Wolverine Shoe and Tanning Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 881 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the- , Matter of WOL\ERIxE SHOE AND TAN\ING CORPORATION a?d
AM LGAILATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF ABIERICA
Case No. C-2576.-Deeded May 19, 19 3
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On-April 2, 1943, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had,
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
.of the Act, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report annexed
hereto.
Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a brief in support of the exceptions. None of the parties
requested oral argument before the Board. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that 'no prejudical errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's brief and ex-
ceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National{Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Wolverine Shoe and Tan-
ning Corporation, Greenville, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall : -
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Wolver-
ine Glove Workers Association, or with the formation or administra-
tion of any other labor organization of its employees, and from con-
tributing support to Wolverine Glove Workers Association, or to any
other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to the agreement" of May 12, 1942, with Wolverine
Glove Workers Association or to any modification, extension , supple-
49 N L R. B., No. 126. -
881
J
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went, or renewal,thereof, or to any superseding agreement with said
organization which may now be in force;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties, for the purposes of collective bargaining or -other mutual aid or
protection, 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 and withhold all recognition from Wolverine Glove
Workers Association as the representative of any of its employees for
the purposes of. dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, and, completely disestablish Wolverine Glove
Workers Association as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant in Green-
ville, Michigan, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
,secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating :
'(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it
is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b),.ancl (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 Seventh Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order', what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT'
Mr.-Mane Rotenbe•q, for the Board; 14'aroel, Norcross, d Judd, by, Ur Lawson
E Becker, of Grand Rapids. Mich., for the respondent
Mr J A. Weitzel, of Greenville, Mich., for the Association.
Air Flunk Schaps, of Chicago, 111. for the Amalgamated
STATEMENT OF THE CASTE
Upon an amended charge (lnly filed by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, herein called the Amalgamated, the National Labor Relations Board;
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh 'Region
(Detroit, Michigan), issued its "complaint, dated February 6,, 1943, Eagainst
`Wolverine Shoe and Tanning Corporation, Greenville, Micing.ua,^ herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce,, within the Iaeanlng,of Section 8' (1) 'and (2)'
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 444,
herein called the Act Copies of the 'complaint, together with notice of hearing,
were duly served upon the respondent, the' Amalgamated, and Wolverine Glove
Workers Association.' herein calledithe Association. - -
1'I'his labor organuzation is also known as Union of Employees of Woli-eiine Shoe and
Tanrnng Company
WOLVERINE SHOE AND- TANNING CORPORATION" 883
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in sub-
stance: (1) that the respondent, in January 1942 and thereafter, dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed support to,
the Association by (a) making known its hostility to affiliation with an outside
Labor organization , (b) soliciting its employees to join the. Association, (c)
entering into an exclusive bargaining contract with the Association on May 42,
1942, although the Association was not the representative of a majority of the
respondent's employees within an appropriate unit, the Association had requested
only' recognition for its members, and the Amalgamated and requested, exclusive
recognition,' (d) refusing to permit the Amalgamated to demonstrate its represen-
tation, and (e) restricting the movement of members of the Amalgamated at the
respondent's plant while allowing full freedom of movement to members of the
Association; and (2 ) that by the foregoing conduct, by questioning employees
concerning their union membership and activity, by persuading and warning its
employees to refrain from membership or activity in the Amalgamated, by per-
mitting certain employees to circulate, and solicit signatures to, a petition in
opposition to the Amalgamated on the respondent's property during working
hours, and by disparaging the Amalgamated and its representatives, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On February 19, the iespondent filed its answer to the complaint, denying that
it had engaged in unfair labor practices. -
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Greenville, Michigan from February
25 to March 4, 1943, before Robert F Koretz, the undersigned Trial Eiamiher
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the
Amalgamated,ond the Association were represented by counsel and 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.
During the hearing, the undersigned denied a motion by the 1 espondent to dismiss
the proceeding on the ground that the complaint was not based upon a charge
conforming with the provisions of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Near the
close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings to
conform to the proof respecting formal matters Thei e was no objection, and
the motion was granted At this time, the undersigned i eserved ruling on motions
by the Association and the respondent to dismiss the complaint. The motions
are hereby denied. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board and
for the respondent argued orally before the undersigned Subsequent to the
hearing, counsel for the Board and for the respondent filed briefs with the
undersigned
Upon the entire record in'the case a and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINFSS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Wolverine Shoe and Tanning Corporation, is a Michigan cor-
poration with its principal office at Rockford, Michigan. It owns and operates a
tannery and plant at Rockford, Michigan, where it manufactures shoes, and a
2 lhu rng the hearing, the undei signed granted a motion by the Association to inter% ene
ni the pioceeding
2 Board's Exhibit No. 12 was reserved for a return receipt of a registered letter from
the Amalgamated to the Iespondent Tins receipt was to be submitted within a reasonable
time after the close of-the bearing It not having been submitted by counsel tor the Board
Board's'Exhibit No. 12 is hereby stricken.
