L. Ronney & Sons Furniture Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURIN G CO. 1049
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5 The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) or (3) of the Act by discharging and thereafter
failing and refusing to reinstate William C. Murphy and Bronzell Watford.
6 The Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by keeping
under surveillance the union meetings and activities of its employees.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO., A CO-PARTNER-
SIIIP CONSISTING of LEWIS RONNEY, LILLIAN RONNEY, SAM RONNEY
AND Mu.roN RONNEY and SUSIE CLINTON, LEWIS HARRISON,
FLORENCE JOHNSON , HELEN MONTGOMERY , ZULA PIPKIN, MIKE
SENDEJAS , LUCILLE SIMS, AND HAROLD J. SUSHAN and FURNITURE
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 3161 OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA , AFL, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
Case No. 31-CA-403. March 30, 1951
Decision and Order
On June 19, 1950, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Tntermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, herein called
Local 3161, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
nlelnber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Reynolds].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed.,
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions and
modifications set forth below.
i We have carcfulh eousidered the entice iecord in this case, and find that the allegations
of the Respondent a nd of Local 3161 that the Trial Examiner was biased are wholly
without mceit
93 NLRB No. 180
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent 's brief incorporates certain motions made after
issuance of the Intermediate Report, requesting the Board to reopen
this proceeding . The matters upon which the Respondent desires to
produce further evidence , relate to its good faith in making inquiries
as to the compliance status of local 576, United Furniture Workers,
CIO; to alleged communist affiliations of local 576; and to the con-
tinued inefficiency of certain of the charging parties whom it rein-
stated after issuance of the Intermediate Report. The motions to
reopen the record are denied, as the evidence sought to be introduced
could not , even if proved, affect the Board 's determination of this par-
ticular matter.
The requests for oral argument are denied as the record and briefs
adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board agrees with the ultimate conclusions of the Trial Ex-
aminer that the Respondent illegally assisted Local 3161 , that it dis-
criminatorily refused to rehire its , former employees because of their
membership in Local 576, and that it interfered with , restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to remain mem-
bers of the labor organization of their choice.
The Board does not , however, agree with certain of the Trial Ex-
aminer's findings of fact, nor has it relied on others for its conclusions.
The Board is satisfied that the differences between the Respondent
and Local 576 were basically economic ones, and that the Respondent
preferred Local 3161 to Local 576, not because of any ideological dif-
ferences between the two locals , but because it expected to benefit
economically by entering into a bargaining relationship with the
former. The propriety of the Respondent 's opposition to Local 576
on purely economic grounds does not exonerate it, however , because
the means used to accomplish its purpose-obtaining a more favorable
contract-tended to deprive the employees of their right to select their
own bargaining representative.
The Trial Examiner's findings with respect to the assistance ren-
dered by Ronney to Local 3161, upon which the Board does not rely,
are those set forth in the Intermediate Report as paragraphs ( a), (c),
(e), (i) and ( k) of Section B (1) :
As to paragraph ( a) the evidence establishes only that Respondent
was determined to obtain more favorable contract terms. During the
long course of negotiations with Local 576, from September 1948 to
February 1949, the Respondent was willing to accept certain pro-
visions which were less favorable to it than the contract subsequently
agreed upon with Local 3161 . It was only in their last few bargain-
ing meetings , after the plant closed in November 1948, that Respond-
ent began to offer terms to Local 576 that closely approached the pro-
visions finally obtained from Local 3161.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1051
As to paragraph (c) there is no evidence to prove that the mailing
of the two letters was synchronized. Respondent's letter to its em-
ployees, with which it enclosed a copy of its letter to Local 576, speaks
in terms of beginning negotiations for a new contract with Local 576
once it has been satisfied of that Local' s compliance with the non-
Communist provisions of the amended Act. The letter from the Los
Angeles District Council of Carpenters, which appears as Appendix
B to the Intermediate Report, is undated but was probably mailed
some weeks after Respondent's letter to its employees. It was used
in circularizing the employees of a number of furniture manufac-
turers in the Los Angeles area, all of whom had formerly been repre-
sented by Local 576.
The Board believes, with respect to paragraph (e), that Respond-
ent furnished free coffee and doughnuts to employees as a means of
gathering them together to present its side of the negotiations with
Local 576. We do not find that it was intended as a benefit to induce
a change of union affiliation.
As to paragraphs (i) and (k), we are not satisfied that the evidence
in the record supports the Trial Examiner's findings that Respond-
ent maintained closed-shop conditions or required membership in
Local 3161 between the date of the reopening of the plant in January
1949 and April 5, 1949, the date of its contract with Local 3161.
The remaining findings of Section B (1) 2 were substantially
proven, and together reveal that the Respondent engaged in a course
of action designed to obtain more favorable contract terms, and that
it implemented its purpose even to the extent of supplanting Local
576 by Local 3161 as its employees' bargaining agent. For the period
beginning just before termination of its contract with Local 576 and
ending with the certification of Local 3161, the Respondent' s course
of action can be summarized as aiding the Carpenters (first Local
2488 and then local 3161) 3 by disparaging Local 576 to its members
and by utilizing the restaffing of its plant after the economic shutdown
in November 1948 to rid itself of Local 576.
The Respondent's major effort at disparagement of the CIO was
made at the series of meetings with all its employees, and at the con-
ferences between Sam Rooney and the individual employees, which
occurred in the period when Local 576 was seeking to negotiate a
new contract. At these meetings and conferences the Respondent
2 Except that portion of paragraph ( f) wherein it is found that the Respondent ordered
that only employees hired through the facilities of Local 3161 should be employed after
the plant was reopened . We likewise do not adopt this specific finding, as hereinafter
more fully set forth.
8 Local 2488 of the Carpenters was organized early in 1948 to make inroads upon the
jurisdiction of Local 576. By February 1949, when Local 3161 filed its petition to
represent Rooney employees , the membership of Local 2488 had already been transferred
to it.
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
emphasized that the changes it was demanding were moderate ones,
and that the claims of Local 576 were tdo exacting. This opposition
went beyond inducement to the employees to put pressure on their
own bargaining representative to withdraw its demands. It was an
attempt to coerce the employees to forsake the CIO, by inducing in
them the belief that their employer could not possibly meet the de-
mands of their bargaining representative.'
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent ordered that only per-
aons hired through the facilities of Local 3161 should be employed
after the plant reopened in January 1949. We believe that the record
does not support this finding in its entirety. The record indicates
that Sam Ronney did not in fact limit employment opportunities to
members of Local 3161 exclusively, but was prepared to hire compe-
tent employees who came to him from any source other than the CIO.
