Wells-Lamont-Smith Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 440 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION and AMAL-
GAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA and ELSBERRY GLOVE
WORKERS' ASSOCIATION
Case No C-0117 -Decided July 15,1949
Jurisdiction : glove manufacturing industry
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restialnt, and Coercion anti-union statements, declaration of union
preference, interrogation concerning union membership and activities, refusal
to deal with iepresentatiie of employees, threatened cessation of operations,
favoiitism shown to unaffiliated oigauization-charges of, dismissed as to
curtailment of earmug, of eniploSees because they joined or assisted charging
union
Company-Doniinatcd Uinon interference in formation and administration cir-
culation of petitions and solicitation of signatuies on company time and prop-
erty in presence of and with knowledge of supervisors, signing of same by
supervisors, permitting posting of notices in plant of "inside" union activity
despite notice_agaiust union activity, participation;itL-admiiiistiation, encour-
agement of membership therein by numerous acts of iiiteifeience, restraint, and
coercion, precipitate iecogmtion of "inside" union as bargaining representative,
and execution of contract with it as means of pieservmg its existence
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of dominated organization oideied, contract
with dominated organization abrogated
Mr. Bertram Diamond, for the Board
Fyffe d Clarke, by Mr Albert J Smith, of Chicago, Ill , for the
respondent.
Mr Frank Schaps, of Chicago, Ill, for the Amalgamated
Mr. J E. Clarke, of Elsberry, Mo , for the Association
Mrs Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE -
Upon an amended charge duly filed on January 8 , 1942,' by the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Amal-
gamated, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region ( St. Louis, Mis-
souri ), issued , its, complaint, dated , January 8 , 1942, against Wells-
Lamont-Smith Corpoi ation, Elsberry, Missouri, herein called the re-
1 The original charge was filed by the Amalgamated on September 15, 1941
42 N L R B, No 97
440
WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 441
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act Copies of
the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served on the
respondent, the Amalgamated, and Elsberry Glove Workers' Associa-
tion, herein called the Association, a labor organization alleged in the
complaint to be dominated by the respondent
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended
at the hearing alleged, in substance, (1) that the respondent on and
after September 10, 1941, dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of the Association, and contributed financial
and other support to it, uiged its employees to join the Association,
and recognized and entered into a contract with the Association as
an exclusive collective bargaining agent at a time when the Association
did not represent an uncoerced majority of the respondent's employees;
(2) that the respondent on and after September 10, 1941, urged and
warned its employees not to join the Amalgamated,, threatened to
close its plant if they joined the Amalgamated, and curtailed the earn-
ings of employees because they joined and assisted the Amalgamated;
and (3) that by the foregoing and other acts the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
On January 21, 1942,7tine respondent, and on January 22, 1942, the
Association, filed answers to the complaint In its answer the respond-
ent admitted the allegations of the complaint respecting the nature
of its business, but denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and asserted that the Association
tendered proof that it represented a majority of the respondent's em-
ployees; that it thereupon recognized the Association as exclusive col-
lective bargaining agent of its employees, and that thereafter it entered
into a written contract with the Association The answer of the Asso-,
ciation denied the commission of unfair labor practices on the part of
the respondent and averred that the Association had been selected as
exclusive collective bargaining agent by a majority of the respondent's
employees prior to September 16, 1941; that on or about September
16, 1941, it presented to the respondent evidence of its majority repre-
sentation and was recognized as exclusive collective bargaining agent,
and that thereafter, on September 23, 1941, it entered into a written
contract with the respondent in which it was accorded recognition as
the sole bargaining agent by the respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Elsberry, Missouri, on
January 19, 20, 21, and 22, 1942, before Frank A. Mouritsen, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board,
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent, the Amalgamated, and the Association were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing Full opportunity
to-be heard, to examine and cross-exannne witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties At the con-
clusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the plead-
ings in minor details to conform to the proof Over the respondents
objection, the motion was granted During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Eaminer made several rulings on other motions and on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial eriors were com-
mitted. - The rulings are hereby affirmed 2 After the close of the
hearing, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner
Thereaftei the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, dated
February 16, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon the parties,
finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recommending that
the, respondent, cease, and -desist ; from, its unfair labor practices, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act The Trial Examiner found that the respondent did not cur-
tail the earnings of employees because they joined and assisted the
Amalgamated and therefore recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleged that the respondent violated the Act in
this respect
On March 16, 1942, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intelme-
diate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions In its brief the
respondent moved that the Board dismiss this proceeding on the
ground that the evidence did not support a finding that the respondent
had violated the Act. For reasons which appear below, the motion is
denied. Neither the Amalgamated nor the Association filed excep-
tions- to the Intermediate Report or a brief No party has filed a
request for oral argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs submitted by
the respondent, and save as the exceptions are consistent with the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set for th below, finds
them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record-in the case, the Board makes the following:
