Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1854 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter Of MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC., EMPLOYER and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 1-CA-555 and 1-RC-1239.-Decided February 5,1951
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 15, 1950, Trial Examiner Hamilton Gardner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceedings,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in cer-
tain unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, 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,
and recommending, in addition, that the election held on November
8, 1949, among the Respondent's employees, be set aside. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent,
the General Counsel, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report, and the Respondent and the General Counsel filed supporting
briefs.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent indicated below and
with the following additions and modifications?
' 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
[ Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
2 The Intermediate Report contains several misstatements of fact and inadvertences,
none of which affects the Trial Examiner ' s ultimate conclusions or'our concurrence therein.
However , we note the following corrections : ( 1) Norman Lamoureux did not testify, as
the Trial Examiner found, that, on the evening of the union meeting in Danielson , he rode
from Moosup to Danielson and back in his cousin Adelphus ' car; (2 ) the Trial Examiner
inaccurately stated that the complaint alleged that, on or about September 7. 1950, the
Respondent formed the Majestic Metal Specialties Council and the Majestic Workers
Committee , whereas the complaint alleges that , on or about September 7, 1949, the
92 NLRB No. 265
1854
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES , INC. 1855
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the following pre-
election statements of its supervisors : (a) Foreman Post's remark to
LaCourse that he would give LaCourse some good jobs if he stopped
listening to Bissonnette; (b) Foreman Henault's statement to Helen
Brierly that the Respondent would close the shop if theUnion won -the
election; (c) President Kasdan's letter to the employees on November
4, 1949; and (d) Foreman Main's advice to Clarissa Bullard that she
should stick to Kasdan because he would always use her right. Each
of these statements contains either a promise of benefit or threat of
reprisal and is of the type which the Board has frequently held to be
per se violative of the Act. Accordingly, we reject the Trial Ex-
aminer 's finding that this conduct was merely "in technical contraven-
tion" of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and find that the Respondent
clearly violated the Act.3
In addition to the violations found by the Trial Examiner, we find
that the Respondent also violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
the presence of its supervisors at the first union meeting, on August
10, 1949, and by Moe's interrogation of Clarissa Bullard as to.whether
Inez Rose might change her mind about the Union. The Trial Ex-
aminer found that the Respondent did not exercise surveillance over
its employees by the presence of its supervisors at the meeting because
it had neither instructed its supervisors to attend the meeting nor
received a report from them as to what had transpired. However,
it is well established that the mere presence of supervisors at a union
meeting exerts a coercive influence on employees and is therefore
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act .4 Similarly, the Board has
consistently held that interrogation of employees concerning any.
aspect of union activity violates Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and,
contrary to the Trial Examiner's finding, that it is not protected as an
"expression of opinion" within the meaning of Section 8 (c) of the
Act.5
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had dominated,
interfered with, and assisted the Council and the Committee, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, but that it had not dominated,
interfered with, or assisted the League. The Trial Examiner found
Respondent formed the Council , and that , on or about October 26 , 1949 , it formed the
Committee ; and (3 ) the Trial Examiner inadvertently concluded that the Respondent's
actions with respect to the Council violated Section 8 (a) (1) instead of Section 8 (a) (2)
of the Act.
' For similar reasons we do not adopt the -Trial Examiner 's statement that the Respond-
ent's declarations , although violative of Section 8 (a) (1), "do not portray any bitter,
vindictive, actively hostile attitude towards the Union" and that they are "close to being
permissible expression of opinion under Section 8 (c)."
' Premier Worsted Mills, 85 NLRB 985, and cases cited therein.
6 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358, and cases cited therein.
1856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further that the Majestic Employees Fund had no relation to the Com-
mittee, and that it did, not represent a financial contribution from the
Respondent either to the Council or to the League. As appears here-
inafter, we disagree with his findings regarding the Fund and would
find also that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act
with respect to the League.
It is clear, as the Trial Examiner found, that the Respondent did
dominate, interfere with, and assist the Council, in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (2) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Thus, employee Marches-
seault took steps to form the Council, in August 1949, only after he
had consulted with and obtained permission from the Respondent's
officers, including President Kasdan, Assistant-to-the President Moe,
and Sales Coordinator Gross. All organizational steps and meetings
of the Council took place within the Respondent's plant, many on com-
pany time without deduction from the employees' pay. The original
meetings to explain the plan to the employees in the various depart-
ments and the election of employee representatives to the Council were
conducted on company property during working hours. All other
meetings of the Council were held within the plant and usually ex-
tended into working hours. The Respondent furnished luncheon at
these meetings and supplied stenographic help and all other services
and materials necessary to the functioning of the Council. In addi-
tion, the Respondent offered to turn over to the Council its profits from
the vending machines and canteens in the plant. The Council ac-
cepted this offer and, in September 1949, established the Majestic
Employees Fund, to be used for "whatever . . . fund the council de-
cides to adopt." 6 It is well established that the gift of such proceeds
by an employer to a labor organization amounts to financial support
of the labor organization, in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act .7
The Respondent also assisted the Council by recognizing and dealing
with it on labor relations matters despite the pendency of the repre-
sentation petition filed by the Union.