It is clear, however, that the Respondent excluded the CIO completely
from the sources to which it looked in obtaining employees when it
decided to reopen the plant. As the Respondent did seek the assistance
of the AFL in recruiting employees , and few, if any, employees were
obtained from any other source, this made it a virtual certainty that
AFL would supplant the CIO in the representation election.
The Respondent may have sincerely believed that CIO members
would be unwilling to work for the wages it was prepared to pay after
the plant reopened, and that it was therefore futile to call back any of
its former employees , competent or incompetent . Admittedly, there
were competent employees who were dismissed at the time of the shut-
down in November 1948. If the Respondent had desired to restaff its
plant on a nondiscriminatory basis, it could either have recalled its
competent employees and offered them its going wage, or it could have
hired, without regard to former employment , by calling on all the
sources for obtaining help which it had used in the past. By depriv-
ing Local 576 of any opportunity to furnish competent help willing to
work at its new wage rates, the Respondent illegally assisted Local
3161.5
After Local 3161 was certified and had won a union-authorization
election, in March 1949, it entered into a contract with the Respondent
containing a union-security clause. This provided, in Article III, that
all present employees should be members in good standing, and that
4 Cf United Welding Comjiany, 72 NLRB 934
5 The Trial Examiner failed to mention that Sushan , a member of Local 576 and one
of the charging parties, was recalled in the period after the plant reopened but before
Local 3161 was certified He was offered his old job at a loner wage, but did not accept
immediately. When lie returned a few clays later , he was told the job was filled Sushan
and Gipson . the janitor were thus the only foirner employees who were offered jobs at a
time which would have permitted them to vote in the representation and union -authoriza-
tion elections which were won by Local 3161 After the election a few former employees
were recalled.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1053
newly hired employees should join the Union within the first 30 days
of their employment. The provision is in clear conflict with Section 8
(a) (3) which permits, in an authorized union-security contract, only
the requirement that employees join the Union on or after the 30th day
following the beginning of their employment or the effective date of
such contract, whichever is the later. By consenting to the illegal:
union-security clause the Respondent lent its support to Local 3161
in recruiting and maintaining its membership, and thus violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1)).6
For the reasons noted above, the Board believes that the results of
the Respondent's assistance to Local 3161 can best be eradicated by
ordering that Ronney withdraw recognition from Local 3161.
The issue of whether the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3)
does not require resolution of the controversy as to the efficiency of all
or any of the charging parties. The Respondent did not select between,
its former employees and new applicants for jobs on the basis of their
individual efficiency, but decided to recall none of them before the AFL
was certified (except Siishan and Gipson), because they were members
of Local 576. The decision having been made pursuant to a discrimi-
nating policy, the Respondent's refusal to rehire them was unlawful.
The Remedy
Since the issuance of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, the
Board has adopted a method of computing ,back pay different from
that prescribed by the Trial Examiner.7 Consistent with that new
policy we shall order that the loss of pay be computed on the basis of
each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period
from the Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper
offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, hereinafter called
"quarters," shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and
October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting, from a sum
equal to that which each employee would normally have earned for
each quarter or portion thereof, his net earnings, if'any, in other em-
ployment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter
shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter.
We shall also order the Respondent to make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of
the amount of back pay due.
G Tulare Resnick, Inc, 86 NLRB 38 Respondent's brief alleges that this provision
has been amended in later contracts between the parties Even if the union-security
piousion in the present contract does not violate Section 8 (a) (3), the Board would
still consider that the most effective remedy for entering into the unlawful union-security
agreement, together with the other acts of assistance of Local 3161, is the remedy adopted
hey cur
7 F. W. 1Voolicorth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, L. Ronney & Sons
Furniture Manufacturing Co., a Co-Partnership consisting of Lewis
Ronney, Lillian Bonney, Sam Ronney and Milton Ronney, Los
Angeles, California, and its agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the United Furniture Workers
of America, Local 576, CIO, by discharging, refusing to rehire, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of its employees.
(b) Encouraging membership in Furniture Workers Union, Local
No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL, by discriminating in any manner in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of its
employees.
(c) Performing or giving effect to its contract of April 5, 1949, with
Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, or any modification, ex-
tension, supplement, or renewal thereof, or any other contract, agree-
ment, or understanding entered into with said organization relating
to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until said organ-
ization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board.
(d) Entering into, renewing, or maintaining any agreement with
Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, or any other label organi-
zation, which requires its employees to join, or maintain their member-
ship in, such labor organization as a condition of employment, except
to the extent and in the manner authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(e) Interfering with the administration of, or rendering assistance
to, Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Furniture Workers of
America, Local 576, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1055
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization 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 :
(a) Offer to Susie Clinton, Lewis Harrison, Florence Johnson,
Helen Montgomery, Zula Pipkin, Mike Sendejas, Lucille Sims, and
Harold J. Sushan, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination
against them.
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due under the terms
of this Order.
(c) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Furniture Work-
ers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
Joiners of America, AFL, as the representative of any of the Re-
spondent's employees for the purposes of dealing with the Respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until said
organization shall be certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
(d) Post at its plant in Los Angeles, California, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-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,
including 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 :
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE HEREBY WITHDRAW and will withhold all recognition from
FURNITURE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 3161 OF UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINTERS OF AMERICA, AFL, as the repre-
sentative 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 conditions of employment, and we
will not recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the above
purposes until such organization shall be certified by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support
to it.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent po-
sitions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or priv-
ileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination : Susie Clinton, Lewis
Harrison, Florence Johnson, Helen Montgomery, Zula Pipkin,
Mike Sendejas , Lucille Sims , Harold J. Sushan.
WE WILL NOT perform or give effect to the contract of April 5,
1949, with FURNITURE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 3161, OF
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
or any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal thereof,
of any contract, agreement, or understanding entered into with
said organization relating to grievances , labor disputes , wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, unless and until said organization shall have been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT enter into , renew, or maintain any agreement
with FURNITURE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 3161, OF UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA , AFL, or
any other labor organization, which requires our employees to
join, or maintain their membership in, such labor organization
as a condition of employment, except to the extent and in the-man-
ner authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
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 UNITED FURNITURE
WORKERS, LOCAL 576, CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1057
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named unions, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the.
Act.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
By -----------------------------------------------------------_
(Representative) (Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
James W. Cherry, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel
Margolis & MeTernan, by John T. McTernan, Esq, of Los Angeles, Calif., for
the Charging Parties and for Local 576, CIO, Intervenor.
