Wilson and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 990 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of WILSON AND COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS L. I. U.-51 P. W. 0. C. OF C. I. 0.
In the Matter of WILSON CC^ Co., INC. and UNITED PACKING HOUSE
WORKERS L. I. UNION No. 51
Cases Nos. R-1138 and C-1149, respectively.Decided January 07,
1940
Meat Packing and Distributing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coer-
cion-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance
employees at respondent's Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant-Representatives: proof of
choice : respondent admitted that Union represented a majority of employees in
the appropriate unit-Collective Bargaining: refusal to recognize Union as
exclusive bargaining representative ; failure to submit any offer to Union while
at same time rejecting Union's proposals; changing of work schedules and wage
scales without prior consultation with or notification to Union ; refusal to bind
itself by a contract with Union and. to put such contract into writing when
agreements had been reached between it and Union; constant use of dilatory
tactics to avoid entering into any binding agreement and to make a sham of
collective bargaining ; respondent ordered, upon request, to bargain with Union
and if an understanding is reached, embody said understanding in a written,
signed contract-Investigaltion of Representatives: amended petition for, dis-
missed in view of order to respondent to bargain with Union.
Mr. Lee Loevinger, for the Board.
Mr. James D. Cooney and Mr. Marshal Wiedel, of Chicago, Ill., for
the respondent.
Mr. John J. Brownlee, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the'Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 6, 1938, United Packing House Workers, Local Industrial
Union No. 51, through. Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee,
affiliated with the C. I. 0.,1 herein called the Union, filed with the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), a
petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
IIncomplytely designated in the petition as "Packinghouse Workers Organizing Com-
mittee."
19 N. L. R. B., No. 99.
990 I
WILSON AND COMPANY 991
cerning the representation of employees of Wilson & Co. Inc.,2 herein
called the respondent, at its plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and request-
ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. On May 18,1938, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c),
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, ordered the proceeding transferred to and continued in
the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota). On October 10,
1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and au-
thorized the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region to conduct
it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On
November 5, 1938, the Union filed an amended petition.
On July 5, 1938, the Union duly filed with the Regional Director
for the Eighteenth Region a charge against the respondent. On Oc-
tober 10, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10
(c) (2), and Article IT, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the
representation and complaint cases be consolidated for the purpose of
hearing.
Upon the charges filed by the Union, the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region, issued and duly served upon the
respondent and the Union its complaint dated October; 29, 1938, and,
upon amended charges duly filed by the Union, issued and duly
served upon the respondent and the Union its amended complaint
dated November 17, 1938, against the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended,
alleged, in substance, that on about July 8, 1937, and at all times
thereafter, the respondent failed to bargain collectively in good
faith with the Union and refused to enter into an agreement with
the Union, which had been designated as the collective bargaining
representative by a majority of the respondent's employees in an
appropriate unit consisting of the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the respondent at its plant at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and
that the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. The respondent filed an answer denying the commission
of the alleged unfair labor practices.
2 Incorrectly designated in the formal papers as "Wilson and Company," "Wilson &
Company ," " Wilson and Co., Meat Packers."
992: DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the
Union, a hearing was held at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on November
28, 29, and 30, 1938, before Thomas S. Wilson, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent. were
represented by counsel, and the Union by a representative thereof.
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 afforded to all parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent made
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and amended petition,
upon which the Trial Examiner reserved ruling. The Trial Ex-
aminer, in his Intermediate Report, denied the motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. This ruling is hereby affirmed. The mo-
tion to dismiss the amended petition is hereby granted for the rea-
sons set forth in Section VI, below. During the course of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, dated January
20, 1939, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act and recommended that the respondent cease and desist there-
from and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the respondent's employees in the appro-
priate unit.
On January 30, 1939, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and to other parts of the record, including rulings
upon certain motions and objections made during the course of the
hearing. Pursuant to request of the respondent and notice to the
parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was scheduled
to be held on September 28, 1939, before the Board in Washington,
D. C. However, no parties appeared at that time. The Board has
considered the exceptions filed by the respondent. Save for those
exceptions which are consistent with the findings, conclusions and
order set forth below, we find the exceptions to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Wilson & Co. Inc. the respondent, is a. Delaware corporation, with
its principal office at Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in the meat-
WILSON AND COMPANY - 993
packing business. It has a subsidiary selling company, Wilson & Co.,
which is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and
also two foreign subsidiaries which operate packing plants in Argen-
tina and Brazil.