Moreover, the Respondent's domination of the Council is evidenced
by the organizational structure of the Council. Moe was permanent
chairman of the Council and Ross, the Respondent's purchasing agent,
was vice chairman. The Council was composed of nine employee rep-
resentatives and a "Supervisory Group" consisting of eight members,
including Moe. On the basis of these facts, as . well as those adverted
to by the Trial Examiner, and particularly in view of the leading role
6 Minutes of Council meeting held on September 14, 1949 ( General Counsel ' s .Exhibit
No. 6).
'James R. Kearney Corporation , 81 NLRB 26; The Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB
670.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1857
played by the Respondent's supervisors in the affairs of the Council,
we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent not only inter-
fered with and contributed financial and other support to the Council,
but that it dominated the Council as well.8
As stated by the Trial Examiner, although no formal action was
ever taken to dissolve it, the Council held its last meeting on October
26, 1949. On the afternoon of October 26 or October 27, 1949, the
Committee held its first and only meeting. We note that the members
of the Committee, Gill, Migneault, Danis, and Clark, as well as the
"sponsor" of the Committee, Richard Daggett, had all been employee
representatives to the Council. Moreover, although not a member of
the Committee, Marchesseault, the initiator of the Council and the act-
ing chairman at its October 26 meeting, was the leading figure in the
Committee's activities. It was he who prepared the numerous anti-
union leaflets distributed by the Committee from October 26 or Oc-
tober 27 until November 8, the day of the election. In view of the
timing of the Committee's formation, which immediately followed the
last meeting, of the Council, and the fact that the same persons were
the leaders in both organizations, we disagree with the Trial Ex-
aminer's conclusion that there was no connection between the Com-
mittee and the Council. On the contrary, we find that the Committee
was, in effect, a committee of the Council, established solely to carry
out a preelection antiunion campaign on behalf of the Council, which,
as indicated below, had not, in fact, gone out of existence at that time .9
Our conclusion that the Committee functioned as the propaganda
agent of the Council is substantiated by the fact'that, in its preelection
campaign leaflets, the Committee identified itself with the Council.
Thus, in referring to the alleged illegality of the Council, the Com-
mittee. stated, in one of its leaflets, that "the minutes of our meeting
were a definite proof that we did function as a bargaining agency"
(emphasis supplied).10 It added that, if the employees voted against
the Union in the coming election, the Council could "again be brought
into the picture, and we would suggest,. under an entirely differeiLt
set-up. With this change in set-up our position can never and will
never be questioned." 11
8 C. Ray Randall Manufacturing Company, 88 NLRB 140; Sun Oil Company, 89
NLRB 833.
9 International Association of Machinists , et al. v. N. L. R. B ., 110 F. 2d 29 ( 71 App. D. C.
175), aff 'd. 311 . U. S. 72, rehearing denied 311 U. S. 729; Sun Oil Company , footnote 8,
supra, and cases cited therein.
In our view of the case , we find it unnecessary to consider whether the Committee in,and
of itself was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly , we do not
adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding as to the Committee in this respect.
"General Counsel's Exhibit No. 13.
11 Ibid.
1858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover , the Respondent 's relationship with the Committee did
not vary from its position vis-a-vis the Council. Thus, the Respond-
ent permitted the Committee to carry on its activities within the plant
and on company time, without any loss of pay to the employees in-
volved, and it lent the Committee the stenographic help and supplies
necessary for the printing of the leaflets.12 . In addition , Moe edited
all the Committee 's leaflets before they were printed and distributed.
Therefore , as the Committee functioned as a committee of the Coun-
cil, we find that the Respondent , by its conduct toward the Committee,
was, in effect , continuing its domination , interference , and assistance
to the Council , and that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2)
and 8 (a) (1) of the Act by its conduct with respect to the Committee.