2 At the hearing , at the request of the Trial Examiner , and with the consent of all
parties, the respondent agreed to submit after the hearing a report showing the work of
its cutters during 1941 , subject to the approval of the Board's attorney Respondent's
Exhibit No 1 was the designation reserved for this report The report, having been sub-
mitted by the respondent and duly approved by the Board 's attorney , was forwarded to
Washington and designated Respondent 's Exhibit No 1 As such , it is hereby incorporated
in, and is part of, the record in this proceeding
WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
443
Wells-Lamont-Srmth Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, has` its
principal office-and place of business 'at Chicago, Illinois The re-
spondent operates a plant-at Elsberry, Missouri, the only plant in-
volved in this pi oceeding, foi the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of gloves The principal materials used in such manufacture are-
leather, cloth, and thread. During the year 1941, the respondent
used at its Elsbeiry plant materials valued in excess of $200,000, of
which 50 percent by value was brought to the plant from points out-
side Missouri During the same per rod, products finished at the
Elsberry plant exceeded $200,000 in value, of which more than 50
percent by value was shipped to points outside Missouri
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting
to membership employees of the respondent
Elsberiy Glove Workers' Association is all unaffiliated labor organi-
zation, admitting to member ship employees of the respondent
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Domination of and interference with the formation and admin-
istration of the Association; interference, restraint, and coercion
On September 8, 1941, a number of the respondent's employees at
the Elsberry plant attended a meeting of the Amalgamated in Louisi-
ana, Missouri , a nearby town Five of them became members of the
Amalgamated at this time Two days later the first meeting of the
Amalgamated, was held at Elsberry- Between 80 and 100 of approxi-
mately 300 employees attended this meeting. The following morning,
Bernice Creech, floorlady of the finishing department, asked employee
Georgia Suddarth whether she had attended the meeting and had
signed a card Suddarth replied that she had attended the meeting,
but refused to disclose whether she had signed a card. Creech told
her that she did not think Suddaith should have signed if she had,
and stated further that the factory would close its doors if the
Amalgamated "got in." Later Creech made disparaging remarks
to Suddarth concerning the organizers of the Amalgamated, and
questioned her about the Amalgamated.8
" We credit, as did the Trial Examiner , the uncontradicted testimony of Suddarth
Creech did not testify at the hearing
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Between 9 and 10 o'clock on Thursday morning, September 11,
Richard Smith, superintendent of the plant; made three speeches to
different groups of employees in the plant' The power was cut off,
work ceased, and the employees were assembled, one group in the base-
ment, two on the main floor In the short addresses, which were sub-
stantially the same, Smith, emphasizing his own bald work at the
plant and his own willingness to woik, in substance told the employees
that he would still be friendly toward them even though their feelings
toward him had changed, that the respondent had favored with
reemployment cutters who had left, for work in defense plants and
had returned to work in the respondent's plant, that things ntihicli
had taken years to build, like the Clarksville Dam, could be destroyed
in an instant; that he did not go around "peeping in windows", , that
the respondent's employees Were in a much better situation than were
people in foreign countries; that the employees were getting all they
could get and they could not get any more at the present time; and
that they knew what he meant and could read between the lines
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent, through Smith's
opportune speeches. advised and warned its employees of the re-
spondent's opposition to the Amalgamated and that they could expect
no benefit from joining the Amalgamated The respondent takes
exception to this finding We find no merit in this exception. The
Trial Examiner did not credit Smith's confused and incoherent ex-
planation of his meaning, nor can wee The speeches were made on
the morning following the first meeting of the Amalgamated. Smith's
reference to peeping in windows necessarily had reference to the
4 At the hearing , Smith explained that he spoke to the employees because production
was dropping , which he apparently did not mention in his speech , because employees were
leaving for defense plants , and because employees were demanding higher wages Many
employees had left the respondent 's plant in the spring of 1941 A few of them had re-
turned and had been reemployed by the respondent As a matter of fact, the cutters had
asked for higher wages in August 1941 and Smith addressed them at that time, explaining
the respondent ' s position with respect to current contracts and the possibility of a wage
adjustment later The cutters, so far as the iecoid discloses , were the only employees who
were demanding higher wages With the exception of this talk to the cutters , Smith had
not, before September 11, 1941, addressed employees as a group since he had become
superintendent in 1936
5 At the meeting of the Amalgamated one of the employees had said, "Suppose Mr Smith
was walking past and would look in the window and would see us clown here and we don't
sign a card , or we do , would he have a right to fire us tomorrow for attending the
meeting I"
9 Smith explained that there were tumors going around the factory of mistreatment of
employees , and therefore , although it appears he did not specifically inquire concerning the
causes of such alleged rumors or attempt to remove them , he told ' the employees of his
friendliness Lonaid them that it didn ' t make any difference what employee considered
that the were getting nustieated , regardless who they were or how they were toward me, I
still maintained it was my intentions to go down the aisle and still continue doing the
same as I had previous days, saying my good mornings to them" Smith testified that he
told any employee who could get mole money elsewhere than at the plant to go and get it,
but urged the cutters , who were the only employees specifically asking for increases in
wages, to stay at the factory and that the respondent would try to do something for them
later Smith testified that his references to his own hard woik at the plant and his
willingness to work hard with other employees was inserted in his speeches "Just mean-
WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 445
d _,ry
remark made at that meeting. We conclude and find that Smith in-
tended to warn the employees that their affiliation with the Amalga.
