Wilson & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 804 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of WILSON & COMPANY, INC. and PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE , LOCAL No. 25, AFFILIATED WITH C. I. O.
Case No. C-01920.Decided August 31, 1942
Jurisdiction : meat packing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union remarks; restricting employee
-to work on day shift in order to prevent union activity ; discriminatory
enforcement of no-talking rule against union leader.
Discrimination : allegation of discrimination dismissed ; employer held privileged
to discharge employee who engaged in persistent and extensive insubordination.
Remedial Orders : usual cease and desist order; also order to cease and desist
from imposing discriminatory terms and conditions of employment upon em-
ployees because of their membership or activity on behalf of a labor
organization.
Mr.,,S. D. Metzger, for the-Board.
Mr. Alexander K. Gambick and Mr. Richard C. Winkler, of Chicago,
Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Herbert J. Vogt, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Local No., 25, Packinghouse
Workers'Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for 'the Thirteenth Region (Chi-
cago, Illinois), issued its amended complaint dated January 5, 1942,
against Wilson & Company, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent at its Chicago, Illinois, plant
had engaged in and-was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. , Copies of the amended' complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and
the, Union.
43 N. L. R. B., No. 132.
804
WILS'OT & COMPANY, INC. '805
'With respect to'the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in substance that the respondent (1) at various times, from
about November 1940 to the date of the issuance of the amended
complaint, discouraged its employees from, and warned them against,
affiliation with or activities on behalf of the Union and other concerted
activity for their mutual aid and protection; (2) on or about June
17, 1941, discharged or suspended indefinitely, and, thereafter refused
to reinstate, George Von Thun because he joined and assisted the
Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protec-
tion; and (3) by the foregoing acts and conduct, interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act. In its answer and supplemental answer,
both filed at the hearing, the respondent denied that it had engaged in
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on
January 15, 16, 19, and 20, 1942, before William P. Webb; the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
respondent and the Board were represented by counsel and the Union
by its representative. All parties participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. In its answer the respondent moved to strike certain para-
graphs of the amended complaint and to dismiss the, entire amended
complaint. Both motions were denied by the Trial Examiner. At
the conclusion of the respondent's case, counsel for the respondent
submitted a written application for issuance of a subpena duces
tecum requiring the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region
to produce reports of all investigations, correspondence, orders, or
other records contained in the files on this case. This, application
was,denied by the Trial Examiner. At the conclusion of the-hearing,
counsel for the.Board moved to,amend the pleadings to conform.to
the proof in respect to formal matters, such as names, dates, and
minor inaccuracies. The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner.
During the course of the hearing, 'the Trial Examiner made rulings
on' other motions-and on objections, to the, admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. ' The rulings are hereby
affirmed. At the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner afforded
the parties opportunity to present oral argument and - to submit
briefs; however, they did not avail themselves of this opportunity.
On February 24, 1942, the Trial Examiner' issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was
806 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(1) 'and ( 3) of the Act and recommended that the respondent cease
and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On March 14,
1942, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
On May 6, 1942, Von Thun fi l ed- a statement in his own behalf.
On May 12, 1942, pursuant to notice , a hearing for the purpose
of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C.
The respondent was represented by counsel and the Union by its
representative , both of whom participated in the hearing. The
Board has considered the respondent 's exceptions and Von Thun's
to the extent that the exceptions are inconsistent withstatement , and,
the findings of fact, conclusions of -law, and order set forth below,
finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Delaware corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It, operates meat
packing plants in 8 states, and maintains approximately 90 branch
houses throughout the United States. The respondent's packing-
house at Union Stockyards in Chicago, Illinois, is the only plant
involved in this proceeding. At this plant, the respondent purchases
and slaughters livestock, and processes, manufactures, and distributes-
various products and byproducts thereof. During November 1939,
the respondent purchased and slaughtered at its Chicago' plant' about
40,000,000 pounds of livestock. A large proportion of the livestock
was purchased through commission mien doing business in Chicago.