The Workers League was formed approximately 1 month after the
election , which was held on November 8, 1949. Although the Council
held no meetings after October 26, 1949, and the Committee, which
functioned , in effect, as a committee . of the Council , went out of exist-
ence on November 8, 1949, it is clear that the Council continued to
function after the election . Thus, on November 9 , 1949, after the
LaCourse eviction , discussed below, Moe called Migneault and Danis,
the polishing department 's representative and alternate to the Coun-
cil, into his office to discuss LaCourse 's eviction from the polishing
department . In addition , the Majestic 'Employees Fund, which had
been established by the Council and represented the only financial asset
of the Council , continued in existence and was later taken over by the
League. Moreover , the very origin of the League demonstrates the
continuity between it and the Council . As stated by the Trial Exam-
iner, Migneault , the polishing department 's representative to the Coun-
cil; took the lead in forming the League. He first discussed his plan
with Danis, the polishing department 's alternate representative, to the
Council, and Gill in September 1949, while the Council was still ac-
tively functioning . Early in December 1949 , they resumed their
discussions , and, as a result , Migneault and Danis went to the various
departments in the plant , during working hours,,and spoke to the
Council representatives in each department to ascertain whether or not
the employees would be interested in the League. About a week later,
on December 16, 1949, Migneault again contacted the Council represen-
tatives in each department and asked them to notify the employees in
their respective departments of the League's first meeting, which was
held that night outside the plant . At this meeting; Migneault was
12 Daggett later reimbursed the Respondent for the cost of these services and supplies.
However, cf. C. Ray Randall Manufacturing Company, footnote 8, supra, where the Board
considered as evidence of the company ' s domination of an organization the fact that the
company's supervisors had lent money to the organization to pay the filing fee for its
,charter.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1859
elected chairman of the League, and Migneault , Gill, and Danis 1' were
elected as members of the grievance or negotiating committee. In
addition , of the eight departmental representatives chosen, all but two
.had been representatives to the Council.
The Trial Examiner found that this duplication of personnel was the
only evidence of any connection between the League and the Council,
and that this was not sufficient to establish continuity between them.
However, the Board and the courts have held , in situations where very
.little time has elapsed between the disappearance of a company-
domi-nated union and the emergence of another labor organization, that the
.active participation in the later organization by the same individuals
who were the leaders in the earlier , company-dominated union taints
the new organization with illegality .14 The rationale of these cases is
that the leaders in a company union are necessarily company represen-
tatives, accustomed to submission to the company , and that "men
.accustomed to such submission seldom regain independence over-
night." 15 We note that the League was formed less than 2 months
.after the last meeting of the Council and only 1 month after the disap-
pearance of the Committee , which, we have found , functioned as a
committee of the Council . This was too brief an interval for Mig-
neault, Gill , and Danis , and the other former Council representatives,
to have transferred their allegiance from the Council and the Respond-
ent to the employees . Moreover , the evidence establishes that their old
ties to the Respondent were not disrupted , but continued to manifest
themselves in the establishment and administration of the League.
Thus, before the League was formally organized , Gill consulted Moe
about the plan and asked for his cooperation and advice . Although
Noe refused to participate in the formation of the League, it is clear
that the Respondent continued to -assist the League , as it had the
Council. The original discussions concerning the formation of the
League were held on company property during working hours, without
any loss of pay to the employees participating ; the Respondent pro-
ceeded to deal with the League on labor relations matters, although the
Union's representation petition was still pending ; and the Respondent,
through the Majestic Employees Fund, supplied the League with its
only financial assets and thereby enabled the League to have authoriza-
tion cards printed.
Thus, in view of the identity of personnel and the substantial con-
tinuity of existence between the two organizations , the employees were
18 The Trial Examiner erroneously stated that Migneault, Gill , and Daggett were selected
as the three -member grievance committee.
14 Sun Oil Company, footnote 8, supra; International Association of Machinists, et at., v.
N. L. R . B., footnote 9, supra.
11 International Association of Machinists , et al. v. N. L. R . B., 110 F. 2d 29, at p. 43.
1860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
justified in believing that the League was an outgrowth of the Council.13
Under such circumstances, where a labor organization appears to be the
successor to an earlier, company-dominated union, the Board and the
courts have consistently held that the later organization inherits the
illegality of the earlier one and that the effect of company domination
and support continues unless the employer, before the formation of the
new organization, has unequivocally and publicly disavowed and dis-
established the earlier illegal union and has assured the employees of
their freedom from further employer interference in the choice of a
bargaining representative.17 We find, contrary to the conclusion of the
Trial Examiner, that the Respondent did not satisfy these require-
ments, as it did nothing, before the formation of the League, to disabuse
the employees of their reasonable impression and belief that the League
enjoyed the same management favor and support as the Council had.
Although the Respondent did announce to its employees that the
Council had been dissolved, it did not do so until January 5, 1950,
3 weeks after the League had been organized and when it was already
actively functioning. Therefore, at the time of the League's forma -
tion, there was no "absolute and public cleavage between the old and
the new." 18 On the contrary, there was an actual overlapping between
the disavowal of the Council and the appearance of the League.
On the basis of these facts, including the active participation in the
League by the former leaders in the Council, the Respondent's con-
tinued assistance to the League, the unbroken financial link between
the Council and the League in the form of the Majestic Employees
Fund, and the Respondent's failure to disavow the Council until after
the League had been formed, we find that the League was the suc-
cessor to and the "alter ego" of the Council. Therefore, we conclude
that the Respondent dominated, interfered with, and contributed
support to the League in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. We disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions that the
Respondent did not discriminate against Edward LaCourse or Adju-
tor Bissonnette in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
LaCourse and Bissonnette were the most active union proponents
.in the plant and the Respondent admittedly was aware of their ex-
1" The record reveals that the employees identified the League with the Council. Thus,
several employees testified that they attended meetings of the "Council" in December 1949.