mated endangered the respondent's business, that the Amalga-
mated could destroy the respondent's business which had taken a long
time to build, just as a bolt of lighting could destroy the Clarksville
Dam; that this would result in their unemployment; that while their
patient endurance might later result in wage increases, affiliation
with the Amalgamated could bring them no advantage; and that this
was what they might "read between the lines." 7
Upon the conclusion of Smith's speeches, there appeared in the
plant a petition which stated that the signers desired to form an inde-
pendent organization of their own to keep other organizations out of
the plant The record does not disclose its origin. This petition
circulated openly 8 in the plant during working hours in the presence
of foremen and foreladies and was signed by many of the respondent's
employees, including three supervisory employees, Mary Johnson,
forelady in the sewing room, Emma Levengood, her assistant, and
Thelma Jean Temple in charge of the packing table .9 At first the
ingly, that it would be a sentence ," and further that a remark comparing the situation of
the iespondent 's employees to the labor conditions in foreign countries was merely a casual
remark
Smith pointed out that things which took a long time to build like the Clarksville Dam
could be destroyed in an Instant with respect to this comparison , Smith gave the fol-
lowing explanation "well , the temperature was rather hot during my previous talk along
about the first of September , September 11 or 10, and the boys were perspiring at that
time and I tried to cut my talk as short as possible because, it was very hot, and' I told
them at that time that wasn't created by man
(Board Attorney ) "You mean the perspiration hasn't?
(Smith ) "Yes, sir, that wag created by someone more than mankind, and I also stated
that the Clarksville Dam wasn't built in one day, but had taken some time to build, and
that one bolt of lightening could destroy it in an instant " Questioned further as to the
relation of his remark about the Clarksville Dam to his speeches on September 11, Smith
ansitered "It was related to the fact that it was rather hot , and I thought at that time we
could-it wasn't that condition existing as to the tetrific heat as had pieviously"
In explaining his meaning in his suggestion that his employees "read between the lines"
Smith contended that he meant only to state " indirectly" what he had already clearly
explained , namely, that when the respondent 's contracts expired in October, the respondent
would then be able to make an adjustment in wages
'' The only employees who testified with respect to the import of Smith's speeches so
interpreted their meaning They testified , in substance , that they though Smith was
referring to the Amalgamated and that he meant that the respondent would not have the
Amalgamated in the plant and that there would be no work in the factory if the Amalga-
mated came in
6 The Trial Examiner so found and we agree The respondent takes exception to this
finding we find no merit in the exception Supervisors Johnson, Levengood , Creech,
Robinson , and McKenzie were on the floor when the petition circulated Levengood and
Johnson signed it during working hourg Superintendent Smith, advised of the petition
by Assistant Manager Bowton , according to his own testimony , even cautioned Levengood
about signing it while the petition was circulating Robinson discussed the petition with
an employee in his department Purposely to attract McKenzie 's attention , Clyde Hatfield,
an employee in the cutting department , held the petition high while he was reading it
O The Trial Examiner found that Temple was a supervisory employee The respondent
takes exception to this finding We find no merit in this exception Temple , the highest
paid employee at the packing table, receives written or oral orders from Assistant Manager
Bowton or Superintendent Smith, which she transmits to other employees She delivers
checks and instructs employees in their work, as other supervisors do She directs other
employees at the packing table what gloves to fetch , staple, and pair to fill the day's orders
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
petitions were passed from employee to employee, but after the initial
circulation they were carried around by Temple Temple urged many
