Farrington Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1416 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personally or through an authorized representative. There is no evi-
dence of such participation by the Employer since March 1950 as to
any of its employees. As already stated, the most recent contracts
with the Intervenor covering the drivers and with the CIO covering
the inside employees were negotiated by the Employer without the
intervention of the Association. Accordingly, we will give effect to
the Employer's expressed desire to pursue an individual course in its
labor relations, despite a prior history of multiemployer bargaining.
We find that all driver-salesmen, helpers, and over-the-road drivers
at the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, plant, excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LODGE 264 OF DISTRICT
38, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS . Case No. 1-CA-
658.April 17, 1951
Decision and Order
On November 21, 1950, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Associ-
ation filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied,
as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties.
The Board I has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following exceptions, additions,
and modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent has dominated
and interfered with the Guild, Inc., and the Association, Inc., and
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
93 NLRB No. 248.
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1417
has dominated and interfered with their successor-the Association,
all of which is in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and 8 ( a) (1) of
the Act. We agree. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Re-
spondent interfered with and dominated the administration of the
Guild, Inc., and the Association, Inc., before March 1950, by granting,
among other things, company time and property for meetings of both
organizations, by giving financial assistance, and by membership in
both organizations of most of Respondent's executives, officials, and
supervisors, some of the latter holding office and taking part in the
administration 2 We conclude also, as did the Trial Examiner, that,
while the successor organization-the Association-was formed in
early March 1950, the change was one of form rather than substance.
Thus, the change occurred without any cleavage or clear line of frac-
ture between the "old" (the Guild, Inc., and the Association, Inc.) and
the "new" (the Association) being communicated to the employees,
and without any disavowal by the Respondents of its illegal conduct
with respect to the "old" organization. In these circumstances, no
basis exists for differentiating between the illegal acts with respect to
the "old" organization before March 1950 and the "new" organiza-
tion thereafter.3 Furthermore, the record shows that one executive 4
and several supervisors continued to be carried on the membership
roll of the "new" Association. The disabilities of the "old" organi-
zations attach to the "new" Association.
The Respondent contends that its activities set forth above and
detailed in the Intermediate Report are indicative of good labor
relations rather than illegal conduct. We do not agree. Freedom
from strikes, desirable though it be, is not the criterion by which
Congress intended us to judge labor organizations within the frame-
work of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. Nor is it relevant, as is also
contended by the Respondent, that its activities in connection with
the labor organizations involved may not have been marked by ordi-
nary coercion or threats.5
As we have found that the Guild, Inc., and the Association, Inc.,
were dominated and interfered with and supported by the Respond-
ent, and as their successor-the Association-was born without cleav-
age from them and without disavowal by the Respondent of its
interference with, domination, and support of, the former organi-
2In arriving at this conclusion , we have not relied upon the meeting of the Association
called by Plant Manager Dugdale concerning the operations of the cafeteria in plant 1, to
which the Trial Examiner referred in the Intermediate Report.
3 See N. L R B . v Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 319 U S 50
4 Vice President Vogt.
5 See N. L. R B. v. Southern Bell Telephone and'Telegraph. Company, supra, and cases
there cited ; N L R B . v Red Arrow Freight Lines, 180 F 2d 585 ( C A. 5) , N. L. R. B.
v Tappan Stove Co , 174 F 2d 1007 (C A 6).
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nations, it follows that the latter has inherited the disabilities of its
predecessors.6
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Respondent has domi-
nated, interfered with, and supported the Association. We shall,
therefore, in accordance with our policy in such circumstances, order
the Respondent to disestablish the Association and their predecessors,
the Guild, Inc., and the Association, Inc.7
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Farrington Manufacturing
Company, Boston, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the formation or administration
of or contributing support to, Farrington Employees Association, Inc.,
Farrington Guild, Inc., Farrington Employees Association and Guild,
by whatever name they may be known, or any other labor organiza-
tion, and from otherwise interfering with the representation of its
employees through a labor organization of their own choosing.