17'Sun Oil Company, footnote 8, supra; N. L. R. B. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph
Co., 319 U. S. 50; Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company v. N. L. R. B., 112 F. 2d
657 (C. A. 2), affd. 312 U. S. 660 ; Western Union Telegraph Company v. N. L. R. B., 113 P.
2d 992 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. It. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 308 U. S. 241.
11 Western Union Telegraph Company v . N. L. R. B., 113 F . 2d 992, at p. 996.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES , INC. 1861
tensive union activities from August 1949 until November 8, 1949,
the datei, of the election . LaCourse was evicted from the plant by
several of his fellow employees in the polishing department when he
reported for work on the morning of November 9, the day after the
election. Immediately after his eviction , LaCourse returned to his
machine in the polishing department and continued to work, without
any interference , for about a half hour, until he was summoned to
Moe's office . Moe suggested to LaCourse that, in view of the evic-
tion episode , it would be advisable to transfer him to the maintenance
department until things "cooled off" in the polishing department.
LaCourse accepted the transfer and worked in the maintenance de-
partment for a day and a half, after which he left work because of
illness. On the basis of these facts and those stated in the Intermedi-
ate Report , the Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent was
not associated with LaCourse 's eviction ; that, in view of LaCourse's
voluntary acceptance of his transfer , it was unnecessary to determine
whether . this constituted an assignment to more arduous and less
agreeable work; and that LaCourse was not discharged , but had laid
off from his job in the maintenance department because of illness. We
shall examine these conclusions seriatim.
Of considerable significance in determining whether or not the Re-
spondent was connected with the eviction of LaCourse is the conver-
sation on the night before the eviction between employee O'Clair,
who took the lead in the eviction episode, and Foreman Post of the
polishing department . On that evening , after learning of the Union's
defeat in the election , O'Clair contacted Post and told him that some
of the men probably would not be working the next day, to which Post
replied that they should "do it the smart way." The Trial Examiner
concluded that Post's statement to O'Clair was evidence that the Re-
spondent played no part in LaCourse's eviction . On the contrary,
we find, particularly in view of Post's absence the following morning
when the men reported for work, and the apparent aloofness of man-
agement during the eviction episode, that this statement constituted
an authorization to O'Clair to take steps to prevent the prounion
employees in the department from working , as long as he did it "the
smart way."
Furthermore , even if the Respondent were not connected with La-
Course's eviction , it could not , under the circumstances of this case,
rely on this incident as justification for transferring LaCourse to
another department of the plant . It is clear that whatever opposi-
tion existed against LaCourse among the employees in the polishing
1862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'department was caused solely by LaCourse's union activities.- Thus,
O'Clair testified that he thought that the other employees in the de-
partment would not want to work with LaCourse because LaCourse
was always talking about the Union. And it is equally clear that
the Respondent was aware of the reason for the employees' hostility
towards LaCourse, as evidenced by the conversation between Post and
O'Clair on the evening before the eviction incident.
It is well established that an employer is under a duty to insure
that its right to hire, discharge, or transfer is not delegated to any
antiunion or prounion group of employees.20 And this duty exists
even where the failure to yield to employee pressure might cause disk
ruption to the employer's operations. In the instant case, however,
there was no indication that LaCourse's continued presence in the
polishing department would have caused confusion or interfered with
the operations of the department. Thus, when LaCourse returned to
his machine in the polishing department after his eviction, he worked
there for about a half hour without interference from any of the
other employees in the department. It is therefore apparent, and we
find, that, by transferring LaCourse to another department of the
plant because of the eviction incident, the Respondent knowingly ac-
quiesced in the employees' antiunion attitude and thereby ratified and
adopted their antiunion position as the basis for its action.
We also disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that, because
of LaCourse's voluntary acceptance of the transfer, it is unnecessary
to determine whether it constituted an assignment to more arduous
or less agreeable work 21 It is clear that LaCourse's transfer to the
maintenance department was, in effect, a demotion. Although La-
Course was offered the same basic rate of pay as he had received in
the polishing department, he was, as a result of the transfer, deprived
of the opportunity, which he had previously enjoyed, of earning an
additional bonus.22 Moreover, LaCourse's duties in the maintenance
department consisted of washing windows, sweeping floors, and other
10. When O ' Clair attempted to prevent LaCourse from working on the morning of Novem-
ber 8, LaCourse grabbed a wrench and swung it at O 'Clair. Howerer , it is clear that
LaCourse 's actions during the fight with O'Clair did not cause the employees ' hostility
towards LaCourse or his transfer to the maintenance department as LaCourse was permitted
to work without interference after this incident.