531647-43-vol. 49=57
884 DEOISiIO'NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant at Greenville, Michigan, where it manufactures work gloves.' This pro-
ceeding is concerned only with employees of the respondent at its plant in•Green-
Ville, at which'it employs approximately 230 persons. During 1942, the respondent
used in its manufacturing operations materials valued at over $2,200,000.
Approximately 95 percent of these materials were purchased outside Michigan
and shipped, to the respondent's plants in Michigan. During the same year, the
respondent's sales of its finished or partially finished products were over
$5,200,000. Approximately 90 percent of such sales represented shipments to
points outside Michigan. - - ,
The respondent, admits that it is engaged, in commerce, within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership em-
ployees of the respondent.
Wolverine Glove Workers Association, also known as' Union of Employees of
Wolverine Shoe' and Tanning Company, is an unaffiliated, 4abor• organization,
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination and interference with the formation and administration of the
Association and contribution of support thereto; interference, restraint and
coercion .
About the Spring of 1937 employees in the cutting room of the respondent's
plant circulated a petition for a wage increase Erma Johnson, forelady of the
stitching department,' asked several of the cutters not to sign the petition because
such conduct was against the respondent's rules. She advised them "to settle
outside of the petition." Johnson informed John Christensen, superintendent 'of
the plant,b that she had spoken to the cutters, and, according to, her uncor_tradicted
testimony, Christensen "didn't disapprove." Shortly after the circulation of the
petition, a group of 17 cutters held a meeting at the home of employee Don Van
Allen to consider certain working conditions which they desired to improve"
Christensen appeared without invitation at the meeting, discussed the employees'
grievances with them, and agreed to rectify certain matters. On the next day,
while Van Allen was at work, Christensen asked him whether he had invited the
employees'to his home, requested Van Allen to inform hint of any further meet-
'4 During her employment, a hick terminated, on August 1, 1941, Johnson had supervision
of the entire stitching department, in which theie were more than 100 employees
'Christensen was superintendent of the Greenville plant until January 1. 1943, when
be became plant manager. At all times material herein Christensen, a director of the
iespondent, has been the highest official of the respondent regularly employed at the
Greenville plant Christensen works under the general supervision of Adolph Krause,,
treasurer of the respondent, who manages the respondent's Rockford plant and who ordi-
narily spends about one-half day each week at the Greenville plant.
6 Although van Allen testified that this meeting occuried about April 1938, in view of
his further testimony that the meeting occurred shortly after Lyle Phillips had taken
the petition for a wage raise -to the respondent's office, and the fact that Phillips was
discharged on May 28, 1937, the undersigned finds that this meeting occurred in the
Spring of 1937.
WOLVE'REVE SHOE AND TANNING CORPORATION ^ 885
ings , and cautioned Van Alien that he had "better look out" since "things were
getting kind of slack and he would have to lay off some cutters before long." °
Early in 1941, an unaffiliated labor organization named Greenville and Belding
Industrial Council, hereinafter called the G. & B., sought to organize employees
in plants in Greenville and Belding. Christensen, who knew that some of the
respondent's employees had joined the G. & B, said to Forelady Johnson, "Well,
we don't need any union in the shop, do we?" Johnson agreed that a union was
unnecessary.8 Christensen and Johnson at this time expressed their opposition to
unionization to several employees. June Wilson, who, as set forth below, became
the leader in the formation of the Association, asked Johnson what the latter.
thought of the handbills the G. & B. passed out and whether she, Wilson, should
attend its meetings. Johnson told Wilson that the employees "didn't need an
outside union in the shop" and that they "needed a union of [their] owns'
Christensen asked Don Van Allen whether he had attended a G. & B. meeting the
previous evening and said, "You don't need any union here If you have anything
to kick about, talk to me and we will straighten it out." To Paul Irish, who wore
a G & B. button, Christensen remarked , "Keep it shined up nice." Christensen
told Irish that he did not "need any union in the shop," and that if Irish was in
need of "anything in the shop," he should come to Christensen, who would "iron
it out" for him. , When Dana Meyer mentioned that he understood that employees
in Greenville and Belding were "going to have a union," Christensen said, "I would
not get into that organization if I .was you. We will probably lose our bonuses,
and everything the Company gives us"" Christensen asked Leslie Rydahl
whether lie had attended a G. & B meeting and whether he had read carefully
his union card Rydalil answered both questions in the affirmative. Christensen
then said, "Sometimes, you better be careful what you sign; you will get yourself
into trouble." When Rydahl mentioned that employees at another plant in the
vicinity also belonged, to the G. & B., Christensen replied that he did not "see
why you should go there and take some stranger's advice" and stated that lie
would. take care of the employees' "matters" as he had done in the past."