Approximately 2 percent of the cattle, 6 percent of the calves, 17
percent of the sheep, and 18 percent of the hogs slaughtered ' during
November 1939 were purchased by the respondent directly from
sources outside the State ' of Illinois. About 86 percent ` of the pro-
duction at the Chicago plant, which, in November 1939, amounted
to, approximately $10,006,000 in value, is shipped 'to points outside
the State of Illinois by the respondent and by' Wilson & Co. of New
Jersey, a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent. The volume
of the respondent's business and the proportion of out-of-State pur-
chases and shipments at the time of the hearing were substantially
the same as during November 1939. The respondent employs ap-
proximately 3,600 production and maintenance workers at its Chi-
cago plant.
WILSON & COVIPAVY, INC.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
807
Local No. 25, Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor,organi=
zation admitting to membership employees of the respondent at its
Chicago plant.
III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The alleged discrinzinator?J discharge of George Von-Thun;
interference, restraint, and coercion
A. Chronological summary of evidence
The amended complaint alleges that the respondent on or tibout
4une 17, 1941, discharged or indefinitely suspended Von Thun because
he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees. The respondent claims that Von Thun was
suspended because of an accumulation of acts of insubordination
engaged in by him from February to June 1941. The evidence 'ad-
duced in support of ' the amended complaint and that proffered and
relied upon by the respondent relates to various incidents concerning
the conduct and activities of Von Thun and representatives of the
respondent. We shall review these in chronological' sequence.'
Von Thun entered the employ of the respondent in June 1936 as
a compositor in the print shop. After a 'period of intermittent
employment, he worked continuously from March 1938 - until his
suspension on June 17, 1941. He was originally employed at an
hourly wage of 831/2 cents. At the time of his suspension, his hourly
rate was $1.051/2. ' `
Von Thun joined the Union in January 1940. Within a, week he
became union steward for the print shop. Between January 1940
and the time of his suspension, except for a period of 2 weeks during
which there was one other shop steward in the 'print shop, Von Thun
was the only shop steward in that part of the plant. He was out-
standingly active in union affairs, and approximately 3?/2 weeks
before his suspension he was named chief steward for the entire plant.
According to Von Thun's testimony, in February 1941, Frank
Skvor, foreman of the print shop, informed Von Thun during work-
ing hours: • "If I' were you I wouldn't stick my neck out too far for'
the C. I. O. union, because you will never get a union in this shop."
While Skvor denied that he had ever discussed union matters with
Von Thum, we, like the Trial Examiner, do not credit his denial, and
we find that Skvor made the foregoing statement.
i Except as otherwise indicated , the findings of fact made herein are based upon uncon-
tradicted testimony or documentary evidence.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the first week in February, Skvor reported to Russell Tren-
' holme, superintendent of the stationery and printing department,
that ' Von Thun hiid interfered when Skvor reprimanded Frank
Lattyak, a pressman and a member of the Union, with reference to-
the poor quality of Lattyak's work. Trenholme thereupon told Von
Thun, that Skvor was authorized in his capacity as foreman to repri-
mand any employee and that Von Thun had no right to interfere
with that function. Von Thun -replied that, as a steward for the
Union, he had a right to represent union members and to present
their grievances. Trenholme stated that Von Thun had no right'
to represent anyone but; himself and that the Union had not been
recognized by the respondent as the bargaining agent for the em-
ployees.z Von Thun thereupon loudly declared that Trenholme was
anti-union , that he was violating the law, and that he "did not know
what he was talking about." .