20 Randolph Corporation , 89 NLRB 1490 ; Peerless Yeast Company, 86 NLRB 1098 ; Detroit
Gasket and Manufacturing Company, 78 NLRB 670; Fred P. Weissman Company , 69 NLRB
1002, affd. N. L. R. B. v. Fred P. Weissman Company, 170 F. 2d 952 ( C. A. 6) ; Wilson cf Co.,
Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 123 F. 2d 411 ( C. A. 8).
21lnter-City Advertising Company of Greensboro , N. C., Inc., 89 NLRB 1103 ; The Russell
Manufacturing Company, Incorporated , et at., 82 NLRB 1081, at 1167-1184.
Nor do we draw any inferences favorable to the Respondent from the fact that LaCourse
chose to accept the transfer rather than quit.
22 Republican Publishing Company, et at., 73 NLRB 1085, at 1091-1092.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1863
menial tasks, whereas he had formerly operated a machine in the
polishing department. Therefore, we find that, by transferring La-
Course to the, maintenance department, on November 9, 1949, because
of the antiunion attitude of the employees in the polishing depart-
ment, the Respondent discriminated against LaCourse because of his
union activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.23
With respect to the discharge of Bissonnette, the record discloses
the following facts. On the morning of November 9, after LaCourse's
eviction, Moe suggested to Bissonnette that, in view of the eviction
incident and the existing unrest in the polishing department, it would
be advisable to transfer Bissonnette to the maintenance department
for a "cooling off" period. Bissonnette refused to accept the transfer
and, as a result, he and Moe agreed that he would take the balance of
the week off and return to his machine in the polishing department
on the following Monday. However, on Friday, November 11, after
Post had advised Moe of rumors that the men in the polishing de-
partment would not work with Bissonnette, Moe decided to transfer
him to the maintenance department upon his return to work. There-
after, pursuant to his agreement with Moe, Bissonnette reported to the
polishing department on Monday, November 14, As soon as he
started his machine, every one of the approximately 50 other em.
ployees in the department left his machine and sat down at one end
of the room. While the sitdown was still in progress, Moe went to
the polishing department and informed Bissonnette of his transfer.
Bissonnette again adamantly refused to accept the transfer and left
the plant. The employees in the department then returned to work.
On the basis of these facts, the Trial Examiner concluded that the
Respondent was not involved in the sitdown; that Bissonnette's trans-
fer would not have been disadvantageous to him ; and that, by refusing
to accept the transfer, Bissonnette quit his job. We disagree. It is
clear, from our findings as to LaCourse, that the transfer to the
maintenance department would have constituted an assignment to
more arduous and less agreeable work and would have deprived Bis-
sonnette of the opportunity of earning a bonus in addition to his base
pay.24 Therefore, we find, in view of the alternative imposed by the
Respondent, that Bissonnette's termination of employment was not
23 In view of our findings above, the fact that LaCourse took time off from his job because
of illness after his demotion becomes material only on the question of remedy and not on the
question of a violation of the substantive provisions of the Act , as under the Trial
Examiner 's theory of the case.
24 We find it immaterial that Bissonnette never earned a bonus in the polishing depart-
ment as the removal of the opportunity to earn one would itself have been a substantially
prejudicial change in the terms of his employment.
11864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
voluntary, but was tantamount to a discharge.25 Accordingly, we
must examine the reason of the discharge.
The Respondent, in seeking to transfer Bissonnette out of the polish-
ing department, was admittedly motivated by the hostility of the
employees .towards him. The Trial Examiner found, however, that
the resentment of the employees against Bissonnette was not caused by
his protected union activities, as in the case of LaCourse, but that it
resulted from Bissonette's conduct towards his fellow employees dur-
ing the preelection campaign particularly his use of ungentlemanly
language and allegedly threatening statements. The Trial Examiner
therefore concluded that, in acting on the basis of this resentment,
the Respondent was lawfully motivated in attempting to transfer
Bissonnette out of the polishing department. We cannot agree.
In the first place, we reject the Trial Examiner's finding that the
resentment against Bissonette was caused by his language and alleged
threats during the preelection campaign. Although Bissonnette may
have used language which was not polite according to parlor-room
standards, it was typical of the conversation used in industrial plants,
especially during a heated union campaign. In our opinion, there-
fore, it was not so obnoxious as to have evoked the employees' hostility
towards him.- Similarly, Bissonnette's alleged threats to his fellow
employees, that they would lose their jobs if the Union won the elec-
tion, were made as an individual and not as a union agent and were
clearly within the realm of protected activity?T Furthermore, as
already pointed out, Bissonnette and LaCourse were the most active
union proponents in the plant, and Bissonnette was even more active
than LaCourse. If, as we have found, the resentment against La-
Course was caused by his union activity, then the resentment against
Bissonnette was even more likely to stem from such activity.