of the employees to sign the petition. While discussing it with em-
ployee Cecil Fines, Temple said, "The Company will recognize this,
and they will not recognize the C I. 0,10 and if the C. I 0 comes in,
the Company will close its doors and move out, and then where will
we be?" To Fines' question, "Are you sure about this," Temple
answered, "Yes, it came pretty straight." To Juanita Dameron, an-
other employee, Temple urged that the employees might get a raise
as a result of signing the paper, but she could not promise.11 To
Nola B. Strus, another employee, who asked her if the petition was
to keep the C. I. O. out, Temple, assenting, added that "if they got
enough names on the petition and thereafter the C. I. 0 came in and
tried to start trouble or anything, they could call in the State
Militia." 12
On the afternoon of the following day, Friday, September-12, notices
of a meeting of the respondent's employees to be held at 8 o'clock
the same evening were posted on the bulletin board and passed out in
the plant to employees as they were leaving work for the day. The
notice declared that the purpose of the meeting was "for . . . per-
fecting the organization of an Independent Union." With reference
to the proposed meeting, Floorlady Creech told employee Edna Fines,
"We are having a meeting in the opera house tonight. Pass the word
along " 13
The Amalgamated had scheduled a meeting earlier in the same
evening Some employees attended the meeting of the Amalgamated
and upon its early adjournment joined other employees at the opera
house 14 Three members of the Elsberry Chamber of Commerce pre-
sided 15 One of them made a short talk, telling employees, in substance,
When work for the day is completed , -Temple notifies Bowton and conveys to other em-
ployees at the packing table his instructions for their release and return to work The
packing table is in the finishing room, but not under the finishing room supervisor
Bowton, to whom Johnson , Levengood , Creech, and Temple report, supervises the entire
sewing department Although there are only six employees at the packing table, a con-
siderably smaller number than in the other divisions of the plant , it seems clear that the
relation of Temple to such employees does not differ materially from that of Johnson,
Levengood , and Creech to the employees in the departments in which they work The
respondent admits that Johnson,'Levengood , and Creech are supervisory employees under
Bowton, but contends that Creech 's discretionary powers at the time of the hearing were
greater than in September 1941
"The Amalgamated , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is fre-
quently designated in the record as "the C I O "
n We credit, as did the Trial Examiner , the uncontradicted testimony of Cecil Fines and
Dameron Temple did not testify at the hearing
11 We credit the uncontradicted testimony of Strus, noting that Temple did not testify
at the hearing The Intermediate Report does not recite her estimony
v We credit, as did the Trial Examiner , the uncontradicted testimony of Edna Fines.
As noted in footnote 3 above, Creech did not testify at the hearing
14 The opera house is otherwise known in the record as "Morris Hall" or "Morris Opera
House "
>6 The record does not disclose the nature or origin of the Chamber's interest in the
organization of the respondent 's employees
WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION - - ' 447
that the Chamber of Commerce was behind them 100 percent whether
they wanted the C I 0 or the A F of L, or an independent union,
and that Attorney J - E Clarke had prepared a plan of organization
for them Having introduced Clarke, the members of the Chamber
of Commerce left the meeting
Clarke, who later represented the Association at the hearing, read
and explained to the employees a model blank form of an employees'
representation plan. Clarke told the employees that it was not material
to him whether or not they adopted this plan Then lie asked for a
showing of hands to indicate whether the employees desired an in-
dependent union. Clyde Hatfield, an employee in the cutting depart-
ment, who was a member of the Amalgamated and later became its
president, asked Clarke to read and explain to the employees present
the National Labor Relations Act, a copy of which Hatfield offered
Clarke Clarke refused, saying that he would have to study it first.