The respondent operates packing plants at Los Angeles, California;
Columbus, Georgia; Albert Lea, Minnesota; Kansas City, Missouri;
Omaha, Nebraska; New York City, New York; Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; and at Cedar Rapids, Iowa; the last being the plant
which is involved in the instant proceeding. Wilson; & Co. operates
about 90 wholesale warehouses from which it sells the respondent's
meat products.. In 1937 the respondent was the third largest meat-
packing concern. in the United States and handled approximately
6 per cent of the total commercial slaughter.
During 1937 the respondent's packing plant at Cedar Rapids, Iowa,,
handled about 1 per cent of the total commercial slaughter in the
United States. Of the livestock purchased by the respondent and
slaughtered at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant in that year, 81/2 per
cent of the hogs, 6 per cent of the cattle, and 22 per cent of the calves
and sheep originated outside the State of Iowa. During the fiscal
year ending October 29, 1938, the respondent produced at the Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, plant 226,000,000 pounds of meat and allied products
of which 198,000,000 pounds were shipped to points outside the
State of Iowa.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Packing House Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 51,
through Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee , affiliated
with the C . I. 0., is a labor organization , admitting to its membership
all production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant . Although during the period involved
herein the Union has undergone changes in flame and affiliation, it
has remained throughout that period the same labor organization.3
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit
The parties stipulated at the hearing that the production and main-
tenance employees of the respondent at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant
3 On August 23, 1933, a group of the respondent 's employees formed Federal Labor Union
No. 18530, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, affiliated with A. F. of L. Thereafter, on November 16,
1933, Federal Labor Union No. 18530 became affiliated with Amalgamated' Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, A. F. of L., as Local No. 206 thereof. After
withdrawing from the A. F. of L., the members of Local No. 206, on February 5, 1935,
formed Local No. 1 of Mid-West Union of all Packing House Workers, an unaffiliated labor
organization . On May 22, 1937, the members of that organization received a charter from
the Committee for Industrial Organization as United Packing House Workers Local Indus-
trial Union No. 51 . The Union thereafter assumed its present name.
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. We see no reason to alter the unit agreed upon.
We find that the production and maintenance employees of the re-
spondent at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that such unit
insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuates the policies of the Act.
B. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The parties further stipulated at the hearing that at all times dur-
ing the years 1937 and 1938 the Union represented a substantial
majority of the respondent's employees within the appropriate unit,
and that at the time of the hearing herein the Union had about 1,000
members, among such employees, in good standing.4 The evidence
further discloses that the respondent did not deny the majority status
of the Union.
We find that on January 1, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was the duly designated representative of a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit, and, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, it was and is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
C. The refusal to bargain collectively
In February 1934, the bargaining committee 5 of the Union re-
quested from the respondent's local managements recognition as the
exclusive bargaining agency of the employees in the Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, plant. The bargaining committee thereafter had several con-
ferences with the local management concerning this request. The
local management told the Union that the request would have to be
referred to the respondent's main office in Chicago, Illinois, as the
local management had no authority in such matters. Following the
settlement of a strike called by the Union on May 6, 1934, the local
management met regularly with the Union and many grievances of
the employees were satisfactorily settled.
On or about October 1, 1934, the Union presented a draft of a
proposed contract dealing with wages, hours, and seniority to the
4 The number of employees ranged from 800 to 1,400 during 1937 and 1938.
a The bargaining committee consisted of employees of the respondent and a business
agent of the Union.
6 The members of respondent 's local management with whom the Union dealt usually
consisted of the superintendent and the general manager , and occasionally the personnel
manager and the timekeeper. I
WILS'O'N AND 00&LPANY 995
local management, which forwarded it to the respondent's main office
in Chicago, Illinois. About October 15, 1934, the local management
told, the Union that the respondent would not enter into an agree-
ment with the Union. At about this time, James D. Cooney, vice
president of the respondent and in charge of its industrial relations,
went from Chicago, Illinois, to the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant and
made a lengthy talk to the bargaining committee on the economics
of the packing industry and the competitive basis on which the re-
spondent operated, which he stated would not permit the respondent
to grant the Union its demands.