In the second place, it is clear that the Respondent believed that
the employees' hostility towards Bissomnette was caused by his union
activity, and not by his language and alleged threats during the pre-
election campaign. Thus, the Respondent decided to transfer Bis-
sonnette out of the polishing department after Migneault, the
polishing department's representative to the Council, suggested to
Moe, immediately after LaCourse's eviction, that Bissonnette be trans-
26 The Russell Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, et al., 82 NLRB 1081, at 1141-
1142; Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB 1525, at 1531-1532; Republican Publishing Com-
pany, et al ., footnote 22, supra.
26 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc., 175 F. 2d 238 (C. A. 3), relied
upon by the Trial Examiner, in which the Court held that the obnoxious conduct of two
employees during a strike justified the refusal of the other employees to work with them
and the company's refusal to reinstate them. In our view, the nature and extent of the
conduct in that case distinguish it from the instant case.
11 Tennessee Coach Company, 84 NLRB 703.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1865
ferred in order to avoid further trouble in the department. And, in
directing the transfer, Moe assimilated Bissonnette's position to that
of LaCourse by suggesting to Bissonnette that, in view of the eviction
incident and the unrest in the polishing department, a transfer would
be advisable. Moreover, the Respondent was never informed of Bis-
sionette's ungentlemanly language or alleged threats, or that the
employees in the polishing department were opposed to working with
him because of such conduct.
We And, therefore, that the resentment against Bissonnette, like
that against LaCourse, was caused solely by his union activities, and
that the Respondent regarded these union activities as the reason for
the employees' hostility towards Bissonnette. Therefore, by seeking
to transfer Bissonnette to the maintenance department and construc-
tively discharging him when he refused to accept the transfer, the
Respondent yielded to. the antiunion sentiments of the employees in
the polishing department, thereby discriminating against Bisson-
nette because of his union activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.28
4. The General Counsel and the Union have excepted to the Trial
Examiner's denial, in the Intermediate Report, of the General Coun-
sel's motion to amend the complaint to add an allegation that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act. This issue arose
during the course of the hearing in the following manner : On April
21, 1950, LaCourse testified that about 2 weeks before, he had returned.
to the Respondent's plant to apply for reinstatement and that Israelitt,
the plant foreman, had informed him that he would first have to pre-
sent a doctor's certificate stating that he was well enough to return to
work. On April 27, 1950, the last day of the hearing herein, Moe
testified that,.on April 24, 1950, LaCourse had returned to the plant
with the doctor's certificate, but that Israelitt had told LaCourse
that the Respondent could not reinstate him until the proceedings
herein were terminated. The General Counsel immediately moved to
amend the complaint to add an allegation that the Respondent had
violated Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act. Although the Trial Examiner,
in his Intermediate Report, denied the General Counsel's -motion, it
is apparent that he, in effect, granted the motion but thereafter dis-
lnissed this allegation on its merits. Thus, at the hearing, the Trial
Examinerr'gave both the General Counsel and the Respondent an op-
portunity to introduce evidence on this issue, and stated that, if the
proof sustained the allegation, he would grant the motion. In ad-
dition, he permitted the Respondent orally to answer the amendment
to the complaint.
ze See cases cited in footnote 20, supra.
929979-51-vol. 92-119
1866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The facts supporting the additional allegation occurred, after the
complaint herein was issued. Moreover, as these facts were com-
pletely within the Respondent's knowledge, the Respondent could not
have been prejudiced by the amendment of the complaint. Accord-
ingly, we shall clarify the Trial Examiner's action by now granting
the General Counsel's motion to amend 29 and shall consider the alle-
gation on its merits.
As stated above, the Respondent admitted at the hearing that, on.
April 24, 1950, it refused to reinstate Edward LaCourse until the
proceedings herein were terminated.30 Therefore, we find that the
Respondent refused to reinstate LaCourse because charges had been
filed in his behalf and because he had testified at the hearing herein,
thereby discriminating against him in violation of Section 8 (a) (4)
and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.31
5. We also find, in accordance with the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner, that the preelection activities of the Respondent created an
atmosphere which made impossible a. free and untrammeled expression
by the employees at the election held on November 8, 1949. The Trial
Examiner based his conclusion on President Kasdan's letter to the
employees on November 4, 1949, and on the Respondent's interference
with the preparation of the Committee's campaign leaflets. Contrary
to the conclusions of the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent
also interfered with the freedom of the election by dominating, inter-
fering with, and assisting the Council; by its acquiescence in the-prep-
aration and distribution of antiunion cards by-employee Gill;- by its
approval of the antiunion speeches made by employees LaHaie and
Hauser on the day of the election;' and by the other acts and state
39 Cummer-Graham Company, 90 NLRB 722; Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157.
30 Unlike the Trial Examiner , we do not regard as evidentiary the Respondent 's state-
ment, in its motion to reopen the hearing, that Aloe 's testimony to that effect was erroneous
and that LaCourse had returned to the plant on April 24, 1950 , " merely to secure a release
slip to present to the State Unemployment Agency." This is no more than a contention
predicated on matters not in the record and cannot be used to alter testimony given under
oath. See Carlyle Rubber Co ., Inc., 92 NLRB 385.