In January 1942 the Amalgamated started to organize the respondent's em-
ployees. Christensen soon became aware of the Amalgamated's organizational
effort and informed his superior, Adolph Krause, of this. Don Van Allen joined
the Amalgamated at a meeting held in the latter part of January. According to
Van Allen's testimony, on the next day Christensen told him, while he was at"
work, that there would be "slack times before long" ; that the respondent was
"going to lay off some of the help" ; and that the respondent would "lay off the
ones monkeying around the union first." Christensen warned Van Allen not, to
"monkey around them" since it would involve him "in trouble." Christensen testi-
fied that he did not recall having talked to Van Allen regarding an Amalgamated,
T The findings regarding the meeting at Van Allen's home and his conversation the
next day with Christensen are based upon Van Allen's testimony Christensen admitted
that he had attended the meeting, testified that lie did not recall speaking to Van
Allen thereafter, and denied that be had cautioned Van Allen to "look out."
8 The findings as to this conversation are based upon the testimony of Johnson. Christ-
ensen conceded that he "might have made the statement a good many years ago", and could
not recall whether this conversation occurred at the time of the formation of the G & B.
9 Wilson also testified. Her testimony is corroborated by that of Johnson, who testified
that she told Wilson and other unnamed employees under her supervision that the respondent
did not need a union in the shop.
to The respondent gives yeaily bonuses to its employees.
11 The undersigned has credited the testimony of Van Allen, Irish, Meyer, and Rydalil,
respectively , in finding that Christensen engaged in the conversations set forth in the
text Christensen did not recall the conversation with Van Allen and denied that he made
the statements attributed to him by Meyer. He made no reference in his testimony to the
conversations with Irish or Rydahl.
886 DECISIONS OFD' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting The undersigned credits Van Allen's testimony -and finds that Christen-
sen made the statements mentioned above. According to the testimony of Jean
Woodward , which the undersigned credits, in the latter part of January, Christen-
sen asked her whether she had attended a meeting of the Amalgamated the pre-
vibus . night, and after she answered in the affirmative , questioned her as to how
many persons were present 's Paul Irish testified that in the latter part'of
.January or early in February Christensen asked whether he had heard the story
of the seven dwarfs. According to Irish, Christensen then "rattled something
off", which contained the following phrase: "You pay your dues to the goddam
Jews." Christensen did not deny that he had engaged in this conduct . The under-
signed credits Irish's testimony.'8
In February 1942 Dana Meyer approached Richard Krause , secretary and sales
manager of the respondent, while the latter was at the Greenville plant 'i , Accord-
ing to Meyer 's testimony , the following occurred in the course of a lengthy con-
versation : Meyer told Krause that he did not think that "the system they had in
the shop was quite fair to the workers ." Krause replied , "You don't know a lot
about the, Company' s business ." Meyer asked Krause what he thought of "the
union we was starting to organize in the shop . Krause then said, "I don't think
much of - Johnny Wieczorek 'e and a bunch of foreigners and Jews running our
business for us. . . . I know you have been going around evenings and organizing
for the Company , to the houses , for the workers.... I know also they are sending
out letters to the Wolverine Glove employees . . . I would like to have you send
me one of those letters every time they issue them ." Meyer said that it was,"all
right with me." Krause asked, "Would you drop out of the organizing com-
mittee if we change your pay system ?" Meyer answered , "I don't known , I prob-
ably would." Krause then suggested , "Why don't you get all the fellows , together
and instead of having an organization , come and see us fellows first." To this
Meyer said that he thought John Christensen 's "word was law in the glove
shop" and that Christensen had stated that if the employees desired "any griev-
ance settled , to come and see him first ." They then turned to a discussion of the
respondent 's system of pay. Meyer stated that the women employees were
"always sobbing" because "they couldn't figure their pay." He pointed out that
the respondent never had noted on the employees ' cards 19 the various pay raises
which had been granted . At this time John Christensen approached and stated
that it was "too much work" to make such changes. At the conclusion of the
conversation Meyer told Krause that he "would talk to the fellows that night
about getting together and going to him first . . . .s 17
12 Christensen testified that he did not recall-having discussed union 'matteis with Wood-
ward at any time.
13 Irish also testified that in the latter part of January Christensen told him that he must
stop talking to employees "about organizing"; that he, Irish, asked why he shouldx,stop,
when members of the Association engaged in such conduct ; and that Christensen replied
that there was not "supposed to be any talking of unions in the shop " Inasmuch as the
Association had not been formed at this time, the respondent urges that Irish's entire,
testimony be reiected. While it is plain that Irish must have been mistaken about the date
of this conversation with Christensen, the undersigned is of the opinion that this is insufli-
cient'to discredit Irish's testimony. Irish impressed the undersigned as an honest wit-
ness ; and Chi istensen did not deny that he made the statements attributed to hini by
Irish The undersigned finds that Christensen reprimanded Irish for talking "about organ-
izing" some time after the formation of the Association in the latter part of February 1942.
14 Richard Krause visits the Greenville plant about "every third month."
16 John Wieczorek was business agent of the Amalgamated.
10 The rates of pay for various operations are recorded on such cards.
17 That evening Meyer broached this proposition to two other employees. Meyer and
the others agreed, however, to "stick with the Amalgamated."