In July 1935 the Union again presented a proposed contract to the
local management, which referred the contract to the respondent's
main office at Chicago, Illinois. This proposal included provisions
for a 40-hour week, a closed shop, and check-off. Cooney thereupon
came to, the plant and made another speech to the bargaining com-
mittee on the reasons for the respondent's refusal to enter into the
contract.
In November 1935 the local management presented the Union with
a written proposal, which, according to a witness, who was uncon-
tradicted, "was nothing more than an offer of company policy, rules
and regulations" and meant the "elimination of the entire union."
The Union and the respondent conferred regarding this proposal,
which was rejected by the Union.
Thereafter, the Union met continuously with the local manage-
ment, and beginning at least as early as April 29, 1936, to about Sep-
tember 21, 1938, reached certain oral understandings concerning
grievance procedure, wages, promotions, seniority rules, hiring of
employees, and hours of employment. On November 18, 1936, the
Union presented the local management with a written memorandum
indicating that it desired to enter into a signed agreement with the
respondent and that in the future all questions concerning wage in-
creases and hours of employment should meet the Union's approval.
In January 1937 the bargaining committee notified the respondent
that it "understood" that the respondent would not change wage
rates in a department in the plant "without a prior conference." At
about the same time, the respondent and the Union reached an agree-
ment on departmental seniority.
On February 24, 1937, the Union asked the local management to
follow more closely its agreement on seniority in connection with the
lay-off of employees, requested general wage increases in the plant,
demanded that no rates of pay be changed by the respondent with-
out first consulting the Union, and, inferentially, requested recogni-
tion as the sole bargaining agency for the respondent's employees,
claiming to represent over 98 per cent of the employees in the plant.
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, despite the Union's consistent complaints against the
respondent's violations of its seniority agreements, the respondent
continued to maintain a haphazard seniority policy.
Pursuant to the Union's request, Cooney, in the first part of March
1937, went to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for a conference with the bar-
gaining committee. In a discussion about collective bargaining,
Cooney admitted to the bargaining committee that the Union was the
sole bargaining agency of the employees in the plant, but stated that
it was not the policy of the respondent to enter into or sign an agree-
ment with the Union. He further refused to grant the Union's
request for increased wages until "the rest of the packing industry
received a wage increase." However, on March 9, 1937, while the
Union and Cooney were still conferring concerning these matters,
Cooney addressed a letter to all employees, announcing wage in-
creases and vacations, and stating that the respondent would
not enter into a contract or publish any rule which compels any
of our employees to join or to belong to any labor or other
organization to enable them to work for us.
This letter further stated inter alia:
More than three years ago a substantial number of our em-
ployees exercised their unquestioned right to become members
of a labor organization. A bargaining committee was elected,
and since that time the door of the management has always been
open and we have bargained with this committee on any and all
subjects affecting the working conditions of the union members.
At the same time the door has likewise been opened for em-
ployees who did not wish to join the union and we have bar-
gained with them. During all this time no substantial matter
has arisen that has not been fairly settled.
On about July 8, 1937, the Union again presented the local manage-
ment with a proposed contract, which contained hour and seniority
provisions, as well as a closed-shop clause. This was again referred
by the local management to the respondent's Chicago office, but the
record does not show what action was taken by the respondent on this
request. However, the local management continued thereafter to
meet with the Union and to settle grievances.
In the first part of February 1938, the Union again presented to
the local management a proposed contract, which contained a pro-
vision for exclusive recognition and previous proposals. The local
management again referred this contract to the Chicago office, and
Cooney came to the plant on March 9, 1938,-and conferred with the
Union's bargaining committee. The bargaining committee at that
time asked that those agreements regarding grievances which had I
WILSON AND COMPA NY 997
been reached be placed in writing.' In response to the Union's
demand for written recognition as exclusive bargaining representa-
tive, Cooney admitted that the Union represented a substantial
majority of the employees. He said that he had dealt with the
bargaining committee as the exclusive bargaining agent "for years,"
and that the respondent had never questioned the Union's status. He
stated that he would inform the employees that the Union was the
exclusive bargaining agency. He also stated that the respondent
would let the plant "rot" before the respondent would sign closed-
shop or check-off provisions or any agreement with the Union.