(b) Recognizing or in any other manner dealing with Farrington
Employees Association and Guild, Farrington Employees Association,
Inc., Farrington Guild, Inc., or any successor thereto, as the collective
bargaining representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or any other conditions of em-
ployment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Lodge 264 of District 38, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any
or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
9 See cases cited in footnote 5. Also see N. L. R. B. v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
303 U S 261, 58 S Ct. 571, 82 L Ed 831, 115 A L R 307; N. L. R. B v. Falk Corpora-
tion , 308 U. S. 453, 60 S. Ct 307, 84 L. Ed 396.
7 See N. L R. B. v Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, supra ; and Duro
Test Corporation, 81 NLRB 238 , and cases cited therein.
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1419
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Farrington Employees Associa-
tion and Guild, Farrington Employees Association, Inc., and Farring-
ton Guild, Inc., by whatever name they may be known, as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or any other condition of employment, and com-
pletely disestablish said organization as such representative.
(b) Post at its plants in Boston, Massachusetts, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked Appendix A.' Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH FARRINGTON EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
AND GUILD, FARRINGTON EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., and FAR-
RINGTON GUILD, INC., as representative of any of our employees
for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, and we will not recognize them or any
successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or ad-
ministration of any labor organization or contribute financial or
other support to it.
WE WILL NOT otherwise interfere with the representation of
our employees through a labor organization of their own choos-
ing.
WE WILL NOT recognize FARRINGTON EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
AND GUILD, FARRINGTON EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., and FAR-
RINGTON GUILD, INC., or any successor thereto, as the representa-
8 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice before the words "A Decision and Order," the words, "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive of any of our employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right .to self-organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist LODGE 264 OF DISTRICT
38, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of this
union, or any other labor organization.
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hhreof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
Mr. Leo J. Halloran, for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Frank L. Kozol, and Thomas D. Burns, of Boston, Mass, for the Re-
spondent.
Mr. Harold F. Reardon, of Boston, Mass, for the Union.
Mr. Harold Brown, of Boston, Mass., for the Intervenor
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Lodge 264 of District 38, International Association
of Machinists, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, called respectively herein the General Counsel and the Board,
by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued
his complaint dated August 15, 1950, against Farrington Manufacturing Com-
pany, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charges and the complaint, together with a notice of hearing, were duly
served upon the Respondent, the Union, and Farrington Employees Association
and Guild, herein called the Association.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges, in substance,
that the Respondent by various specific acts before March 4, 1950, initiated,
formed, and sponsored two labor organizations of which the Association is the
successor, and since that date has dominated and supported the Association, and
that by these acts the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
Answers were filed by the Respondent and the Association, a motion by the
Association to intervene having been granted by the Regional Director. The
answers denied the commission of unfair labor practices by the Respondent.
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1421
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Boston, Massachusetts, on October
17, 18, 19, 20, and 23, 1950, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent, the
Union, and 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.
At the opening of the hearing a motion by the Association for additional par-
ticulars was denied. At the conclusion of the hearing General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Association argued orally, on the record, before the Trial
Examiner. All parties waived the opportunity to file briefs after the hearing.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Farrington Manufacturing Company is a Massachusetts corporation, engaged
at its plants in Boston, Massachusetts, in the manufacture and sale of display
boxes and metal specialties. Its principal raw materials, consisting of various
metals, textile products, and paper, are value at about $1,000,000 annually, and
about 50 percent of such materials is each year purchased outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts and transported to its Boston plants. Its finished prod-
ucts are valued at about $6,000,000 annually, about 75 percent of which is trans-
ported to points outside Massachusetts. The Respondent owns two subsidiary
concerns, one in Massachusetts and the other in Toronto, Canada.