WOLVERINE SHOE AND' PANNING CORPORATION 887-
Richard -Krause's version of the relevant portions of the conversation was as
follows :
... he [Meyer] said, "Now, confidentially, between you and me, what do you
think of our union going over here? I said secondly, "Whimpey, I am busy ;
I am in the sales end and I am not interested in the management end and
anything I might say might be misstated or misquoted." He said, "You know
it is pretty hot over here. There is quite a bit of feeling. I happen to be in
the middle of it,ZIhe said. "What would you suggested I do?" I said, "I
have no suggestion whatsoever." He said, "Do you thing it would help any
if I back out of this?" I said, "Whimpey, you can't back out of it because
you have assumed the leadership of a definite group and you can't let them
down.
When asked whether he had stated that he did not think much of Wieczroek and
a bunch of foreigners running the business, Krause answered, "I don't recall men-
tioning John Wieczroek's name." Krause denied that he suggested that Meyer
drop out of the organizing committee. Krause testified, when asked whether he
requested that Meyer send him Amalgamated letters, that Meyer "vouched that
information that he would." Excepting "that one statement," Krause was unable
to recall how the discussion of union letters arose.'s - '
Consideration of all the testimony persuades the undersigned that Meyer's
version of the conversation is true. Meyer's demeanor and testimony impressed
the undersigned that he was an honest witness. Krause's response was equivocal
when he was questioned as to whether he made the remarks about Weiczorek
and others which Meyer attributed to him. And his testimony concerning the
reference to union letters reflected a lack of recollection. The undersigned finds
that the conversation in fact occurred substantially as testified by Meyer.
On Friday afternoon, February 13, 1942, June Wilson wrote the following peti-
tion at her machine : "We, the undersigned, do hereby swear that we do not want
the CIO '9 in the glove factory." Wilson signed her name and passed the petition
"across the aisle" to another employee, who in turn "passed it down the lane."
In about 15 minutes the petition, which had been signed by about 13 employees,
was returned to Wilson. Thereafter, the petition was circulated outside of work-
ing hours within a week 127 signatures of employees were procured. Among
those who signed the petition was Alfred Christensen who, as found below, was
the supervisor of the pressing and turning department.
Although Adoph Krause was informed by Carroll Ingles, an office employee, that
"there was a petition going around against the C. I. 0.," and notwithstanding the
fact that on January 30 the respondent had posted a notice in the plant that'there
should be no solicitation during working hours,RO Krause made no inquiry as to
who circulated or signed the petition, when the circulation started, or where the
petition was. This is in contrast to the treatment accorded Jean Woodward, a
is Krause's testimony concerning the discussion of the respondent's pay system did not
differ materially from that of Meyer. -
19 The Amalgamated frequently was referred to by employees as "the CIO."
Z0 This notice, which is dated January 30, 1942, is as follows :
This corporation has never allowed solicitation for any organization by individuals
on company property during working hours Please don't now, so that it will not be
necessary to invoke penalties. It disturbs those who wish to work.
Although Wilson testified, and Krause at first testified, that this notice was posted imme-
diately after the anti-Amalgamated petition had been circulated in the plant, Krause later
admitted, after Wilson's testimony that the petition had been circulated on February 13
was called to his attention , that "My memory must have been wrong in that regard."
888 DEG'ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
packer, by John Christensen about the same time. Early in February, shortly
after Christensen had questioned her about her attendance at an Amalgamated
meeting, as set forth above, Christensen told Woodward that he, had received
reports that she was "talking in the union" and that he did not want her to do
this., When Woodward protested that others were doing likewise, Christensen
replied that "Because they didn't quit talking" some of those "that wanted to run
the place" would be "laid off or fired." Christensen told Woodward, that he did
not "care which union [she] belonged to" but that he did not want her "to run
around the shop.',' She asked who would get the boxes in which she packed gloves
from the other side of the floor. Christensen said that he would get them. When
Woodward stated that this "sounded foolish," Christensen told her that if she
"talked fishing" she could get the boxes. Christensen admitted that he instructed
Woodward not to "run around the shop," denied that he knew at this time she was
a member of the Amalgamated, and did not recall that he ever had discussed union
matters with her. The undersigned credits Woodward's testimony regarding this
conversation. %
On February 20, one week after she had started the circulation of the anti-
Amalgamated petition, Wilson discussed the organization of an unaffiliated union
with Merrill Wood, an employee. They decided to see J. A. Weitzel, an attorney.
On the next day Wilson and Wood asked Weitzel how "to start an organization
of our own." Weitzel advised them to "have a 'meeting as soon as possible."
The first meeting of the Association was Deld on the following Monday night,
February 23, at a hall in Greenville.` About 60 employees were present. Wilson
opened the meeting. She read certain articles disparaging the Amalgamated and
told the employees that the purpose of forming the Association was to keep the
Amalgamated- out of the plant 22 Those who were present were informed that
any person who desired to join the Association could sign a book, which was then
passed among the employees. Nearly all of them signed. Officers of the
Association were elected at this meeting. Wilson was elected president.