Seniority, promotions, hours, and rest periods were also discussed by
Cooney.' The following day Cooney sent a letter to all employees,
explaining the respondent's policy on seniority and promotion and
stating, inter alia:
We wish again to make it very plain that it is not necessary
to be a member of any labor or other organization to enable you
to be secure in your job ... Four years ago a substantial
number of our employees formed a labor organization and elected
a bargaining committee. Since that time we have been bargain-
ing with this committee as the chosen representatives of our
employees at Cedar Rapids and during that time no substantial
matter has arisen that has not been satisfactorily settled. While
we have dealt with the bargaining committee continuously, the
door has always been, and will be, open to any employee, or
employees who have matters they wish to take up and handle
themselves with the management.
The bargaining committee again met with the local management
on or about April 22 or 23, 1938, at which time the proposed contract
submitted by the Union in February 1938 was discussed. The super-
intendent stated that the respondent would not agree to a closed
shop or a check-off, said that some of the Union's proposals were
already in effect, and summarily dismissed the other paragraphs of
the contract. He did not make any statement as to what the re-
spondent would agree to or offer any counterproposals.
On June 13, 1938, certain wage changes were put into effect in a
department without prior consultation with the Union. On June 14,
1938, the Union wrote to Cooney and demanded that it be consulted
in "all matters pertaining to collective bargaining" and complained
7 During the course of the meetings between the respondent and the Union from 1934
until the time of the -hearing , there had been three different superintendents in charge of
the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant. The Union desired to place all agreements on grievances
and other matters into writing so that confusion resulting from changes in superintendents
would be prevented.
'A witness testified that when Cooney came to meetings at the local plant, Cooney did
most of the talking and told the Union what he was going to do-"take it or leave it."
283030-41-vol. 19-64
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against the wage changes having been effected without prior con-
sultation. At about this time the respondent also changed its work
schedules in a department without first consulting the Union. The
Union thereupon requested a meeting with the respondent, which
took place on August 8, 1938. At that meeting Cooney, in response
to the Union's request for a signed contract, stated that the Act "did
not require the making of a contract" and that he was opposed to
the closed shop and the check-off. At the same time, however, Milo
Barta, a member of the bargaining committee, stated, according to
the testimony of the Union's business agent, that:
... it was necessary that the grievances and the working agree-
ments between the union and the management should be in
writing so that we would have an understanding.
I think Mr. Barta also said at that time that due to the chang-
ing of the supervisors there that it looked as though that one
superintendent when he left throwed everything in the waste
basket, because the next superintendent didn't know anything
about it, what we had orally.
Q. Was there any reply made to that?
A. I don't believe so. To my knowledge, no.
The bargaining committee continued to meet with the local man-
agement and to discuss grievances and other problems affecting em-
ployees at the plant. On September 28, 1938, the Union wrote to
the respondent stating that it represented a majority of the employees
in the plant and requesting a signed agreement embodying its pre-
vious demands. The respondent did not reply to this letter. In
November 1938, about a week prior to the hearing herein, the bargain-
ing committee met with Cooney in Chicago, Illinois, and asked him
to put "some of these things in writing so that we wouldn't have to
be fighting back and forth and discussing the things over that was
already settled times before." Cooney stated at that meeting that
his mind was "more open" about entering into a contract if the Union
"were willing to forget" about the closed shop and the check-off.
The meetings between the Union and the respondent date back to
a period prior to the passage of the Act.9 When presented by the
Union with proposed agreements, the local management referred
them to the respondent's Chicago, Illinois, office. The meetings held
9 Events occurring before the effective date of the Act , July 5 , 1935 , constitute relevant
background material and may be used to interpret events occurring thereafter . N. L. R. B.
v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines , Inc., et al ., 303 U. S . 261, rev 'g 98 F . ( 2d) 178 (C. C.