The Respondent concedes the Board's jurisdiction.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Lodge 264 of District 38, International Association of Machinists, Farrington
Employees Association and Guild, Farrington Employees Association, Inc., and
Farrington Guild, Inc., are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
This proceeding is concerned only with certain occurrences at the Respond..
ent's two Boston plants, commonly designated as plant 1 and plant 2, involving
about 900 employees.
For about 5 years before the hearing, and until March 1950, there existed at
each of the plants a labor organization-at plant 1 the Farrington Guild, Inc.,
and at plant 2 the Farrington Employees Association, Inc. The record does not
reveal the precise details of the formation of these organizations. It is clear,
however, and conceded by the Respondent, that management contributed financial
and other support to each organization. Moreover, also conceded by the Re-
spondent, most of the Respondent's staff of executives, officials, and supervisors
were dues-paying members. Supervisors held offices in the organizations, and
took part in the administration of their affairs. The complaint raised the issues
as to whether or not both the Association, Inc., and the Guild, Inc., were com-
pany-dominated labor organizations, in violation of the Act.
Early in March 1950, the officers, delegates, and some members of the two or-
ganizations gathered on company property, set up a sort of "holding" organization
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called Farrington Employees Association and Guild , and adopted a constitution
which "expressly provided that the Farrington Guild at Plant #1 shall hereafter-
constitute Local #1, and that the Farrington Employees Association at Plant
#2 shall hereafter constitute Local #2." (The quotations are from Section 7
of said constitution.)
A panel of officers for what was termed, in the constitution, a "Central Organi-
zation," was selected from among the current officers and delegates of the two
already existing organizations.
The complaint also contends that the new Association is company-dominated-
B. Summary of stipulated facts bearing upon these two issues
During the hearing the parties stipulated, or a company official testified, that
the Respondent:
(a) Has permitted the use of its premises and facilities by the Association,
Inc, and the Guild, Inc., up to March 1, 1950, and thereafter by the Association
and its locals.
(b) Has contributed free rent and utilities for the use of the Association
and its predecessors in conducting cafeterias, one in each plant.
(c) Has conferred with representatives of all three organizations , on its own
time and premises without loss of pay to said representatives, on matters of
grievances.
(d) Paid for time spent by two employees, representatives of the Association,
in attending a conference'at the Regional Office.
(e) Has permitted its officers and supervisory employees to contribute monies
to the three organizations, in the same amount as nonsupervisory employees.
(f) Has permitted its plant premises to be used without charge by all three
organizations for the purpose of maintaining a cafeteria in each plant, and has
permitted these organizations to have the profits from various vending machines
in the plants.
(g) Has bargained, discussed, and adjusted grievances with both the Associa-
tion and its predecessors as representatives of its employees in matters of wages
and other working conditions, although none of them has been certified as such
representative.
(h) Has permitted the three organizations to post notices on plant bulletin
boards.
(i) Has permitted and is permitting the three organizations to collect dues
on company time.
(j) Since May 1948, has permitted the three organizations to conduct elections
and other organizational business on its premises, including meetings.
(k) Loaned money to the Association, Inc., and Guild, Inc., to the amount of
$500 each, to set up the two cafeterias.
(1) Permitted employees to solicit membership in the three organizations one
its time and premises.
C. Additional facts and conclusions
Since there is no dispute as to the above facts, it appears needless to encumber
this report with a review of testimony and other evidence adduced by General
Counsel which, in large part, only adds names and more specific details to gen-
eral facts already conceded. 1Vor would substantative.conclusions be altered
by resolving conflicting testimony as to the relative supervisory authority of
certain members of these organizations, since the Respondent conceded that most
of its officers, executives, and supervisory staff paid dues ; and the organizations'
membership books showed that they were carried as dues-paying members.
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1423
There is no merit in the claim made by counsel for the intervening Association
that management representatives in the organizations were only "honorary"
members. The constitution provided for no such classification, and the records
of the organizations revealed no distinction in memberships. Their dues were
received and recorded in the same manner as those from nonsupervisors.
