 1958, soliciting
employees to join the Union, and (3) interviews of working employees by union
representatives away from the picket line in an effort to get them to join the Union,
nevertheless during the post-decertification period while the Union did not represent
a majority of the Company's employees in an appropriate unit the Union also (1)
continued to picket the Company's premises and at the picket line engaged in name
calling of working employees of a type not calculated to cause these employees to
join the Union, (2) declared in its newspapers that it was engaged in a strike which
arose out of a contract dispute with the Company and that the fight would continue
until a victory or a fair settlement was reached, and (3) engaged in efforts to force
suppliers and customers not to do business with the Company. It is accordingly
found that since November 21, 1958, the Union sought exclusive recognition through
picketing the Company's premises and by a boycott campaign, including picketing,
among the Company's suppliers and customers while it was not a majority repre-
sentative, and thereby restrained and coerced the Company's employees in violation
of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act .3
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 Charging Party described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) the Respondent
picketed the Company's premises and conducted a boycott campaign, including
picketing, among the Company's suppliers and customers for the purpose of forcing
the Company to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of the Com-
pany's employees or to enter into a contract with the Respondent at a time when
it did not represent a majority of the Company's employees in an appropriate unit,
it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from this conduct.
As the publicity given to the strike in the Union's newspapers merely reported
the events and expectations from the Union's point of view and did not urge
boycotting the Company's products, the Trial Examiner denies the General Counsel's
request that the Union be ordered to publicize through its newspapers that it has
ended its boycott of the Company's products. It will, however, be recommended
that the Union so notify all persons it sought to have cease doing business with
the Company by supplying the Regional Director with sufficient signed copies of
the notice for distribution by the Regional Director to all such persons.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
9 See Drivers, Chauffeurs , and Helpers , Local 639 , etc. (Curtis Brothers , Inc.), 119
NLRB 232, and International Association of Machinists, Lodge 942, AFL-CIO (Alloy
Manufacturing Co., et al. ), 119 NLRB 307.