Irvin Stalmaster, of Los Angeles, Calif , for the Respondent.
Arthur Garrett, Esq., of Los Angeles, Calif., for Local 3161, AFL.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon various charges, amended charges, and additional charges duly filed on
March 15, 1949, and at various times thereafter, by the individuals listed in the
caption hereof, herein called the Charging Parties, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first
Region (Los Angeles, California), issued its complaint dated January 20, 1950,
against L. Ronney & Sons Furniture Manufacturing Co., a co-partnership consist-
ing of Lewis Ronney, Lillian Ronney, Sam Ronney and Milton Ronney,2 herein
referred to as the Respondent or by their individual names, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section S (a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat 136, hereinafter called the Act. Copies
of the complaint, the various charges, and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the Respondent, the Charging Parties, and Furniture Workers Union
Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
A. F. of L, hereinafter called Local 3161 of A. F of L
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance,
that the Respondent: (1) by various enumerated acts interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2) since on or about September
15, 1948, has assisted and contributed to the support of Local 3161 and since on,
'The General Counsel and his representatives at the healing are herein referred to as
the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board
2 It was stipulated at the hearing by all parties thereto that the Respondent was a
copartnership of this composition and not a corporation as alleged in the complaint and,
admitted in the answers In accordance with the stipulation, it is hereby ordered that
the various documents in this matter be amended in accord with these stipulated facts.
943732-51-68
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or about March-15, 1949, has enforced and given effect to an agreement entered
into by and between the Respondent and Local 3161 requiring membership in said
Local as a condition of employment in violation of Section S (a) (2) of the Act;
(3) on or about January and February 1949, when the Respondent resumed opera-
tions, failed and refused to reemploy the Charging Parties, and each of them, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.'
The Respondent and Local 3161 duly filed their answers to the complaint,
admitting certain of the allegations of the complaint but denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices. During the hearing, Local 3161 was permitted to
-file an amended answer alleging that the agreement between itself and the
Respondent was made and executed on or about April 5, 1949, instead of on or
about March 15, 1949, as admitted in its original answer.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, from Feb-
ruary 14 to March 17, 1950, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner
,duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Re-
spondent, the Charging Parties, and Local 3161 were represented by counsel.
At the commencement of the hearing, a motion to intervene made by United
Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 576, CIO, was allowed and that Local was
thereafter represented by counsel. All parties participated in the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of
the hearing, all parties waived oral argument but reserved the right to file briefs
with the undersigned. Briefs have been received from the Respondent and the
General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
L. Rooney & Sons Furniture Manufacturing Co. is a copartnership consisting
of Lewis Ronney, Lillian Bonney, Sam Ronney, and Milton Ronney, and at all
times material herein has been engaged in the business of manufacturing furni-
ture and the sale and distribution of said furniture from its principal place of
business in Los Angeles, California. In the course and conduct of its business,
the Respondent during the 12-month period ending December 31, 1948, purchased
raw materials, equipment, and supplies valued at approximately $150,000, of
which 50 percent was shipped directly to its plant in Los Angeles, California,
from points outside the State of California. During this same period, the Re-
spondent's sales of finished products amounted to approximately $343,000, of
which approximately 15 percent was shipped to points outside the State of
California.
The Respondent admits, and the undersigned finds, that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent. In the year 1948, the AFL cliar-
3 By amendment made and allowed at the hearing , the name of Salvador Maldonado was
eliminated from the complaint as a Charging Party.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1059
tered Local 2488 which solicited members among the employees of furniture
manufacturers similar to the Respondent. This Local 2488 was in direct com-
petition with both Local 3161 and Local 576, United Furniture Workers of
America, CIO. In 1949 when Local 2488 went out of existence, its members were
transferred to Local 3161.
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, CIO," is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
- III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
Despite the undue length of the record in the instant case, the facts are rela-
tively simple and hardly disputed.
Beginning about 1936 and continuing thereafter until September 1, 1948, the
Respondent has at all times had a labor agreement with a labor organization
covering the wages, hours, and working conditions of its employees in full force
and effect. From 1936 to 1939, this agreement was with Local 1561.` However,
when in about 1939, the Respondent's employees expressed their preference for
Local 576 over Local 1561 in a representation election conducted by the Board,
the Respondent continued contractual relations with Local 576. These relations
continued until September 1, 1948, when the contract expired during the negotia-
tions between the parties on a new contract.
Because of,the fact that during the war the Respondent's plant was not con-
sidered to be engaged in essential war work, about 90 percent of the Respondent's
employees were women during these war years and for some time thereafter.
As manpower became available after the war, the Respondent began replacing
the women with men until, in 1947-48, the only women remaining in the Re-
spondent's employ were in the finishing department where they were engaged
in puttying, sanding, spraying, and wiping. When first employed, these women
were all inexperienced in the furniture manufacturing field.
As men became available, following the war, the Respondent began to express
dissatisfaction with the efficiency of the women employees. About September
1947, the Respondent discharged two women for inefficiency which caused some
friction with Local 576 as the contract then in effect provided that the Re-
spondent could discharge employees only with the "mutual consent" of the parties.
The Union had not consented to these discharges. However, the women remained
discharged despite the fussing of Local 576.
In 1948 the Respondent was a member of an employers' association dealing
with Local 576. On June 29, 1948, the Respondent gave Local 576 written notice
of its desire to terminate the existing agreement at its termination date of Sep-
tember 1, 1948. On July 1, 1948, Local 576, in turn, gave Respondent, as one of
the members of this employers' association, written notice of its desire to modify
the existing agreement together with a copy of the desired modifications. Nego-
tiations between Local 576 and this employers' association were successfully con-
cluded prior to the expiration date of the expiring contract. However, when it
became apparent to the Respondent that the parties were about to conclude a
succeeding agreement, the Respondent and several other employers withdrew
from the association.
This withdrawal was almost coincidental in time with a meeting between Sam
Ronney and one Joseph Brodine, a labor relations consultant of Los Angeles, who
* Hereinafter referred to as Local 576.
" In 1942, Local 1561 became Local 3161 in a change embracing only a change in the
number of the Local.
0
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
advised Ronney that the AFL was going to charter a new local in the furniture
field whose contract would be much more advantageous to the employers than
the contract of Local 576 and that, if the Respondent would give him a list of
the Respondent's employees with their addresses, the AFL would attempt to
get his employees to join this new union.'