Meetings of the Association were held once a week for about 3 weeks, twice
a month for about 2 months, and about once a )month thereafter. In April
Articles of Incorporation of the Association were executed and filed. Among
those who signed the Articles and who were listed therein as "persons associat-
ing in the first instance" was Alfred Christensen, supervisor of the pressing and
turning' department 2' At the second meeting of the Association, which was held
on March 2, membership cards were issued to those who had signed the book
at the first' meeting. At the second meeting and on subsequent occasions new
cards were made out for additional members. None of the Association cards
was signed by the persons whose membership the cards represented ; the names
of employees appearing on most of the cards which were issued, and the dupli-
cate cards retained by the treasurer, were filled in by Wilson.` Over 20 of the
Association's membership cards were issued upon payment by a member of the
0
n Wilson paid the rental for the hall.
22 Wilson testified at the hearing that the Association was formed to combat the organi-
zational effort of the Amalgamated. A group of employees who were known to be adherents
of the Amalgamated were refused admittance to the meeting of February 23.
21 Alfred Christensen has been employed for some 12 or 14 years. Christensen "looks
after" the approximately 24 pressers and turners on the second and third floors of the
plant. He teaches new employees, and "sees that the boys are pressing the gloves right"
and "that production is kept under way." He devotes his entire time to supervision.
Alfred Christensen is responsible to John Christensen, the plant manager, who is his imme-
diate superior. In its brief,, the respondent characterized Alfred Christensen as- "a fore-
man:" At the time of the hearing Alfred Christensen was still a member of the Association.
2% The names of employees appearing on about 15 cards were filled in by other offi cers_
or members of the bargaining committee.
WOLVERINE ' SHOE AND TANNING CORPORATION 1889
monthly dues of 25' cents for an absent employee, who, the member stated,
desired to join the Association. And on several occasions the treasurer recorded
the dues payments made by members for other employees who were not present.
In March 1942, employee Charles Bradley, during working hours,' called
employees to a work bench on the third floor of the plant, where he solicited
their membership in the Association. Herbert Byers called this to the attention
of Alfred Christensen, the supervisor of the pressing and turning department.
Christensen merely smiled and left Byers. Although the evidence establishes
that there was' solicitation on behalf of the Amalgamated during working hours,
there is no evidence that this came to the attention of any supervisory employee,
except in the case of Jean Woodward and Paul Irish, both of whom, as found
above, were reprimanded for such conduct by John Christensen.
In April 1942 Wilson procured a copy of a collective agreement which was in
effect at a certain plant in Greenville. Wilson and other members of the Asso-
ciation's bargaining committee used this as a model in preparing a proposed
contract to be submitted to the respondent. It was changed in certain respects
to conform to existing practices of the respondent. The proposed contract, as
finally prepared, provided that the respondent would "recognize the Association
as the bargaining agency for its members." According to Wilson's uncon-
tradicted testimony, the proposed contract embodied no provisions which would
require any change in existing wages, hours, or working conditions at the
respondent's plant.
On April 2S Wilson told Adolph Krause that the Association had been desig-
nated
•'
by a majority of the employees at the Greenville plant and requested
that Krause and Christensen meet with the Association's bargaining committee
to negotiate a contract. Krause agreed that he would meet with the committee
on the evening of May 5.
On or about May 1,, 1942, Maxia Phillips, supervisor of inspectors in the
cutting room,26 was assisting Darlene Steele, a new employee, in the performance
of her duties. According to Steele's testimony, the following then occurred :
John Christensen approached and asked Phillips, "Have you told this new girl
about the silly ideas the men have in the basement." 26 Phillips said that she
had not mentioned this to Steele. "A group of men," continued Christensen,
"had it in their heads" that they "were going to run the place." Christensen
added that he had been at the plant "a good many years," and knew more about
it than the employees who had "those foolish ideas." Christensen concluded
his remarks with the statement that these employees could go "someplace else
to work," but that they would "come back crawling on their hands and knees
and ask for work." 271 Phillips then told Steele that "We have another union in
to kick the CIO out." 28 She also told Steele that if the CIO organized "the
basement" it would result in "arguments, unrest and strikes like they had in
other plants." Christensen testified that on this occasion he told Steele that she
was "to do her work and not to listen to anyone talking about labor problems."
This was "all"' that Christensen could recall of the conversation. He explained
21 There are "about nine female inspectors. Phillips spends most of her time instructing
new inspectors and giving orders to inspectors . Phillips makes the final decision when an
inspector is doubtful as to whether or not gloves which they inspect are to be rejected.
Phillips also assigns inspectors to assist others when they are "caught up," and gives em-
ployees their pay checks.
2e The record indicates that interest in the organizational activity on behalf of the Amal-
gamated was centered largely among the cutters, who worked on the first floor or "base-
ment" of the respondent 's plant.
27 Steele 's testimony indicates that. Christensen then departed.
21 Supervisor Phillips is a member of the Association. -
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had "been told-at various times that they solicited membership and
that they had asked the girls why they were working there at those wages, why
they don't go some place else where they could get more money " Christensen
further testified that he could not recall who had made these reports. Although
such reports had been made on various occasions by employees on "all three"
,floors of the respondent's plant, stated Christensen, he went only to the first
floor to make his admonition. Nor could Christensen, according to his testimony,
remember which union was causing the trouble to which he had reference.