Shortly before February 22, Washington's Birthday, Trenholme
posted a notice stating that no employee was to work more than 371/2
hours during the week following the holiday. Von Thun obtained,
and showed to Trenholme, an unaddressed petition signed by eight or
nine employees on the night shift, requesting that, since they had to
work. on the holiday, the night-shift employees be permitted to work
the full 40 hours. Trenholme testified that he informed Von Thun that
if in the future Von Thun had a petition of that nature he was to see
that it was properly addressed, and submitted to the addressee ; that
thereupon Von Thun began shouting that Trenholme was violating the
law, that he' did not know what he was doing, that he had no authority
to talk to Von Thun in that manner, that he, Von Thun, would do as
he pleased, that he was there to, and would, represent the men ; and
that Trenholme replied that Vol-Thun represented no one but him-
self . Von Thun denied that he had been abusive on this occasion or
that he had told Trenholme that he was violating the law, and testi-
fied that Trenholme told him with reference to the petition, "Don't
you dare to do any of that stuff around here, ,trying to form a union
or get these men to- sign a petition any, more for the union," and "if
,you do that again, I will fire you." Trenholme did not specifically
deny having made the remarks attributed to him by Von Thun. The
Trial Examiner found with respect to this incident, that "Trenholme
7 At an election held on January 26, 1940, pursuant to our order , 18 N. L R B 958,
Employees Representative Committee , an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the respondent , had received a majority of the votes cast. How-
ever, this organization was never certified as collective bargaining representative, for on
April 29, 1941 , we found that it was employer-dominated . Matter of Wilson & Co., Inc.
and, Local Union , No. f.5, United Packinghouse Workers of America of P. W. O. C., affiliated
with C. I. O, 31 N., L. R. B 440, enf'd in N. L. R. B. v. Wilson & Co., 126 F. (2d) 114, ,
(C. C. A 7) cert denied`62 S. Ct. 1292. Following the election the respondent recognized
"Employees Representative Committee as the representative of its employees and continued
to do so pending the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals
WILSON & COMPANY, INC. 869 ,
told Von Thun, in reference to the petition, that if Von Thun',ever
did anything similar he would discharge him." He also found, in
substance, that Von Thun made, the remarks attributed to him by
Trenholme. Upon all the evidence, and in view of the Trial Ekam-...
iner's findings, we find that the conversation between Trenholme and-'
Von Thun' on this occasion was substantially in accord-with the testi-
mony of each concerning the remarks arid conduct of the other.
The next encounter between Von Thun and Trenholme took place
about March 3, after a conversation between on Thun and a repre-
sentative of the Employees Representative Committee, a labor organ-
ization, found by the Board on April 29, 1941, to have been "domi-
nated by the respondent 3 and herein called the E. R. C. Von Thun
told the E. R. C. representative, who was engaged in discussing, with
certain employees the matter of presenting a grievance in their behalf,
that the printing shop "was all C. I. O. members"; that the Union
would take care of the grievances in that shop; and that "they didn't
want company representatives around." That night Trenholme told
Von Thun that if he talked to anyone in the plant again, he would
discharge .him. Von Thun inquired as to what Trenholme meant by
telling him not to talk, while failing, similarly to restrict the others.
Trenholme replied that those were his orders and that he was the
"boss."
On March 6, 1941, Trenholme posted the following notice in.the
print shop over his signature.:
To all employees,:
Talking to the man on the job on the part of employees not con-
cerned with the job itself must stop.
It is perfectly satisfactory for a pressman relieving another
pressman, to discuss the work, or a paper cutter to a paper cutter,
or a compositor to a compositor, but a compositor has no reason
to talk to a paper cutter or pressman and likewise a pressman
or paper cutter has no reason to talk to a compositor:
Shortly after the posting of this notice, Trenholme and Von Thun
clashed again. According to Trenholme's testimony, Von Thun ap-
proached him during working hours and the following conversation
ensued : Von Thun inquired "What are you trying to do, make all'
of us wear stripes around here?" Trenholme told him that the notice
was posted in order to improve production and eliminate spoilage of
work. Von Thun asked him for a copy of the notice "for his case";
Trenholme refused to comply but suggested that Von Thun write out
a copy. Von Thun followed the suggestion and asked Trenholme to
sign a copy. Trenholme refused, and Von Thun asked a' pressman
See footnote 2, supra.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to, sign it. " Trenholme ordered the pressman to continue with his
work. - Von Thun then shouted at Trenholme, "I will see that you
get taken care of on matters like this, you don't know what you are
doing." At one point in his testimony Von Thun denied having
talked with Trenholme about the notice. Later Von Thun admitted
that he had asked Trenholme for a copy and that he had made his
own copy when Trenholme refused to give him one. Von Thun de-
nied having said that he wanted a copy for "his case," but testified
'that he wanted one in order to-be. able to discuss, it