The Respondent compiled a list of its employees with up-to-date addresses
which it gave to Brodine who transmitted it, as intended, to Nick Cordil, business
representative of the District Council of Carpenters,' who in turn used it for
mailing to the Respondent's employees the letter of solicitation mentioned here-
inafter Subsequently, when informed by the Respondent's present counsel that
"that wasn't the thing to do, that Sam Ronney had made a mistake and should
have no dealings with any unions other than the CIO," the Respondent "just let.
the thing go," i. e., did nothing to attempt to remedy the situation created by
this "mistake."
On August 3, 1948, still acting upon the advice of Brodine, the Respondent
mimeographed and distributed to each of its employees the following letter and
enclosure which is attached to this Report as Appendix A The implication of
the letter that it would be illegal for the Respondent to deal with a noncomplying
union is, of course, not the law. Brodine assisted in the preparation of this
correspondence or propaganda.
This was the last act which Brodine performed for the Respondent as its labor
relations counsel.
Using the list of employees and addresses supplied by the Respondent as found
above, the AFL sent to each of the Respondent's employees, including all the
women employees, a letter dated August 11, 1948, on the letterhead of the District
Council of Carpenters which is attached hereto as Appendix B These letters
were received by the Respondent's employees within a very short time after
Respondent's official, Martin Meyers, had secured the up-to-date addresses from
the Respondent's employees. Due to this short time lag the employees reasonably
assumed that there was some connection between Meyers' inquiry and the receipt
of the AFL communication. The two communications were also very similar in
content.
At or about this time, the exact date being somewhat indefinite in the record,
the Respondent severed its relationship with Brodine and employed its present
counsel who, the Respondent well knew, also represented a Los Angeles employers
association which dealt with Local 3161 and who had successfully negotiated a
new agreement with that organization on behalf of his association.
Not too long subsequent to the mailing of the AFL letter to the Respondent's
employees, Nick Cordil stopped at the Respondent's plant, according to him, "to
get acquainted." Realizing that he should have nothing to do with the man
6 The wage rates provided for in the contract of Local 576 were about 20 cents per hour
higher than those of the AFL Also, the contract of Local 576 provided for a $3 per
month health insurance program paid for by the Employer and further that the employees
could only be discharged "with the parties mutually agreeing thereto " The Respondent
here contended that all the afore-mentioned contract provisions were harsh and
burdensome to it
According to the letterhead of the District Council of Carpenters it represented, among
other local unions, Local 3161 In view of the unsatisfactory testimony given by officials
of Local 3161 as to the time of their affiliation with the Council, the undersigned finds
that Local 8161 was affiliated with the Council at this time There is, however, no doubt
but that Local 3161 wits unalterably opposed to the chartering of this new furniture local
by AFL in the Los Angeles area Local 3161 and Local 576 had been able. to live
peacefully together in the Los Angeles area for many years and it was obvious that the
purpose of chartering the new Local was to raid the jurisdiction of Local 576 with the
assistance of the Taft-Hartley Act because Local 576 had not seen fit to comply with the
registiation requirements of that Act
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING ,CO. 1061
"because he was from the AFL Union," Sam Ronney cut Cordil's visit short and,
according to the evidence, nothing was done although none of the principals could
recall very much of the event except that it was short. However, Sam Ronney
did recall telling Cordil that he was negotiating with the CIO and that "we
[Respondent and Cordil] could not go along on anything like getting together
on any contract, that wasn't the time to do it "
Also, beginning sometime prior to the expiration of the contract with Local 576,
the Respondent suddenly began serving free coffee and doughnuts to its employees
in the patio of the plant during the morning and afternoon recesses Manage-
ment also enjoyed these refreshments along with the employees. This was an
innovation at the plant and lasted continuously thereafter until the economic
shut-down of November 19, 1948. So far as the record shows, this innovation was
not continued after the reopening of the plant in January 1949
After conferring with Stalmaster, the Respondent decided to negotiate with
Local 576 and so drafted in conjunction with Stalmaster, a proposed contract
which, in fact, would have conformed the CIO contract very closely to that of
the AFL, except that on the hiring-in rate this proposed contract retained the
$1.19 rate of Local 576 instead of the 99-cent rate of the AFL, and that it would
have incorporated a job evaluation plan prepared by Respondent in the contract
and eliminated other "burdensome" and "onerous" provisions of the agreement
of Local 576.
Although the parties began negotiating on this new contract in the latter part
of August, they were far from reaching an agreement at the expiration of the
contract. term and continued in that same position until November 19, 1948.
Lewis Gilbert, organizer for Local 576 in charge of negotiations, and Martiq
Meyers, who had drafted the Respondent's job evaluation plan, had been studying
this plan together attempting to devise something agreeable to both parties.
Meyers told Gilbert that the Respondent was not going to sign a contract with
Local 576 but that, if Local 576 would accept the job evaluation plan, he would
try to sell the Respondent on executing another contract with Local 576. Al-
though Gilbert finally accepted the job evaluation plan "in principle," he con-
tended that it would in fact lower wages. By November 19, 1948, Gilbert and
-Meyers were on the verge of reaching an agreement on this job evaluation plan
and there were but few jobs on which they were apart.
During the morning and afternoon recesses, during which free coffee and
doughnuts were being served to both employees and management, both Sam
Ronney and -Martin Meyers, as well as other members of management, took occa-
sion to explain the job evaluation plan and the status of the negotiations with
Local 576 to the individual employees who might be around and attempted to
convince these individuals that the-Union was wrong in telling them that the
job evaluation plan resulted in lower wages and in eliminating the job incum-
bents from employment through the plan's educational requirements. The Re-
spondent also argued to these employees that its plan was as good, if not better,
than that of Local 576 On one occasion Sam Ronney had individual discussions
in the toolroom with each employee trying to explain the plan.
In addition to these informal discussions during the recesses, the Respondent
held two formal meetings with all the employees in the patio and one meeting
in the shipping room during this period of time. These meetings lasted for
several hours and the time was spent in attempting to explain to the workers, in
the absence of Gilbert and other officials of Local 576 but in the presence of the
plant committee, the way in which the job evaluation plan would work and
in attempting to prove that the contract offered to the Union by the Respondent
was better than the contract requested by Local 576. During one of these meet-
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings, Sam Ronney made statements to the employees implying, if not stating so
in so many words, that Local 576 was nothing but a "bunch of Communists and
crooks." He also told the employees that the Respondents had already made
enough money for them to live on and were only keeping the plant open for the
convenience of the employees e During these meetings, Ronney also stated that
he was not going to sign a contract with the CIO s Besides these long formal
meetings, there were also numerous small informal talks with groups of em-
ployees during the recesses 1°
With the parties still far apart on an agreement for a new contract, especially
in view of the Respondent's adamant demand that the job evaluation plan be
included in any such contract, the Respondent suddenly closed its plant at noon on
November 19, 1948. Gilbert and Meyers had gone to lunch together that day
to discuss the job evaluation plan further but did not do so when Meyers informed
Gilbert that he thought Gilbert would be surprised upon his return to the plant
that afternoon. . When they returned after lunch, the plant was closed down.