Clarke then proceeded with the organization of the unaffiliated union,
which became Elsberry Glove Woikeis' Association, herein called the
Association Claike explained that the petition which had been cir-
culated by Temple at the plant on September•11 was wiong "in form,"
so that a new petition was necessary to form the Association 16 Clarke
announced that he had two petitions-one in favor of and one opposing
the Association-and that the employees should do as they pleased
about signing one or the other Clarke said that both petitions would
be posted in the plant. It was testified without contradiction that the
petition to vote against the Association was not posted or circulated
at any time
During the course of the evening about 80 to 100 employees of
approximately 300 employees signed the petition approving the Asso-
ciation At Claike's request a temporaly committee of 5 employees
volunteeied to act for the Association pendnig the election of per-
manent officers -
On Monday, Septembei 15, the next working day, a member of the
temporaly. committee of the Association posted on the respondent's
bulletin board the completed plan of organization of the Association,
which had been read in di aft form by Attorney Clarke at the meeting
on September 12, and a notice explaining the plan These remained
posted until the following day, when they were removed for approxi-
mately half an hour During this interval, the respondent placed on
its time clock, some 6 or 8 feet from the bulletin board, a notice stating
that petitions or organizational activities of any kind on company time
or property were prohibited Within 15 or 20 minutes after the above
"Clarke did not explain in what particular the petition circulated at the plant was
wrong The distinct difference between the two petitions that the record discloses is
that Johnson, Levengood , and Temple did not sign the second petition , nor did Temple
solicit signatures for it
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice was placed upon the-time clock, a member of the telnpoi ary
committee posted upon the bulletin boas d a notice stating that the
Association plan had been adopted by a majority of the workers and
reposted the plan and the explanatory notice, which had been removed
shortly before Thereafter, all three papers concerning the Associa-
tion remained posted on the bulletin board at the plant until the
middle of October 1941 Smith admitted that he had seen them so
posted and that he had taken no step to remove them
Some time after the above notices were posted, Superintendent
Smith observed employee Thomas Walters passing out leaflets for the
Amalgamated on the sidewalk approaching the plant, 30 feet from the
building, but inside the respondent's pi operty line Having ascer-
tained that they were Amalgamated leaflets, he approached Walters
and asked him whether he had read the notice that papers were not to
be handed out on company time and property Walters said that
he had not seen the notice, and Smith told him to read notices there-
after 17 When Smith talked to Walters, the Association plan and
notices had been posted on the bulletin board for some time
On Tuesday morning, September 16, before work started for the
day, the Association's temporary committee met v ith Smith in the
plant and asked whether the 1 espoi dent would recognize the Associa-
tion as collective bargaining agent Smith informed them that he
could not so advise them, but would attempt to have someone from
the Chicago office confer with them on the following day
On Wednesday morning, September 17, Smith and Arnold Norum,
from the respondent's headquarters in Chicago, met with the tempo-
rary committee of the Association The committee told Smith and
Norum that they had a petition bearing the names of 154 employees
and asked for recognition of the Association Norum glanced at the
petition, but advised the committee that he did not desire to count
the names and he would take then woad for the number Being ad-
vised by Smith that the respondent had 298 employees then on its
plant pay roll, Norum stated that the respondent would recognize the
Association. Norum advised the committee that it would be better
to get more signers, and the more signers the stronger the Associa-
tion would be At Norum's request 1 member of the committee had
the petition "notarized " 18 For the foregoing findings, we credit, as
did the Trial Examiner, the testimony of Hurley Cox, a member of
the temporary committee, and later a supporter of the Amalgamated,
whose account of this meeting the respondent admits is substantially
correct.
17 Smith substantially corroborated Walters' testimony concerning this incident
19 Norman Evans, a member of the committee, took the petition to Clarke 's office, where
lie signed a statement that he had witnessed the signing of the signatures on the petition
Evans, however, admitted at the hearing that he had witnessed only the signatuies affixed
at the meeting of September 12
WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 449
On Thursday, September 18, Superintendent Smith called the tem
porary committeemen together in the plant and advised them to hold
their election for permanent officers as soon as possible They told
Smith that they had planned to hold the election the following Mon
day. At his suggestion they agreed to hold the election on Friday
September 1911
On Thursday afternoon, petitions nominating peunanent officers for
the Association were circulated openly in the plant during working
hours A gioup of employees complained to Smith of the circulation
of the nominating petitions, stating that theie were about 10 of the
papers going round the plant Smith walked down 1 aisle, returned
to the group, and said,that he was unable to see any such petitions
At the hearing, Smith iemembered the complaint regarding the cir-
culation of the nominating petitions Smith denied at the hearing,
however, that he knew of their circulation dining working hours.
The Trial Examiner did not credit Smith's denial, nor do we. Such
circulation is clearly in line with Smith's .desire that the completion
of the Association be speeded At the time when Smith was advised
of the circulation, two employees, neither of whom belonged in the
department, were soliciting signatures for the nominating petitions
about 30 feet distant from him. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Smith knew of the circulation of nominating petitions in the
plant during working hours and in spite of the notice previously posted
prohibiting circulation, did nothing to prevent it
The election of the permanent representatives of the Association
was held at the opera house on Friday, September 19, and the results
announced On Monday the iepresentatives elected officers and con-
ferred with Clarke.
On Tuesday, September 23, the representatives of the Association
met with Smith and Norum. The representatives requested specific
improvements in working conditions and a raise in wages The re-
spondent orally promised to, grant certain improvements, but denied
other requests. In response to their question whether a contract
should be drafted incorporating the respondent's oral agreement,
Norum informed the representatives that he would draw up a con-
tract and submit it to them On September 24, at a wage conference
with the representatives of the Association, the respondent agreed to
raise the wages of almost all employees 15 percent An_mcrease of 7
percent was to be paid on October 1, 1941, and 1 percent added each
month, thei eafter until the total of 15 percent should be reached
On about October 1, Smith submitted to the representatives of the
Association a pi oposed contract which he had received from Norum
"Smith was not questioned concerning this incident we credit, as did the Trial
Examiner , the uncontradicted testimony of Cox with respect to this meeting
472814-42-vol 42-29 '
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
They rejected it One of them liter appealed fox help to a Mr Jones,
a local banker in Elsbeiry, and Jones promised to secure Clarke's aid
in drafting a contract satisfactory to the Association The iepiesen
tatives of the Association received from Jones a form of contract,
which they appiovel, signed, and submitted to the respondent.