A. 3), enf 'g Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc ., Greyhound Management Com-
pany, Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, I N. L. R. B. 1; Jeffery-DeWitt
Insulator Co. v. N. L. R. B., 91 F. (2d) 134 (C. C. A. 4), cert. den. 302 U. S. 731, enf'g
Matter of Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Company and Local No. 455, United Brick and Clay
Workers of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 618.
WILSON AND C02HPAN1 999
with Cooney terminated on each occasion without overt results. At
these meetings the Union made all the advances and was met by
the respondent only with constant delay and objections. By such
means the respondent has effectively refrained from bargaining
collectively with the Union as contemplated by the Act.
During some of the meetings with the Union and at the hearing,
the respondent admitted that the Union represented a substantial
majority of the employees at the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant. De-
spite these admissions, and despite the additional statement by the
respondent on March 9, 1938, that it would inform the employees
that the Union was their exclusive bargaining agency, and the re-
spondent's qualified acknowledgment of its willingness to deal with
the bargaining committee as the representative of its employees con-
tained in its letter of March.10, 1938, the respondent nevertheless
withheld from the Union the formal recognition as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees to which it was entitled.
Such recognition alone is of paramount importance in securing
collective bargaining. The requirements of the Act are not satisfied'
by meeting but refusing recognition.10
After the Union requested a wage increase in March 1937, and
while it was negotiating with the respondent on this subject, the
respondent granted wage increases to the employees without either
notifying the Union of its intended action or consulting it with
respect thereto. In June 1938 the respondent also altered wage scales
and work schedules in the plant without consulting the Unioil, al-
though the Union had previously informed the respondent of the
Union's desire to be consulted before any action was taken in mat-
ters properly the subject of collective bargaining. The respondent's
failure to notify or consult the Union as to such matters was an
attempt by the respondent to relieve itself of its obligations to bar-
gain collectively under Section 8 (5) of the Act, constituted a direct
attack upon the Union's efforts to bargain collectively, and, of neces-
sity, dealt a severe blow to the Union's prestige by demonstrating to
the employees that the respondent considered collective bargaining
with the Union neither desirable nor necessary. We have previously
held that when an employer unilaterally acts with respect to matters
which normally are the subject matters of collective bargaining, at
a time when the employees' designated union is attempting to bargain
collectively with him, such action constitutes, a violation of the
10Matter of The Griswold Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Association of
Iron. Steel and Tin Workers of North America. Lodge No. 1197. 6 N. L. R. B. 298 . enf'd.
N. L. R. B. v. The Griswold Manufacturing Company , 106 F. (2d) 713 (C. C. A. 3) ;
Matter of Newark Rivet Work s and Unity Lodge No. 420, United Electrical CC. Radio
Workers of America, C. 1. 0.. 9 N. L. R. B. 498.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer's duty under the Act to bargain with the designated
union.',
The respondent urges that it has bargained in good faith with the
Union and that agreement has not been reached primarily on the
questions of a closed shop and a check-off. On this basis the re-
spondent apparently seeks to justify its refusal to embody in a signed
agreement oral understandings which were reached between it and
the Union at least as early as April 29, 1936. The Union, however,
contends that the respondent has not bargained in good faith, and
that the respondent has steadfastly employed dilatory tactics to
avoid entering into a signed agreement with the Union.
Cooney consistently refused the demands of the Union, which
included, in addition to exclusive recognition, provisions for maxi-
mum hours, a minimum wage, seniority rules, a closed shop, and a
check-off. In rejecting the Union's proposals, Cooney made lengthy
speeches, but exerted no effort to submit any plan or offer which
could be considered evidence of the respondent's intention to bargain
in good faith. It is obvious that the respondent's failure in this
respect made any productive negotiations impossible.12
However, when the Union and the respondent met in Chicago,
Illinois, about a week prior to the hearing herein, Cooney stated that
his mind was "more open" about entering into a contract if the
Union "were willing to forget" about the closed shop and the check-
.off. This was the first time that the respondent had ever intimated
that it would consider entering into a contract with the Union;
However, the following testimony given by Cooney at the hearing
belies his earlier statement to the Union and more accurately
describes the respondent's attitude:
Q. Is the company now willing to reduce to the form of a
signed contract any of the understandings or agreements that
have been reached by the representatives of the union and of the
company?