It was stipualted at the hearing that the shutdown was caused by economic
conditions." When the employees were told about the shutdown at 11: 55 a. m.,
they were told that the Respondent did not know how long the plant would be
idle but that they should try to get other jobs, if possible, and that they would be
recalled when the plant reopened. This shutdown was exactly similar to num-
erous other short shutdowns except that the employees were instructed to remove
their tools and clothes from the plant No reason for this order was given. It
was customary for the Respondent's plant to close for a week or two while new
models were being made for the semiannual furniture shows. It was further
customary for the Respondent to notify the laid-off employees, by telephone or
telegram, to return to work upon the reopening of the plant.
Except for the presence of three or four foremen, no work was done at the
plant during this period. During the period from November through January,
the Respondent and Local 576 held other negotiation meetings. But these
again proved fruitless although the parties did succeed in narrowing the issues
between them somewhat. However, they remained far apart on the teams of a
new contract.
Commencing early in January 1949, the Respondent began to hire new em-
ployees and slowly to reopen operations in the plant. Sam Ronney instructed
his secretary that she should not call Local 576 when attempting to secure new
employees for this reopening. He further instructed her to call the hiring
hall of Local 3161 and other employment agencies in Los Angeles for such new
employees. It was proved that a large majority of the employees hired for
8 Sam Ronney admitted that he might have expressed his belief that Local 576 were
crooks and Communists because they would not sign the affidavits required by the Act.
In general , however, he denied having made the other remarks although acknowledging
that he had made remarks of similar import.
Although Sam Ronney denied during his testimony that he had made any such state-
ment, the undersigned is unable to credit this denial because such a statement would
have been so definitely in accord with what Ronney himself admits having told Cordil.
10 Respondent argues in its brief that all the complainants should be discredited because
they all testified that there were two or three meetings per week during the period of
the free coffee and doughnuts while the facts showed that there were only these three
formal meetings. While the parties were in disagreement as to the number of meetings,
the undersigned feels and therefore finds, that this disagreement was based solely upon
the difference in definition of the word "meeting" as used by each side. The witnesses
were in fact only apart on the question of what should be included as a "meeting."
31 Originally, all parties agreed upon this stipulation. Subsequently, counsel for Local
576 stated that he was withdrawing from this stipulation However, he produced no
evidence to disprove the stipulation and so the undersigned finds the facts to be in accord
with the stipulation.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1063
the reopening, and thereafter, were hired through the offices of Local 3161. It
is to be suspected, but it was not proved, that all the new employees were
hired through Local 3161. Except for the janitor, none of the old Local 576,
employees who were working in the plant at the time of the shutdown were
recalled to work.
On February 17, 1949, what proved to be the final negotiation meeting between
the Respondent and Local 576 took place. At this conference Respondent pro-
posed for the first time that the contract contain a clause allowing a hiring-
in rate of $1 per hour for a period of 90 days with a raise thereafter to $1.19.
And for the first time during the negotiations, the Respondent proposed the,
elimination of the $3 per month per employee health insurance 'plan. In
addition, the Respondent proposed a clause granting the Respondent the right
of discharge by unilateral action without the consent of the Union and making
the same subject to the grievance procedure. Further, the Respondent contin-
ued to insist upon the inclusion of its job evaluation plan. The meeting proved
to be very heated and was soon adjourned upon the agreement of the State
conciliator present to secure the Respondent's offer in writing and to submit
it to the Union.
In accord with this arrangement, the conciliator by letter dated February 24,
1949, advised the Union as follows:
I received, on February 21, 1949, the final offer of the Ronney and Son
Company on the wage issue. It is as follows :
"1. We will hire all inexperienced people at One ($1.00) Dollar per-
hour.
2. After ninety (90) days worked such inexperienced people will be paid
One Dollar and Nineteen Cents ($1.19) per hour and rated as helpers.
3. If thereafter any of such people are placed in a job whose classifica-
tion requires experience, skill and training, they will receive increases ac-
cording to merit, progress reviewable every thirty (30) days worked and thus.
given shall be related to production standards.
4. The median rate will be reached when an employee maintains stand-
ards of production after he has served the time required for experience
on the job classification in accordance with the job evaluation manual.
5. If such employee fails to maintain standards of production, the em-
ployer shall have the right to discharge him. Such discharge shall be sub-
ject to the grievance and arbitration procedure of this agreement.
6. We are not able to include in any new agreement a provision for pay-
ment on health insurance such as the one now included in Article V of
the existing agreement."
Very truly yours,
(S) Edward Peters,
EDWARD PETERS,
Conciliator.
On February 23, 1949, the day before the conciliator submitted the Respond-
ent's offer to Local 576, Local 3161 filed with the Regional Office of the Board a
Petition for Certification together with a Petition for Authority for Bargaining
Relative to Union Security." In both these documents which were submitted to
the Regional Office of the Board under oath, Local 3161 represented that there
12 By obvious typographical error, a copy of this last petition in evidence indicates that
the verification of the document was made before Jack R. Berger, Board agent, on "January
23, 1949." This inadvertent typographical error is hereby corrected to read "February
23,1949."
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was no "recognized or certified bargaining agent" at the plant nor "any other
interested party." Local 3161 also certified that it represented 100 percent of
the 24 employees in the unit. In addition, the petitions further show that Local
3161 had "notified the employer that a question concerning representation had
arisen." " With the exception of this last representation, none of these repre-
sentations were true unless all the newly hired employees had been hired through
the hiring hall of Local 3161.
On February 28, 1 week after the Respondent had made its "final offer" to
Local 576 through the labor conciliator, the Respondent executed with Local
3161 at the Regional Office of the Board agreements for consent elections as re-
quested by the afore-mentioned petitions.
On March 10, 1949, as per these consent election agreements, the elections
were held simultaneously with the anticiapted result, i e, Local 3161 won both
elections unanimously.