Neither the representatives of the Association who testified at the heai-
ing nor Smith could indicate in what particulais the contract tendered
to the respondent by the Association differed ftom the contract pro-
posed by Norum Norum and Smith signed the contract 20 tendered by
the Association The contract piovides for the recognition of the
Association as the sole baiganung agent of the respondent's employees
and permits the collection of Association' dues upon company prop-
erty 21 Neither the contract proposed by the respondent not the As-
sociation's counterproposal was submitted to the members of the Asso-,
ciation fox approval The executed contract was not pi esented to the
members of the Association for ratification The Association has not
held a membership meeting since the. organizational meeting of Sep-
tember 12 22
B Conclusions concerning the unfair labor pmetrces
The foregoing facts disclose that the respondent countered the nas-
cent self-organizational efforts of its employees by embarking upon
,t course of conduct calculated to divert then from allegiance to the
;amalgamated to the establishment of a labor organization confined
in membership to employees of the Elsberry plant The initial Amal-
gamated meetings of September 8, -and 10 were followed immediately
by improper interrogation on the part of- Flootlady Creech and by
Superintendent Smith's unprecedented action in calling meetings of
employees while work was stopped and making speeches to the em-
ployees in which he disparaged the advantages of membei slop rin the
201he signed contract bears the date of September 23, 1941 the date on ahnh Norum
and Smith first eonfeued with the iepiesentatrces of the Association , as noted above.
The respondent did not expl un how the contract came to beat this date The association
in its answer stated that September 23 was the day on which the wiitten contract was
made %ccoiding to the testimony of its serretaiy>, it was not written until after Oc-
tober 20 Under date of September 23, the minutes of the association record, "Contract
finished Nosember 1 ' The contract, moreo0er, prosrdes for a wage conference to be
held on September 24 The wage conference in fact was held on September 24, about a
month before the contract according to the testimony of the Association s secretary was
written
21 _AIthouga the secs et .u ^ of the Assocr rtron testified ser stint to the sei eral remedial
pioNrsrons which the iepresentatrres considered indispensable to then satisfaction of a
contract between the respondent and its̀ employees , such ' piousions .ue uotabl'y 'lacking
from the executed contract
22 In the Intermediate Report the Trial I 'a.unrnei set forth more bnefiy the negotia-
tions between' the Association and the respondent with respect to the negotiation of the
contract which began on September 2'i The only substantial rontiadictron in the iecotd-
coneeuung these negotiations mvohes the date upon which-the contract was signed
wh.ch is fully discussed in footnote 20 abote
\i'ELLS -LAiIONT-S'NllTH CORPORATION 451, -
Amalgamated and threatened possible unemployment if the employ-
ees persisted in joining that olgaluzation 23 Although there is no
indication that 'any employee had theretofore expressed a desire for an
"`inside" union, Smith's speeches served as the signal for the wide-
=piead cnculation in the plant during working hours, in the presence
of the respondent's supervisors, and with their knowledge and the
knowledge of Superintendent Smith, of a petition favoring such an
of ganization This petition was in fact signed by three of the respond-
ent's supervisory employees, of «hom two (Johnson and Creech) were
in immediate charge of approximately one-half of the employees
The third (Temple) went so far as to carry the petition about, urging
the employees to sign and expressing the respondent's opposition to the
Amalgamated Her absence fiom her usual place of work over a
considerable length of time was either overlooked or approved by the
i espondent 24 On the following day, notices of a meeting for the
"perfecting" of the inside organization weie posted on the bulletin
board and distributed to the employees At least one supervisory
employee urged attendance
The meeting furthered the cause of the projected "inside" organiza-
tion Attorney Clarke explained that the petition circulated the pre-
vious day was bad in form and requested the employees to sign a
second petition, which they did 25 We attach no importance to the
fact that the Association appeared to come into formal existence from
this new petition rather than immediately upon the circulation of the
first one, w Inch had been circulated by one supervisory employee and
.igned by, several The impetus given to the formation of an un-
ifihatecl organlzlition by the action of Smith in assembling the em-
ployees curing working hours, by his remarks on that occasion, by
"As noted above, Smith char ictenied his more ob ions statements as casual or super-
fluous Although his ambiguous utteramies on September 11, separated from their bach-
giound , might be without-any pertinent meaning whatsoever, we grew them as p,ut of
the totality of the respondent's conduct So evaluated, they emerge as a coercr,e act
in a pattern designed to inteifere with and restrain the employees See National Labor
Relations Board N Virainia Electric and Power Company, 314 U S 469, re'g and iem'g
115 P (2d) 414 (C C ' 4) settmg'aside Matter of Viiginia E lectric it Power Company
and Transport Wetkers Union of America, 1'ugrnut Electric,( Power Company and
Anialyamnted, Association of Street , Electrical Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, an unincorporated association , Virginia Electric & Power Company and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Eleclrical Wonc(,rs, 20 N L R B 911
24 'is -w e base found above, Temple's relation to other employees at the packing table
dieiloses her supervisory status See International Association of Machinists v Nation'I
Labor Relations Boar d, 311 U S 72, 80, aff g 71 App D C 175 , 110 F (2d) 29, enf g
Matter of The'Se,,icl Corporation and International Union , United Automobile 1Porhers