A. The company has never given any consideration to that
question up to this time.,
"See Matter of George R. Pilling & Son Co. and Dental , Surgical & Allied Workers
Local Industrial Union No. 119, Affiliated with the C. 1. 0., 16 N. L. it. B. 650: Matter
of Whittier Mills Company and Silver Lake Company and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee ; Scottdale Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee. 15 N. L. it. B.
457 ; Matter of Dallas Cartage Company and Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America , Local 745 ; Interstate Fireproof Storage and Trans-
fer Company and Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffetws, Stablemen & Helpers, Local
745, 14 N. L. it. B. 411 ; Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company and Federation of
Architects, Engineers , Chemists , and Technicians , Local 107, 12 N. L. it. B. 1002.
12 See Matter of Globe Cotton Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 6 N. L.
it. B. 461, set aside in part, Globe Cotton Mills v. N. L. R. B., 103 F. (2d) 91 (C. C. A. 5) ;
Matter of Harry Schwartz Yarn Co., Inc. and Textle Workers Organizing Committee, 12
N. L. R. B. 1139. i
WILSON AND COMPANY 1001
The mere fact that a labor organization is seeking a closed shop and
a check-off along with other contractual provisions does not
excuse an employer from refusing to bargain in good faith with the
labor organization.'
In support of its claim that the Act does not.require employers to
enter into signed agreements, the respondent relies on the language
of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Jones cf Laughlin
Steel Corp. case,14 stating that :
The Act does not compel agreements between employers and
employees.' It does not compel any agreement whatever. It
does not prevent the employer "from refusing to make a col-
lective contract and hiring individuals on whatever terms" the
employer "may by unilateral action determine." The Act ex-
pressly. provides in § 9, (a) that any individual employee or a
group of employees shall have the right at any time to present
grievances to their employer. The theory of the Act is that
free opportunity for negotiation with accredited representatives
of employees is likely to promote industrial peace and may bring
about the adjustments and agreements which the Act in itself
does not attempt to compel.
The Supreme Court has subsequently stated :
The Act contemplates the making of contracts with labor
organizations. That is the manifest objective in providing for
collective bargaining. 15
The legislative history of the Act goes far to indicate that
the purpose of the statute was to compel employers to bargain
collectively with their employes to 'the end that employment
contracts binding on both parties should be made.16
The evidence discloses that beginning about April 29, 1936, oral
agreements were reached between the respondent and the Union
as to such matters as grievance procedure, wages, promotions, senior-
ity rules, hiring of employees, and hours of employment. The Union
18 See Matter of United States Stamping Company and Enamel Workers Union, No . 18360,
5 N. L. R . B. 172. No impasse was reached on the closed -shop question to justify a re-
fusal to bargain , as in Matter of Cullom & Ghertner Company and International Brother-
hood, of Book-Binders, Local No. 83, 14 N. L. R. B. 270.
14N. L . R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp ., 301. U. S. 1, 45 , rev'g 83 F. (2d) 998
C. C. A. 5), and enf'g Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation and Amalgamated
.Association of Iron., Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Beaver Valley Lodge No. 200,
1 N. L. R. B. 503.
15 Consolidated Edison Co . et al. v . N. L. R. B . et at., 305 U . S. 197 , 236, aff'g as mod.
95 F. (2d) 390 (C. C. A. 2), and enf'g Matter of Consolidated Edison. Company of New
York, Inc ., and its affiliated companies, et al. and United Electrical and Radio Workers of
America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , 4 N. L. R. B. 71.
16 N. L. R. B. v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U . S. 332 , 342, aff 'g 96 F. ( 2d) 721
(C. C. A. 6), and setting aside Matter of The Sands Manufacturing Company and Mechan-
ics Educational Society of America, 1 N. L. R . B. 546.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
frequently requested the respondent to place these agreements in
writing because unnecessary confusion resulted from a failure to
do so. The Union's requests took the forms of oral demands and
of requests implicit in the presentation to the respondent of written
proposed contracts which the respondent steadfastly ignored. De-
spite the resultant confusion, however, the respondent consistently
refused to enter into a written, signed agreement with the Union
as this was against the respondent's "policy." It is clear that the
avoidance of collective bargaining is the purpose of this policy of
the respondent. The respondent's policy in this respect is opposed
to the policy adopted by Congress in its passage of the Act.