Following these elections and the certification of Local 3161 by the Board's
Regional Director, the Respondent held one or two negotiation meetings with
,Local 3161 and then executed the regular standard Local 3161 contract, thereby
abandoning its much sought-after job evaluation plan." The contract as exe-
,cuted between these parties contained the following terms :
ARTICLE III
UNION SECURITY
The Company agrees that all production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding production working foremen who work on production more than
fifty per cent ( 50%) of their time, shall at all times be members in good
standing of the Union , and all such employees shall be employed through
the office of the .Union. If the Union is unable within forty -eight ( 48) hours
to furnish competent help, the Employer may employ help from the open
market; but in full and complete compliance with the provisions as stated
above. Newly hired employees shall either obtain a working permit, or
sign an , application for membership in the Union in accordance with the
present practice in each plant . Employees who are holders of work permits
after passing their probationary period of fifteen ( 15) working days, and
having proven satisfactory , must make application and join the Union within
the next fifteen ( 15) working days or be released from employment. The
Company agrees to furnish the Union with an up-to-date list of its employees
covered by the Agreement every sixty ( 60) days. All periods mentioned
in this contract are calendar periods, unless otherwise mentioned.
ARTICLE XIII
UNION SECURITY-TAFT-HARTLEY ALTERNATE PROVISION
The following is to be substituted for the first two sentences of Article III
under conditions hereinafter set out :
The Company agrees that all production and maintenance employees;
including production working foreman who work on production more
than fifty per cent (50%) of their time, shall at all times be members
"The record is silent as to when this notification was made to the Respondent.
14 Sam Ronney attempted to explain the abandonment of this demand for the job
evaluation plan by testifying that the rates of the AFL contract were so close to those
of the job evaluation plan that such plan was no longer necessary.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1065
in good standing of the Union, subject to the following provisions as to
newly hired employees. The Company agrees to notify the office of the
Union before hiring any new employees and to give any candidates for
employment furnished by the Union full and fair consideration for em-
ployment, but the Company may employ help from the open market,
particularly when the Union cannot furnish competent candidates, but
in full and complete compliance with the provisions hereinbefore and
hereinafter in this paragraph contained.
Substitution is to be conditioned upon the Great Lakes Shipping
C. I. O. National Maritime Union Case, argued July 21, 1948, before the
National Labor Relations Board. The views of trial examiner Howard
Myers are to be considered the law of the case at this time and as long
as the law of that case remains as at present, the substitution is to
remain effective, but when and if the law of the case is changed by
decision of the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Circuit
Court, or the United States Supreme Court, the substitution shall be
ineffective throughout the period of such change and until the law of
the case returns to that herein defined as its present status.
The parties to this Agreement declare that it is not their intention
to weaken the Union protection provisions of Article III to any greater
extent than is necessary to protect them from liability for unfair labor
practice under the closed shop provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, and
that they will liberally construe the decisions in the Great Lakes Ship-
ping Case with a view to preserving, if possible, the original wording
of Section III.
Thereafter, the Respondent resumed full operations at the plant, hiring, only
employees affiliated with Local 3161 as required by this agreement. It is to be
noted that, until after the AFL had been certified as the bargaining agent for
the employees at the Respondent's plant, none of the former CIO employees were
offered reinstatement to their former positions in Respondent's plant. After
the certification of Local 3161 had been accomplished and acting upon advice of
counsel, the Respondent did offer to certain of its former male employees rein-
statement to employment upon condition that they become members of Local 3161
and accept a reduction in wages. One of the women employees was also offered
reemployment but, at the hearing, Sam Rooney explained that this was due to
a mistake made by his secretary. With but few exceptions, none of the em-
ployees employed at the time of the November 19, 1948, shutdown have returned
to work for the Respondent, nor has the Respondent offered to reinstate them
to employment. Subsequent to that time, the Respondent has operated exclu-
sively under agreement with Local 3161.
B. Conclusions
1. Assistance to Local 3161
Based upon the facts of the instant case as found above, the undersigned is
convinced, and therefore finds, that the Respondent rendered illegal assistance
and contributed to the support of Local 3161 by its following acts and conduct :
(a) By its unilateral determination to operate under the contract terms
imposed by Local 3161 rather than those contained in the contract of Local 576;
(b) By preparing a list of its employees with up-to-date addresses and sub-
mitting same to Local 3161 for the known purpose of allowing Local 3161 to
solicit the Respondent's employees to abandon their membership in Local 576
and to accept membership in the AFL and ultimately in Local 3161;
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) By coordinating its letter of August 3, 1948, implying that Local 576 was
a Communist-dominated organization and that the Respondent could not legally
deal with it, with the propaganda letter of Local 3161 , dated August 11, 1948, to
the same effect for the purpose of securing the change of affiliation of its em-
ployees from Local 576 to Local 3161;
(d) By belittling the contract demands of Local 576 to the individual em-
ployees and attempting thereby to bypass Local 576 as the bargaining agent for
the employees by dealing directly with the employees themselves ;
(e) By supplying the employees with free coffee and doughnuts for the purpose
of changing their affiliation from Local 576 to Local 3161;
(f) By ordering , after the attempt to switch the affiliation of their then
employees from Local 576 to Local 3161 had failed , that no employee should be
:hired through the hiring hall of the certified bargaining agent, Local 576, and that
only employees hired through the facilities of Local 3161 should thereafter be
employed ;
(g) By failing and refusing to recall any of the employees affiliated with
local 576 , with the exception of one janitor , to work upon the reopening of
the plant following economic shutdown of November 19, 1948, as had been the
customary practice in the plant for years previously ;
(h) By hiring a whole new complement of employees through the facilities
,of Local 3161 with which to reopen the plant in January 1949, thereby replac-
ing the employees affiliated with Local 576 who had been working at the time
of the shutdown ;
(i) By maintaining closed shop conditions in favor of Local 3161 from time
-of the reopening of the plant both before and after entering into a contract
to that effect with Local 3161 on or about April 5, 1949;
(j) By entering into and enforcing a contract with Local 3161 containing
illegal closed shop conditions ;
(k) By requiring membership in Local 3161 as a condition of employment
in the Respondent's plant after its reopening in January 1949.
After noting the economic benefits to the Respondent obtainable through ad-
herence to the contract terms imposed by Local 3161 over those of the contract
demanded by Local 576, the Respondent in its brief asks the following rhetorical
question :
Was there this strong economic motivation and necessity ( in the face of
serious losses and operating difficulties ) to work on a lower schedule of
wages than had been possible through a war and post -war period, when
everyone could "get by" with many things which now had to be eliminated
as competition began to assert itself in the furniture industry?