of dine,ica, Local No p;7, 8 N L R B 621 The responsibility of the respondent for
Temple's actrs its on the pait of the Association, how es er, does not rest merely upon her
official capacity to iepiesent her employer Similar acts its on the part of any ordinary
eiuploy ee at the plant similarly disposed to carry out the wishes of the respondent clearly
expiessed through the remarks of Smith and Creech would, under these circumstances,
be attiibutable to the respondent
1 -' In the absence of any explanation, we may assume that the petition proposed by
Clarke was designed to replace coseitly the petition signed and circulated in the plant by
the iespom'ent's supeisisoiy employees
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the queries, comments, and acts of the supervisory employees, and
by the immediate circulation of the initial petition on company time
and propeity was not dispelled by any act of the respondent or by
the passage of time Accordingly, and in view of the supervisory
sponsorship of the first petition, no independence can be imputed to the
action of the employees in signing the second 2C,
The respondent not only failed to declare its impartiality in the
selection of a bargaining agent, but continued to support the Associa-
tion thereafter Despite the notice posted by the respondent subsequent
to the formation of the Association against organizational activities
on company time or property, the respondent suffered the nominating
petitions for representatives of the Association to be circulated freely
in the plant and the Association's plan and notices to be posted and to
remain posted on its bulletin board This leniency toward the Associa-
tion in disregard both of the respondent's rules and of complaints
by members of the Amalgamated is to be contrasted with Smith's
personal reproof of Walters' asserted violation of the respondent's
posted notice when Walters distributed Amalgamated leaflets after
working hours on the sidewalk approaching the respondent's factory
about 30 feet from its building, and with the respondent's other
pointed expressions of opposition to the Amalgamated to which we
have referred Against this background of employer interference,
the very speed with which the Association achieved the adherence
of employees without labor experience to guide them, serves to dis-
credit it as the object of their free choice
The temporary representatives of the Association achieved a 'ma-
jority before work began on Tuesday, September 16 Only 2 work-
ing days had elapsed since the first petition was circulated at the plant,
and only 1 working day had elapsed since the second petitions was
presented by Clarke at the Friday evening meeting It is significant
that the respondent, through Norum, in the face of the organizing
efforts of the Amalgamated, unquestioningly recognized the Associa-
tion as sole bargaining agent for its employees, at the same time not-
ing the narrow margin of its majority- and that Smith, present at
this recognition, did not question the precipitate recognition of the
Association by Norum, although Smith was so well advised of the
activities on behalf of the Association on company time and property.
Smith's affirmative interest in the Association is further evidenced by
his calling a meeting of the Association's committee and requesting
that it hold elections as early as possible
28Cf N L R B V Brown Paper Company, Inc, 108 F (2d) 867 (C C A 5), enflg
Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc, Monroe, Louisiana and International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor , Matter of Brown
Paper Mill Company, Inc, Monroe, Louisiana and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N L R B 60, cert
denied 310 U S 651
WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 453
The respondent quickly cemented its recognition of the Association
by a wage increase The subsequent contract, notably lacking the
several remedial provisions which the respresentatives of the Associa-
tion considered indispensable to their satisfaction, nevertheless re-
corded the recognition of the Association and provided for the collec-
tion of Association dues on company property
We think it clear that the course of the respondent's conduct was
coercive of its employees in the excercise of their right to self-organi-
zation and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing with the result that when they formed the Association they
were not as fiee as the statute requires ; 27 and that the Association
owes its origin and existence to the respondent's unfair labor practices
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Associa-
tion and contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coeicing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act- We further find, as did the Tiial Examiner,
that by the anti-union speeches, statements, and conduct of Smith,
Creech, and Temple, by its acquiescence and participation in the cir-
culation of the organizing petition of the Association during work-
ing hours in the factory, by the action of Supervisors Johnson, Leven-
good, and Temple in signing the petition, by the immediate and per-
functory recognition of the Association, and by permitting the circula-
tion of nominating petitions for officers of the Association during
working hours in the factory, and by each such act and by its whole
course of coercive conduct at a time when its employees were seeking
self-organization and many of them were joining the Amalgamated,
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act We
further field, as did the Trial Examiner, that the conti act entered into
between the iespondent and the Association has been and is the means
for utilizing and preserving a company-dominated organization, and
that the respondent has thereby thus interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
The Trial Examiner found that the iespondent did not curtail the
earnings of employees because they joined and assisted the Amalga-
mated. None of the parties takes exception to such findings. Upon
the basis of the whole record, we find that the respondent did not cur'
tail the earnings of its employees because they joined or assisted in
the Amalgamated.