Phillips was not called to testify, and Christensen's testimony regarding the
reports which he purportedly had received was unsubstantiated by the testimony
of any employees The undersigned considers Christensen's testimony unreliable
as to this conversation, as well as to certain other matters. On the other hand,
the undersigned was impressed by Steele's demeanor and testimony. It is found
that her version of her conversations with Christensen and Phillips is true.
On the evening of May 5, Wilson and the other members of the Association's
bargaining committee met with Adolph Krause and Christensen The committee,
according to Krause's testimony, "requested 'that they be acknowledged as a
bargaining unit" and submitted the proposed contract :^ Krause stated that it
would be necessary to ascertain whether the Association had been designated
by a majority of the employees The iespondent, said Krause, "would not
negotiate with a minority union. . . . as we wanted only one union in the plant
controlling all the employees." Christensen and a member of the committee
then compared the Association's membership cards, mentioned above, with a
current payroll list. The comparison revealed that 123 of the names appearing
on the cards appeared upon the payroll, which contained the names of 235
persons, excluding persons , classified as ' office employees or `foremen 80 While
the comparison was being made, Krause and the committee discussed the
proposed contract. During the meeting Krause stated that his attorney, with
whom he had conferred concerning the Association's request for collective bar-
gaining, had "bet" that the Amalgamated would' charge that the respondent
had dominated the Association Krause asked the committee whether they
would sign a statement that such was not the case . The committee agreed. to
do so. Wilson drafted a statement," which the members of the committee
signed . At the close of the meeting , Krause stated that he would take the
proposed contract to his attorney for consideration, that he would make any
changes he deemed desirable, and that they could discuss such changes before
the contract was signed. It, was agreed that a further meeting would be held
on May 12.
11 The committee also presented its Articles of Incorporation and Certificate of Incorpo-
ration.
80 At the bearing the Association produced , in response to a subpoena ducea tecum issued
by the Board, a "list of members .. . as of May, 1942 " Said list contained the names of
117 persons Wilson testified without contradiction that the Association had 123 members
who had paid their dues in April; that a member was not,considered delinquent until the
following month had elapsed without payment of dues ; that the 123 cards submitted to the
respondent on May 5 were those of persons who had paid their dues through April; and
that the list submitted in response to the subpoena ducea teoum were those of persons who
had paid their dues in May . While the evidence heretofore set forth regarding the Asso-
'ciation's method of enrolling members and recording dues,payments raises doubt as to
wheth"r a majority of the employees were in fact members on May 5 , the undersigned is
of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to establish , that a majority of the employees
were not members.
"The statement was as follows :
We the undersigned do hereby swear that we have in positively , no way received any
encouragement , sponsorship , or assistance from the company, any of its officials or
supervisors in the planning, formation, or organizing of this association. -
WOLVERINE SHOE AND TANNING. CORPORATION 891
On May 8, Adolph Krause requested Christensen, during the latter's usual
Friday trip to the Rockford plant, to deliver to Wilson a letter in which Krause
stated that the respondent recognized the Association as the exclusive represen-
tative of employees at the Greenville plant.32 The letter was delivered to Wilson
by Christensen on the next morning.
On or about May 8, Krause received from a representative of the Amalgamated
a registered letter containing the following: 2a
We are requesting a Conference with you at your possible earliest
convenience, to negotiate on the question of Collective Bargaining for
your cutting and inspecting departments in your Greenville shop.
This Conference will be held by a committee from your shop and repre-
sentatives from our organization for the purpose of collective bargaining
which we have the right under the National Labor Relations Act.
On May 10 the respondent received a letter from the Regional Director in
which the, letter informed the respondent that the Amalgamated had filed a
charge alleging that the respondent had violated Section 8 (1) and (2) of
the Act "with particular reference to an independent union." si On May 11
Krause replied to the Amalgamated's representative as follows :
I am compelled to • advise you that at a meeting held Tuesday evening,
May 5, 1942, representatives of our Company met with the Wolverine Glove
Workers Association, a Michigan corporation and that it was determined
at that meeting that their Association had duly accredited members repre-
senting more than a majority of all of the employees of our Greenville plant
entitled to become members of the Union.
We, therefore, had no alternative than to recognize this Union as the
proper representative for collective bargaining of the entire Greenville
plant and it would accordingly seem that there was no purpose in con-
ferring with you on the subject. (Underscoring supplied.)