Further, the Respondent points out in its brief that the average hourly earn-
ings under the contact of Local 576 had been $1.38 per hour while under the
contract of Local 3161 that average hourly wage had been reduced to $1.27
per hour among the employees of the finishing depailtment alone. The Re-
spondent candidly admits that its acts were motivated by the economic con-
sideration of the 20-cent per hour wage differential between the wage rates
demanded by Local 3161 and those of Local 576 . This raises the question as to
whether it is illegal for an employer to choose the bargaining agent for its
employees upon the basis of the economic benefits accruing to itself from that
selection . This question is answered in the affirmative by the very wording
of the statute itself which grants to the employees-not to the Employer-the
exclusive right to select their own bargaining agent.
By virtue of the above-found facts , the undersigned finds that the Respondent
has interfered with the administration of Local 3161 and has rendered illegal
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1067
assistance to said labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. The terms of the contract with Local 3161 and the enforcement thereof
Article III of the agreement between Local 3161 and the Respondent , quoted
above, is clearly illegal under the terms of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by
its requirement that newly hired employees must either obtain a work per-
mit or sign an application for membership in Local 3161 . Under the terms of
the proviso of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, no such conditions of employment
are permissible within the first 30 days of employment.
Furthermore , the facts in the instant case prove that, upon the reopening
of the plant , the Respondent , both before and after the execution of the con-
tract with Local 3161, has enforced closed-shop conditions , i. e, membership
in Local 3161 as a condition of employement in its plant in favor of Local 3161.
Although the proof only goes so far as to show that a large majority of the
employees upon the reopening of the plant had been secured through the offices
of Local 3161 , that local claimed, and subsequently proved, that 100 percent
of the Respondent 's then employees were members of Local 3161 . Subsequently,
after the elections of March 10 had been held , a few of the former employees
belonging to Local 576 were offered reinstatement by the Respondent upon ad-
vice of counsel , at which time they were told that they would have to be
members of Local 3161 upon remployment . Under these circumstances, the
"finding that the Respondent enforced the above contract as a closed-shop
contract in favor of Local 3161 is justified.
Thus, the elaborate "substitution" provision of the contract was a de-
vice to camouflage the closed -shop provisions as is tacitly acknowledged by the
last paragraph of Article XIII providing as follows :
The parties to this Agreement declare that it is not their intention
to weaken the Union protection provisions of Article III to any greater
extent than is necessary to protect them from liability for unfair labor
practice under the closed shop provisions of the Taft -Hartley Act, and
that they will liberally construe the decisions in the Great Lakes Shipping
Case with a view to preserving , if possible , the original wording of Sec-
tion III.
'The requirement of a work permit from Local 3161 or an application for
membership in Local 3161 as a condition of employment in the Respondent's
plant is illegal under the terms of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. The discriminatory discharges or refusals to reinstate
Sections 8 (a) (3) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an Em-
ployer "by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or conditions
of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization."
There follows thereafter two provisos which are not of immediate interest here.
In other words, an employer is permitted to discharge any employee for any
reason he , the employer , may personally deem sufficient , except when the purpose
of that discharge is "to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization."
All of the charging parties here were old employees of the Respondent, most
of them having been employed by the Respondent at least since early 1945 and
one or them , Sushan, since 1941. They were all members of Local 576. They
were all working when the plant closed down for economic reasons on November
X19, 1948, except one who had suffered an injury to her back in the course of and
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
growing out of her employment with Respondent They were all laid off on
that day and some of then, at least, were informed that they would be noti-
fied to return when the plant reopened None of them have since been recalled
or reemployed by the Respondent and only three of them have been offered
reinstatement conditioned upon their joining Local 3161 and accepting a lower
rate of pay. These offers were made only subsequent to the elections of March
10 and the certification of Local 3161 by the Regional Director of the Board.
Regarding the five women claimants involved here, Sam Ronney testified
that he had no intention of recalling them as of the time when they were laid
off when the plant was closed on November 19 for economic reasons because he
considered them to be inefficient, unproductive, and poor workers The Re-
spondent did not tell any of the Charging Parties that he or she was discharged
for inefficiency but, in fact, told some of them that they would be recalled when
the plant reopened as had been customary in the past. The payroll records of
these five women were not offered in evidence However, the payroll card for
Sushan gave the reason for his severance on November 19, 1949, as "L O " mean-
ing "laid off" Other records in evidence show that, when an employee was dis-
charged by the Respondent, the word "discharge" is plainly on the record. The
payroll records for Harrison and Sendejas were not introduced into evidence so
that the reason ascribed for their severance is not in the record
Why were these Charging Parties discharged or refused reinstatement after
the Respondent reopened its plant?
Following the conversation which Sam Ronney had with Joseph Brodine, dur-
ing which Ronney learned that a new A F. L. local was in the offing and would
offer Los Angeles furniture employers a contract which would be to their eco-
nomic advantage, the Respondent set its course to secure these economic ad-
vantages to be obtained for itself by having an agreement with Local 3161
Despite its subsequent change of counsel, that same end remained the goal and
object of all of the Respondent's actions thereafter At first, the course was to
change the affiliation of its then CIO employees When that resulted in failure,
the Respondent adopted the next method available, to wit: replacing the em-
ployees who were members of Local 576 with those favoring Local 3161 Thus,
at the time of the economic shutdown of November 19, 1948, Ronney gave in-
structions that Local 576 was not to be notified when new employees were to be
hired, nor was any hiring to be done through that Local but that all hiring
thereafter was to be through Local 3161 or other agencies. In fact, the record
proves that the other agencies were used by the Respondent little, if any, for this
purpose.
Consequently, when the plant reopened in January 1949, contrary not only to
all past practices in the plant but also contrary to the Respondent's statements
to various and sundry of the affected employees that they would be notified of
the reopening of the plant, the plant was reopened with a completely new com-
plement of employees hired through Local 3161. And all employees hired there-
after have been employed from that same source. None of the employees work-
ing at the plant at the time of the shutdown, all of whom were members of
Local 576, were notified to return to work, at least, until after the elections of
March 10 Not only were the employees of the finishing room replaced but
every employee in every department of the plant was replaced-by employees
favoring Local 3161. The Respondent's purpose, of course, was to secure Local
3161 as the bargaining agent for its employees so that the Respondent could
secure for itself the economic advantages of a contract with Local 3161 Con-
sequently, in order to attain this ultimate goal it was necessary for the Re-
spondent to "encourage membership in Local 3161" and in addition "to dis-
courage membership in Local 576" Thus. the Respondent ran afoul of See-
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 1069
Lion 8 (a) (3) of the Act. After the Respondent has assisted in perpetuating
this change of affiliation through the use of the facilities of the Regional Office of
the Board and then only, were any of the former employees, members of Local
576, who according to the practice of the plant should have been recalled to work,
finally offered reinstate ineut on condition that they join the AFL and accept the
lower wages provided for in the contract with Local 3161 These offers were all
conditional. By these actions, the Respondent was, in fact, selecting the bargain-
ing agent for its employees \\ hich, according to the terms of the Act, is a mat-
ter to be determined solely and exclusively by the employees-and not by the
employer.