An employer's domination of, interference with, and support of, a labor organi-
zation are implicit in a situation where his own representatives are members of
that organization In effect, such an employer sits on both sides of the bar-
gaining table. A specific instance of such domination appeared in the minutes
of the Guild, Inc, for November 25, 1949. It appears from that record that Plant
Manager Dugdale summarily called a meeting of the officers and delegates of the
organization and gave them orders as to the conduct of the cafeteria in Plant 1.
According to the candid testimony of Lawrence Whalen, president of Local 1,
and third vice-president of the "Central Organization," management from "time
to time," when it "gets ahold of some information" calls the labor organization
officers to a meeting room or to the office.
It is plain, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Locals 1 and 2 of the new struc-
ture devised in March 1950, are but the alter egos of the original Guild, Inc. and
Association, Inc , respectively. These corporate organizations still exist as such,
never having been dissolved. No discontinuity was marked, either by the or-
ganizations or by management. On the contrary, bulletins posted on company
bulletin boards in March 1950, openly announced, in effect, that the new move
was to be, and became, simply an affiliation of the two existing organizations.
The Respondent has never disavowed its support or domination of any of the
organizations.
Financial support of these organizations by the Respondent has been and
continues to be substantial. Although Local 1, during the year ending April 30,
1950, had operating expenses amounting to about $2,800, it collected dues total-
ing only $1,039.50, and an undetermined portion of such dues were received
from management representatives. It received in that year $1,906 54 from
"dance, cigarette, candy commissions and commissions on sale,"-all but the
dance item resulting from concessions given the organization by the employer.
And at the end of the year it showed total assets, "including cash, cafeteria
property and supplies" of $2,643.03. Local 2's financial statement for a similar
period, while differing in totals, reveals a similarly large percentage of its
income as having been derived from concessions granted it by the Respondent.
These organizations have, on company bulletin boards, stressed the point of their
low dues-obviously made possible by the Respondent's support, in combatting
the principle of employees joining an outside union.
In summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent, by
its course of conduct described in Section III, B, above, occurring and continuing
since October 10, 1949 (the date 6 months before the service of the first amended
charge) : (1) has dominated and interfered with the administration of the
Guild, Inc., and Association, Inc.; (2) has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association, and has contributed financial
and other support to all said organizations, thereby interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.'
I Although it would appear that the Association still derives benefit and support from
the loans upon which the cafeterias were launched, it is clear that said loans were made
some years ago, and have since been repaid Primary support having been given more
than 6 months before the seriing of the charge, the Trial Examiner does not rest, upon this
item of support, his conclusion as to support of any of the organizations by the Respondent.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As found above , the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the ad-
ministration of the Association , the Guild , Inc., and the Association , Inc , and
has contributed financial and other support to them. Since it appears , from the
facts above set forth , that the Guild , Inc., and the Association , Inc., still
function as Locals 1 and 2 of the Association ,, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from recognizing any or all of said organizations,
by whatever name they are known . The Respondent 's continued recognition of
them constitutes a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of rights
guaranteed them by the Act. Because of the Respondent 's unlawful conduct
and its underlying purpose , the Trial Examiner is convinced , and finds , that the
unfair labor practices are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices
proscribed by the Act and that a danger of their commission in the future is to be
anticipated from the course of the Respondent ' s conduct in the past . The pre-
ventive purpose of the Act Will be thwarted unless the Respondent is ordered to
cease and desist therefrom . In order , therefore , to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices , thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs
commerce , and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the folfowuig:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lodge 264 of District 38, International Association of Machinists, Farrington
Employees Association and Guild, Farrington Employees Association, Inc., and
Fari ington Guild, Inc., are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act
2., By dominating and interfering with the administration of Farrington Em-
ployees Association, Inc., Farrington Guild, Inc, and Farrington Employees
Association and Guild, and by contributing financial and other support to them,
the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
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
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
fRecommend'd Order omitted from publication in this volume I