On May 12, the Association's committee and Krause and Christensen met
in accordance with their previous agreement. Krause submited to the com-
mittee an agreement. The terms of this agreement were substantially the
same as those of the proposed contract which had been submitted by the
Association, except that (a) this agreement provided that the respondent would
recognize the Association as exclusive bargaining representative, whereas the
proposed contract provided for recognition of the Association as the repre-
sentative of its members; (b) this agreement provided that the three members
of the grievance committee other than the president should be appointed by
the president, whereas the -proposed contract made no provision for the
method of selecting the three members; (c) this agreement provided that
seniority should be determined from a date 6 months after hiring, during which
6 months' period "the Company shall have the absolute right to discharge any
new employee who shall prove to be unfitted for the work," whereas the pro-
posed contract provided that seniority should "be, determined from the date
of hiring"; and (d) this agreement omitted the following provision contained
82 The letter was dated May 6. Krause wrote the first draft of the letter in long-band on
this date . After Krause had revised it in accordance with the attorney 's suggestions, his
wife typed it on the evening of May 7.
as The letter was post-marked at Rockfoid on May 8. Krause had not read this letter
before tiansmittirg his letter to Wilson. '
14 The Amalgamated 's charge was filed on May 7. The Regional Director's letter is
dated May 8. -
531647-43-vol,49-58
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-in the, proposed contract: "The Association-and its members agree not to collect
dues tor solicit membership on Company time" The Association's committee
voiced no objection to the agreement submitted by Krause. The agreement,
which' by its terms was to remain in effect for one year and from year to year
thereafter in the absence, of 30 days' notice of termination prior to its anni=
versary date, was signed that evening by Krause, Christensen, and the mem-
bers of the committee' According to. Christensen's testimony, the agreement
provided for no changes in existing wages, hours, or other conditions of
employment SO Nevertheless, by the terms of the agreement, the Association and
its members agreed not to strike until negotiations had proceeded for 15
days • "and then not until sanctioned by the majority vote of the Union"
Shortly after the agreement was signed, Wilson, the president of the Asso-
ciation, stated to Krause that the latter knew that she was not a "unionist"
and that her only, reason for obtaining the execution of the contract was to
prevent the Amalgamated from organizing the employees.
Since the execution of the May 12 contract representatives of the Associa-
tion have met with representatives of the respondent on only one occasion,
In September 1942 the committee of the Association requested of Krause and
Christensen that the system of pay be changed Wilson was asked whether she
had any suggestions to offer. Wilson offered a suggestion, which, according
to her uncontradicted testimony, was "squelched",' The committee agreed
that a suggestion then offered by the respondent had greater possibilities.
Although the contract of May 12 contains a section providing for a grievance
procedure, these provisions never have been utilized. The Association at no
time has requested that the respondent •furnish it a seniority list, which, accord-
ing to the contract, shall be furnished to the Association upon request. Never-
theless, according to Wilson's uncontradicted testimony, employees have brought
to her, attention various grievances, including "seniority problems." Although
the respondent has made changes in working conditions on several occasions
since the execution of the contract, a representative of the 'Association was
consulted on but one occasion. Krause on this occasion asked Wilson, in a
joking manner, whether there was any objection to putting into effect a pay
raise without giving the 10-day notice required by the contract."
B. Conclusions
The foregoing conduct of the respondent constitutes a lengthy and continuing
course of opposition to genuine self-organization of its employees which
culminated in the creation of an organization standing as an insuperable
barrier to true collective bargaining. In 1937, when employees sought to better
their working conditions through collective action, their efforts brought forth
the outspoken opposition of Forelady Johnson and the intrusion into the
employees' affairs of Superintendent Christensen. In addition to stemming the
86 One minor change was made in the agreement prior to its execution at the suggestion
of Krause.
16 As to wages and hours, the agreement provided : "Hours of employment and wages
shall be governed by such National and State legislation as may be in effect from time
to time during the period of this contract , including any and all overtime provisions."
87 Wilson testified that her suggestion had to been "worked out full enough in detail."
Christensen testified that when the committee broached the subject of "arriving at a
more simple way of computing piece, work rates," the respondent 's representatives replied
that "we were working on it."
Is The contract provides : "Employees shall be notified of increases or decreases in rates
at least ten (10) days before such changes go into effect." I
I
WOLVE,BINE. SHOEi AND TANNING 'CORPOR'AT'ION 893
nascent, attempt at 'self-organization by his intrusion, Christensen sought
assurance against further collective employee action by threatening-Van Allen,
at whose home the employees met, with retaliation in the event that this again
occurred. In 1941, when the organizational campaign of the G. & B. made some
progress among the respondent's employees, Johnson and Christensen reaffirmed
their mutual determination that the employees should not exercise their statu-
tory rights and transmuted their conviction into intimidatory action. Christen-
sen questioned employees concerning their union activity, advised that collective
action was unnecessary, exhorted resort to individual bargaining, and cautioned
generally that union affiliation would cease "trouble" and, more specifically,
would cause loss of bonuses. Significantly, Forelady Johnson advised June
Wilson, who subsequently led employees in the formation and administration
of, the Association, that the employees needed a union of their own rather than
an outside union. Johnson and Christensen thus met with unaltered hostility
-the second effort of employees to organize. `
The third attempt of employees to organize aroused employer opposition of a
similar nature. Shortly after the Amalgamated started to organize the
employees in January 1942, Superintendent Christensen interrogated an employee
about her attendance at a union meeting and the number of employees who
were present. Christensen threatened another employee with dismissal for
union affiliation, and to a third employee disparaged the Amalgamated and its
leaders. Richard Krause, secretary of the respondent, in like fashion spoke
slightingly of the leaders of the Amalgamated, requested that letters of the
Amalgamated which were intended for employees be submitted to him, and
sought td induce adherents of the Amalgamated to abandon their organizational
activity and resort to individual bargaining.
