Gold Bond, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1059 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

GOLD BOND, INC. 1059
As the existing contract will not expire until September 1,
1954, we find that it is a bar to the present petition. We shall
therefore dismiss it, without prejudice to a timely refiling.
[The Board dismissed the petition]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
GOLD BOND, INC. and JACOB GOODMAN, ATTORNEY FOR
EMPLOYEES, Petitioner and UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AND ITS AGENT,
LOCAL NO. 601, AFL. Case No.2-RD-209.February4, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herman
Gelband, hearing officer. The hearing officer' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved' claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
In 1951 the Employer' s predecessor , Standard Venetian Blind
Company, and the Union executed a 3-year contract covering the
Employer's production employees. A little over a year later, in
December 1952 or January 1953, as a result of their dissatis-
faction with the Union, some of the employees talked on sev-
eral occasions with the Employer's president, Rogow, about
how to decertify the Union. According to employee Lash, Rogow
told the employees that he would get in touch with his attorney;
later reported back that his New Jersey attorney, Schneiderman,
could not help them--that the employees would have to contact
a New York lawyer; and when the employees spoke to him at
another time, said he "would see what he could find out for us
if we really wanted to get rid of" the Union. There is also
testimony by the Employer's New York attorney, Schwartz,
who advises Rogow on labor matters, that in December 1952
Attorney Schneiderman called him about the employees ' desire
to disaffiliate, and Schwartz advised Schneiderman that the
1The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
107 NLRB No 221.
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract was binding for 2 years (the 2 years expiring
September 12, 1953).
The record also discloses that in the summer of 1953,
President Rogow granted employee Davis' request to talk to
Attorney Schneiderman , who advised Davis on the matter of
decertification without charge. Thereafter , Rogow gave Davis
permission to call New York Attorney Schwartz, who also gave
his advice without charge. In the meantime, Rogow made an
appointment with Schwartz for some of the employees and,
according to employee Lash, "came around like he always did"
and told the employees in the shop a day or two ahead of time
about the appointment . Rogow then permitted 4 of the 14 pro-
duction employees ( including employees Lash and Davis) to
take off a day, without pay, to keep the appointment . The meet-
ing took place in Attorney Schwartz ' office. Attorney Goodman,
who is a former associate of Schwartz and the petitioner herein,
joined them there. The meeting lasted between 1 and 2 hours,
with Schwartz taking part in the discussion and calling the
Regional Office of the Board for an appointment for Attorney
Goodman and employee Davis. Thereafter , Davis carried the
decertification petition and a petition to cancel the checkoff
authorizations "throughout the shop" for signature. The peti-
tion was filed September 18, 1953.
No mention was made at the New Yorkmeeting of any fee for
Schwartz ' or Goodman ' s services , and, according to employee
Davis, the question of Goodman charging the employees a fee was
first raised by Davis on Fridaymorning before the opening of the
hearing. Thereafter , on the following Monday or Tuesday, Davis
told President Rogow and the employees that each employee
would be charged $ 10 for Goodman's fee. As of the following
Friday when the hearing was concluded , none of the employees
had paid his part of the fee. Attorney Schwartz testified that he
had received a fee from the Employer for his services , and that
no part of the fee had gone or would go to Attorney Goodman.
Regardless of whether the Employer compensated Attorney
Goodman for representing the employees and filing thedecerti-
fication petition , we think it clear, from the foregoing, and we
find , that the Employer's president , Rogow , took an active part
in, and fostered , the filing of the decertification petition, by
advising the employees about the matter and furnishing them
with the legal advice of Employer Attorneys Schneiderman and
Schwartz . As the statutory provisions for decertification pro-
ceedings provide a remedy exclusively for and on behalf of em -
ployees, and not of employers,2 we cannot , as a matter of
policy, permit an employer to do indirectly that which we would
not permit him to do directly . We shall therefore dismiss the
petition. 3
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2Cf. Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, 102 NLRB 134; and Clyde J. Merris, 77
NPRB 1375.
3In view of the dismissal on this ground, we find it unnecessary to rule on the Union's
contract- bar and unit contentions.