Nor can we grant the Respondent ' s motion to reopen the hearing to present evidence
relating to its alleged violation of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act. The Respondent was given
an opportunity to introduce such evidence at the hearing and it has not given any explana-
tion for its failure to introduce this evidence at that time . Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, 91 NLRB 473; Western Can Company, 83 NLRB 489 ; Old Colony Box Company,
81 NLRB 1025.
31 John H . Maclin Peanut Co ., Incorporated, 84 NLRB 384 ; Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills,
81 NLRB 1135. °
32 Although Gill did not consult any officer or supervisor of the Respondent before prepar-
ing and distributing these cards , It is clear that the Respondent was aware of, and acquiesced
in, her actions . Thus, Gill's foreman , Pekeleney , was present while Gill was making the
"No Union" signs, and, although she prepared and distributed them during working hours,
she suffered no loss of pay.
33 We regard these speeches , like the Committee leaflets, as part of the activity of the
Committee . It was Daggett , the "sponsor " of the Committee , who arranged for them and
who requested and received permission from Moe for LaHaie and Hauser to talk to the
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1867
ments of the Respondent which we have found to be violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 34 Therefore, we shall set aside the elec-
tion held on November 8, 1949,35 and shall direct a new one at such
time as the circumstances permit a free expression by the employees of
their desires with respect to representation 36
The Remedy
We have found that the Respondent has unlawfully dominated, in-
terfered with, and supported the Majestic Metal Specialties Council
and The Workers League in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and 8 (a).
(1) of the Act.37 As the Council, the predecessor of the League, has
ceased to function, we shall direct the Respondent to cease and desist
from recognizing the Council and to disestablish the Council in the
event that it should subsequently resume functioning.311 In addition,.
in accordance with our usual policy,39 we shall order the Respondent to
withdraw all recognition from the League as the representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, and completely to disestablish the League as
such representative.
Unlike the Trial Examiner, we have also found that the Respondent
illegally discriminated against Edward LaCourse and Adjutor Bisson-
nette in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act, by
transferring LaCourse to the maintenance department on November
9, 1949, and by constructively discharging Bissonnette on November,
14, 1949, when he refused to accept a similar transfer. Therefore, we
shall direct the Respondent to reinstate LaCourse and Bissonnette to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges. We shall also order
employees in the various departments during working hours In any event, the Respondent,
by giving its approval for these employees to make campaign speeches on company property
during working hours and paying them for the time so spent, assumed responsibility for the,
speeches.
64 As we have previously stated, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that
these were merely "technical violations " of Section 8 (a) (1), nor do we adopt his conclusion
that technical violations of the Act would not be sufficient grounds for setting aside an
election.
11 Although we do not rely on the Union's inability to carry on its campaign within the
plant as a ground for setting aside the election,' we do not adopt the Trial Examiner'a
reasons for finding no merit to this objection , but find that there is insufficient evidence to
support it.
36F. W. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289.
87 In view of our finding that the Committee functioned as a committee of the Council and
that the Respondent's domination of the Committee was, in effect, a continuation of. the
domination of the Council, we shall not order the Respondent to cease and desist from
recognizing the Committee or to disestablish it, if and when it should resume functioning.
ae Sun Oil Company, footnote 8, supra.
"Florida Telephone Corporation, 88 NLRB 1429 ; The Carpenter Steel Company,' 76
NLRB 670. .
1868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent to make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against them.
In accordance with our usual practice,40 in computing the amounts
of back pay due them, we shall exclude the period from the date of
the Intermediate Report to the date of the Order herein, as the Trial
Examiner did not recommend reinstatement' of LaCourse or Bisson-
ilette or an award of back pay to either of them. In accordance with
the formula promulgated in F. W. Woolworth Comnpany 41 and for the
reasons stated therein, we shall order that the loss of pay suffered by
LaCourse and Bissonnette be computed on the basis of each separate'
calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from the date of
the Respondent's discrimination against them 42 to June 15, 1950, the
date of the Intermediate Report herein, and during the period from the
date of this Decision and Order to the date of a proper offer of rein-
statement. 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
LaCourse and Bissonnette normally would have earned as wages during
each such quarter or portion thereof, their respective net earnings, if
any, during the same period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall
have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any. other quarter.