The duty to bargain collectively, which the Act imposes upon
employers, contemplates making any agreements reached between
the parties contractually binding, and under ordinary circumstances,
the reducing of the agreements into written, signed contracts, if
requested to do so by the employees' representatives."
We find that in 1937 and in 1938 the respondent, by (1) its refusal
to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the appropriate bargaining unit at times when the
Union represented a majority of those employees, (2) its failure to
submit any offer to the Union while at the same time rejecting the
Union's proposals, (3) its changing of work schedules and wage
scales without prior consultation with or notification to the Union,
(4) its refusal to bind itself by a contract with the Union and to
put such contract into writing when agreements had been reached
between it and the Union, and (5) its constant use of dilatory tactics
to avoid entering into any binding agreement and to make a sham.
of collective bargaining, i efused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appro-,
priate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
There were present at many of the conferences between the re-
spondent and the Union not only the Union's business agent but
also employees of the respondent. The effect of the respondent's
refusal to deal with the Union was of necessity to discredit the Union
so as to discourage these employees as well as others from maintain-
ing their affiliation with the Union or from affiliating therewith and
from designating it as their bargaining representative.
17 Matter of Highland Park Manufacturing Co. and Textile Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, 12 N. L. R. B. 1238; Matter of H. J. Heinz Company and Canning and Pickle Workers,
Local Union No. 325, affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, American Federation of Labor, 10 N. L. R. B. 963; Matter of Inland Steel
Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel, and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 64, 1010, and 1101, 9 N. L. R . B. 783,
set aside, Inland Steel Company, A Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 109 F. (2d) 9 (C. C. A.
7) ; Matter of St. Joseph Stock Yards Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 109, 2 N. L. R. B. 39. I
WILSON AND COMPANY 1003
We find that by the above refusals to bargain the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent 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
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the Union, on January 1, 1937, and at all
times thereafter was and that it is the exclusive representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit. Having further .found that
the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
such representative, we shall order it upon request to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the pro-
duction and maintenance employees employed by the respondent in
its plant at Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Having further found that the
respondent refused to enter into a signed agreement, we shall address
our order specifically to the wrong sought to be remedied, and order
the respondent to embody any understandings reached in a written,
signed contract."'
VI. THE AMENDED PETITION
In view of the findings in Section III A and B, above, as to the
appropriate unit and the designation of the Union as the exclusive
representative of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit,
it is not necessary to consider the amended petition of the Union
for certification of representatives. Consequently, the amended
petition for certification will be dismissed.
"s See Matter of Bu.ssmann Manufacturing Company and McGraw Electric Company and
International Association of Machinists , District No. 9, Affiliated with American Federa-
tion of Labor, 14 N. L. R. B. 322; Matter of Holston Manufacturing Company and
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 13 N. L . R. B. 783; , Matter of Inland Steel
Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel, and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 64, 1010, and 1101 , 9 N. L. R . B. 783,
set aside . Inland Steel Company , A Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 109 F. ( 2d) 9 (C . C. A. 7).
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
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. United Packing House Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 51,
through Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee , affiliated
with the C. I. 0., is a labor organization , within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2., The production and maintenance employees of the respondent
at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant , constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Packing House Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 51,
through Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee , affiliated
with the C . I. 0., was on January 1 , 1937, and at all times thereafter
has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning of
Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with United Packing House
Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 51, through Packinghouse
Workers Organizing Committee , affiliated with the C . I. O., as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed 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.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent , Wilson & Co. Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Packing House
Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 51 , through Packinghouse
Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C . I. 0., as the
exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees
.at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant;
WILSON AND CO_IIPANY 1005
. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Packing House
Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 51, through Packinghouse
Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. 0., as the
exclusive representative of the production and maintenance em-
ployees at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached on any such matters, embody
said understanding in a written, signed contract;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and about its Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, plant, notices to its employees, and maintain such
notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the
date of posting, stating that the respondent will cease and desist
in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), and that it
will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this
Order ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended petition for investi-
gation and certification of representatives be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MR. WILLIADI M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.