In this atmosphere of unrelenting employer opposition to free collective action
the Association was born. ' June Wilson, to whom Forelady Johnson previously
had suggested the formation of the employees' "own" union, assumed the
leadership in a movement to circumvent the Amalgamated by forming a
competing organization. Plainly, the extended course of employer resistance
to organization of employees in an "outside" union is reflected in the avowed
purpose of the formation of the Association : to keep the Amalgamated out of
the plant. Wilson's first step was to circulate a petition in opposition to the
Amalgamated on company time and property in violation of a plant rule.
Although the respondent was aware of the circulation of the petition, which
later was signed by Supervisor Alfred Christensen, it made no effort to ascertain,
reprimand, or discipline the offending employees. Nevertheless, about the same
time an Amalgamated adherent was reprimanded and disciplined for "talking
in the union." And shortly after the formation of the Amalgamated, solicitation
for membership therein was permitted by a supervisory employee on company
time and property. After the organization of the Association had been per-
fected, Superintendent ,Christensen asked Supervisor Phillips whether Phillips
had informed employee Steel of the "silly ideas" of the employees who were
organizing in the Amalgamated, and expounded the futility of their conduct.
Immediately thereafter, Supervisor Phillips enlarged upon Christensen's state-
ments by adverting to the harm which would result from Amalgamated organ-
ization and by informing Steele that "We have another organization to kick
the CIO out." At is plain, and the undersigned finds, that `Phillips acted at the
instance and with the autfiority of Christensen, and that Steele understood
that such was the case.
The Association's request for collective bargaining was readily granted by the
respondent. Although in its proposed contract the Association requested recog-
X
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nitlon'only for its members; when'the Amalgamated requested a bargaining con-
ference regarding the cutting and inspecting departments, the respondent refused
the request on the ground that it "had no alternative than to recognize"' the
Association as the exclusive representative of all employees. And notwithstand-
ing the Amalgamated's request for bargaining the respondent proceeded to
execute an agreement with the Association.' As set forth above, the agreement
which was executed by the Association and the respondent conferred upon the
employees no improvements in working conditions. Nevertheless, by the terms
of the contract the Association permitted substantial curtailment upon the right
of employees to strike. The true character of the Association as a collective
bargaining agency is further evidence by Wilson's remark to Krause that her
reason for securing the execution of the contract was to forestall the Amalga-
mated, and by the docility of the Association and its ineffectiveness as a bargain-
ing agent. The Association is not, and'it is incapable of acting as, the freely
chosen bargaining representative of the respondent's employees.
The undersigned finds that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association, and contributed support to it,
and that it thereby, and by its other conduct set forth above, interfered with,
restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. The undersigned further finds that the agreement entered,
into between the respondent and the Association, 2nd the contractual relationship
existing thereunder, have been and are a means of utilizing an employer-domi-
rated organization to frustrate the exercise by the respondent's employees of
the rights'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PaACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth 'in Section III above, occurring 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 several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices; it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and contributed support to it.
It will be recommended that the respondent withdraw and withhold all recog-
nition from the Association as representative of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates ' of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and com-
pletely disestablish it as such representative.
It has been found that on May 12, 1942, the respondent executed an agreement
with the Association, which is still in effect. It will be recommended that the
respondent cease and desist from giving effect to said agreement, to any exten-
sion, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract
which may now be in force. Nothing herein shall be construed to require, the
respondent to vary the wages, hours, seniority, and other such substantive fea-
tures of its relations with the employees themselves which the respondent has
established in the performance of the' agreement 'or as it has.been extended,
renewed, modified, supplemented or superseded.
WOLVERINE SHOE AND TANNING CORPORATION 895
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the -case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Amalgamated' Clothing Workers of America and Wolverine Glove Workers
Association, also known as Union of Employees of Wolverine Shoe and Tanning
Company, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) , of
the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Wolverine Glove Workers Association and by contributing support to it, the
respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 1
3. 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
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of, Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2,i(6) and (7) of the Act. -
RECOMMENDATIONS
9
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Wolverine Shoe and Tanning
Corporation, Greenville, Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Wolverine Glove
Workers Association, or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing support to Wolverine Glove
Workers Association, or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to the agreement of May 12, 1942, with Wolverine Glove
Workers Association or, to any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal
thereof, or to any superseding agreement with said organization which may
now be in force, as set forth in the section entitled "the remedy" ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees- in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
eftectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Wolverine Glove Worker
Association as the representative of any of its employes for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and
completely disestablish Wolverine Glove Workers Association as such repre-
sentative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant in Greenville, Michi-
gan, 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 from which it is recommended that it cease
896 DEGISiIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) of these recommendations; and
(2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph
2 (a) of these recommendations;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for - the Seventh Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on'or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take 'the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article
II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building,
Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with an original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof . As further provided in said section 33 , should any party desire permis-
sion to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing
to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
Dated April 2, 1943.
Roi wr F. KoaErz.
Trial Examiner.