The Respondent produced evidence tending to show that these Charging Par-
ties were all incompetent, unproductive, and inefficient workers and that it was
necessary that these employees be replaced by efficient. more productive, and less
expensive employees in order for the Respondent to operate the plant profitably.
There is evidence in the record that Respondent lost money in its 1947 operations.
However, due to the unstable condition of the furniture man ket then existing in
Los Angeles. this can hardly be attributed solely to the alleged inefficiency of the
Respondent's employees for the whole industry was similarly affected. The evi-
dence does clearly establish that the Respondent had complained about the in-
-efficiency of some of its women employees as far back as 1947 and, in fact, actually
dismissed two of them about September 1947.'° The evidence further establishes
that on one or two occasions in 1948, Sam Ronney in person did the work of four
of the women wipers for a short period of time in order to prove how inefficient
the women were The fact remains, however, that when the women were re-
placed after the shutdown, the Respondent replaced them with an equal number
of men, thus tending to indicate that the evidence of inefficiency on the part of
the women was, at least, exaggerated.11
The evidence about the quality of the work of these women was so extravagant
on both sides as to be unbelievable to the undersigned. According to the witnesses
for the General Counsel, this work was almost perfect ; according to the witnesses
for the Respondent, the work was useless.
However, the undersigned believes that, under the facts of this case, the ques-
tion of the efficiency or inefficiency of these employees is immaterial. The under-
signed is convinced that the Respondent failed to recall these Charging Parties,
including the women, following the shutdown because of its desire to replace
the members of Local 576 with members of Local 3161 so as to secure the economic
advantages of a contract with Local 3161. If the Respondent had been replacing
the women because of their inefficiency, it is logical to assume that it would have
retained in its employ the efficient members of Local 576 in other departments.
But the proof shows that, with the exception of the janitor, the Respondent re-
placed its whole complement of employees throughout the entire plant, all of
whom were members of Local 576, with a whole new complement of employees
in every department of the plant, all of whom were members of Local 3161. That
16 Thi oughout this case , the Respondent made much of the provision in its contract
with Local 576 which required dismissals of employees to be made with the mutual
consent of both the Union and the Respondent, contending that this was one of the
onerous aspects of that contract from winch it had to be released in order to operate.
The dismissal of these two women in 1947 while that clause of the contract was still in
existence would indicate that this provision was not as burdensome as contended by
the Respondent
16 This equal substitution of men for women in the finishing room is proved by official
company records despite the testimony of one of the replacements who testified on behalf of
the Respondent somewhat incongruously that he himself did the work of three or four
of the women who, incidentally , were located in three or four separated places throughout
the finishing department This exaggerated testimony is typical of that produced by all
of the Respondent 's witnesses on this phase of the case.
° 1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
being so, the question of the efficiency or workmanship of the employees of the
finishing department played no part in their replacement. This is further proved
by the fact that employee Sushan, who was acknowledged to be a competent
mechanic even by the Respondent 's witnesses , was also replaced in the finishing
department . Furthermore , none of the former employee members of Local 576
were even offered reinstatement until after the certification of Local 3161.
While it is true that Sam Ronney testified at the hearing that when he laid
off the women in the finishing department at the time of the shutdown of
November 19, 1948, he never intended to recall them to work because of their
alleged inefficiency , still this was at best a pure mental reservation unexpressed
to any of the affected employees who, on the contrary , were told that they would
be notified upon the reopening of the plant as had been customary for years pre-
viously. Neither the custom nor the promise was fulfilled in this instance.
The undersigned is convinced and therefore finds, that the Respondent dis-
criminated against all of the Charging Parties here in order to encourage mem-
bership in Local 3161 and to discourage membership in Local 576 so as to obtain
the economic advantage of the terms of the contract of Local 3161 for itself in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act.
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
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
,Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent on or about November 19, 1948, dis-
criminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Susie Clinton, Lewis
Harrison, Florence Johnson, Helen Montgomery, Zula Pipkin, Mike Sendejas,
Lucille Sims, and Harold J. Sushan by discharging each of them on that day or
by failing to recall and reinstate them thereafter in order to encourage member-
ship in Local 3161 and to discourage membership in Local 576. The undersigned
will, therefore, recommend that the Respondent immediately reinstate each of
the above-named employees and, in addition, make each of said employees whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimi-
nation against him by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimi-
nation to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement to him, less his
net earnings during said period."
As it has been found that the Respondent interfered in the administration of
Local 3161 and rendered illegal assistance to that organization and, as Local 3161
was certified by the Regional Office of the Board as bargaining agent for the
Respondent's employees in part through misrepresentations made to the Board
by Local 3161 and, in part, as a result of the discriminatory action of the Re-
spondent, it will be recommended that the Respondent withdraw and withhold
recognition from Local 3161 and cease performing or giving effect to its contract
with Local 3161 unless and until that Union is certified by the Board.
1 Crossett Lumber Co ., 8 NLRB 440.
McBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY, LTD. 1071
Upon consideration of the entire record, the undersigned is convinced that the
Respondent's conduct indicates an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the
Act generally. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guaran-
tees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it \bil1 be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist in any manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, the
undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. Furniture Workers Union Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., and United Furniture Workers
of America, Local 576. C. I. 0., are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Susie
Clinton, Lewis Harrison, Florence Johnson, Helen Montgomery, Zula Pipkin,
Mike Sendejas, Lucille Sims, and Harold J. Sushan by discharging or by failing
or refusing to reinstate them on or after November 19, 1948, thereby discouraging
membership in the United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, C. I. 0.,
and encouraging membership in Furniture Workers Union Local No. 3161 of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A F. of L., the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
3. By interfering with the administration of, and rendering assistance to, Fur-
niture Workers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of
the Act.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
MCBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY, LTD., AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY,
KAUAI ELECTRIC Co., LTD. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 1357 (AFL), PETITIONER.
Case No. 37-RC-16. March 30, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon it petition duly filed, a hearing Was held before Arnold L.
Wills, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed'
'At the hearing the United Sugar Workers, International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's Union, Local 142, the Intervenor, moved to dismiss this proceeding on the
93 NLRB No. "185.