17 See International A69oc1ation of Machinists v National Labor Relations Board, 311
U 8 72, 82
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMI'RCF
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above oc-
curiing 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 se^, eial States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstiucting commerce and the flee
flow of commeice
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the iespondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices , we shall order the iespondent to cease and desist theie-
from and to take certain affirmative action which will restore the
status quo and otheiwise effectuate the policies of the Act
We have found that the respondent has dominated and inteifeired
with , and contributed support to, the formation and administi ation
of the Association In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and
free the employees of the iespondent from such interference and
domination and the effects thereof, which constitute a continuing
obstacle to the exercise by its employees of rights guaranteed them
-in the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdiaw all Iecognr-
tion from and completely disestablish the Association as representa-
tive of the respondent 's employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work Since the contract
dated September 23, 1941 , between the respondent and the Associa-
tion, embodies recognition of this organization as such representative
and represents the fruit of the respondent 's unfair laboi practices
and a device by which to perpetuate their effects , we shall order the
respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to this or any other
agreement with the Association in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment , or other conditions of work Nothing in the Order,
however, shall be taken to iequire the respondent to vary those wage,
hour, and other substantive features of its relations with the em-
ployees themselves , which the respondent may have established in
performance of this contract as extended , renewed, modified, supple-
mented, or superseded.
Because of the course of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its
underlying purpose and tendency , we are convinced that the unfair
labor practices found above are persuasively related to the other
unfair labor practices proscribed in the Act and that the danger of
their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of
` WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 455
respondent's- conduct in the past 28 The preventive purpose of the
Act will be thwarted unless our Order is coextensive with the threat
In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7, to pievent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and
thereby to minimize industrial strife which buidens and obstructs
commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we must order
the respondent to cease and desist from in, any manner infringing
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and Elsberry Glove
Workers' Association are labor organizations, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act
2 By dominating and interfei nig with the formation and the ad-
ministiation of Elsberry Glove Workers' Association and contributing
support to it, the iespondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor piactices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3 By mterfeiing with, i esti aunng, and coeicing its employees in
the exeicise of the eights guaianteed in-Section 7-of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
4 The afoiesaid untaii laboi practices are unfair labor practices
affecting conuneice within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act
5 The respondent did not engage in unfair labor piactices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act by cuitaihng the eainings
of employees because they had joined and assisted the Anralgarnated,
as alleged in the complaint
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and puisuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Laboi Relations Boai d heieby orders that the i espondent,
Wells-Lamont-Smith Coipoiation, Elsbeiiy, Missouri, its officers,
agents, successois, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Dominating of Intel feimg with the administration of Elsbeiiy
Glove Woikers' Association or with the foimation or administiation
of any other labor organization of its employees and from contributing
"See National Labo, Relatcous Boa,d V Express Publishing Co, 312 U S 426, rev'g
mod of 11i F ( 2d) 588 (C C A 5) mod Matte? of Express Publishing Company and
San Iatonmo _Veaspaper Guild, 13 N L R B 1213
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
support to Elsberry Glove Workers' Association or any other labor
organization of its employees,
(b) Giving effect to or performing the contract dated September
23, 1941 , with Elsberry Glove Workers ' Association or to any extension
or renewal thereof or to any other agreements , understandings, or
arrangements entered into with said Association;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form,
loin, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in conceited activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining of other mutual aid of protec-
tion, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act -
2 Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Elsberiy Glove Workers' Asso-
ciation as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment and completely disestablish said Elsberry Glove Workers'
Association as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Elsberry,
Missouri , and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive
days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating (1)
that the respondent will not engage in the conduct froin which it is
ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this
Order, and ( 2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Or der, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the respondent curtailed the earnings
of employees because they joined and assisted Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America.