We shall further order, in accordance with the Woolworth deci-
sion,43 that the Respondent, upon request, make available to the Board
and its agents all records pertinent to an analysis of the amounts of
back pay due and the rights of reinstatement.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Majestic Metal Specialties,
Inc., Moosup, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities
or sympathies, or the union activities or sympathies of their fellow
employees; engaging in surveillance of its employees' self-organiza-
tional activities; promising its employees benefits, including better
. 40 Quarles Manufacturing Company , 83 NLRB 697 ; Interstate Engineering Corporation.
83 NLRB 126.
s1 Footnote 36, supra.
42 As LaCourse laid off from his job because of illness and was not prepared to return to
work until April 24, 1950, when he returned to the plant with the doctor's certificate, his
loss of pay shall be computed from April 24, 1950, when he requested reinstatement, rather
than from the date of the discrimination against him.
' 43 Footnote 36, supra.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1869
jobs and higher wages, if they abandon the Union; and threatening
to close its plant if the Union should win an election;
(b) Dominating, interfering with, or assisting Majestic Metal
Specialties Council, in the event that it returns to active existence,
or its successor, The Workers League, or any other labor organization;
(c) Recognizing The Workers League, or Majestic Metal Special-'
ties Council, in,the event that the latter organization returns to active
existence, as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(d) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union , of
America, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees,
by transferring, discharging, or refusing to reinstate any of its' em_
ployees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire. and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
went ;
(e) Refusing to reinstate any of its employees because they have
given testimony under the Act or because charges have been filed in
their behalf;
(f) 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 Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or 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 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) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from and completely
disestablish The Workers League as the representative of any of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Majestic Metal
Specialties Council in the event that that organization returns to
active existence;
(b) Offer to Edward LaCourse and Adjutor Bissonnette imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substaantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges;
4870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. (c) Make whole Edward LaCourse and Adjutor Bissonnette, in
the manner set forth in the section entitled The Remedy for any loss
of pay they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's dis-
crimination against them;
(d) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to an analysis of the amounts
.of back pay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of
this Order;
(e) Post at its plant in Moosup, Connecticut, 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,
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;
(f). Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10). days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on November 8, 1949,
among the employees of Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc., Moosup,
Connecticut, be and it hereby is set aside 45
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
other violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, be and it hereby is
dismissed.
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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE wILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
activities or sympathies, or the union activities or sympathies
of their fellow employees ; engage in surveillance of our employ-
ees' self-organizational activities; promise our employees benefits
44 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
pealg, there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order ," the words, "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
as when the Regional Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free
choice of representatives , we shall direct that a new election be held among the Respond-
ent's employees.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC . 1871
if they withdraw from or refrain from voting for TEXTILE WORK-
ERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO ; or threaten to close our plant if
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO , should win an election.
WE WILL NOT dominate, interfere with, or assist Majestic Metal
Specialties Council, in the event that it returns to active exist-
ence, or its successor, The Workers League, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or in any other labor organization, by
transferring, discharging, or refusing to reinstate any of our
employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reinstate any of our employees because
they have given testimony under the National Labor Relations
Act or because charges have been filed in their behalf.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all of such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE HEREBY disestablish The Workers League as the repre-
sentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing
with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not
recognize it, or any successor thereto, for any of the above
purposes.
WE WILL disestablish Majestic Metal Specialties Council as the
representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing
with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of,employment, and we will not
recognize it, or any successor thereto, for any of the above pur-
poses in the event that it returns to active existence.
WE WILL offer to Edward LaCourse and Adjutor Bissonnette
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice, to their seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole
1872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our dis-
crimination against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining, members of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OP
AMERICA, CIO, 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. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any employee because of membership in or nonmembership
in any such labor organization.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC.,
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
Sidney A. Coven, Esq., Boston, Mass., for the General Counsel.
Day, Berry & Howard, by James W. Carpenter, Esq., Hartford, Conn., for the
Respondent.
Mr. Joseph E. Paquin, Danielson, Conn., Mr. Henry Kullas, Norwich, Conn.,
and Mr. Daniel J. Gallagher, Hartford, Conn., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These two cases were consolidated for hearing by written order of the
Regional Director of the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), of the National
Labor Relations Board, signed on April 3, 1950.'
The first case, No. i-CA-555, arose upon an amended charge filed on Decem-
ber 6, 1949 (the original charge was filed on November 16, 1949), by Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO, against Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc., a cor-
poration. Upon the basis of such charge, the General Counsel of the Board, act-
ing through the Regional Director of the.First Region, issued a complaint against
the named Company on April 3, 1950. This alleged that the Company had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section S (a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act (61 Stat. 1.36). Copies of the complaint and of the charge upon which
it was based, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
1 References in this Report will be : Majestic Metal Specialties , Inc., as the Respondent
or the Company ; the General Counsel and his representative at the hearing; as the General
Counsel ; Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, as the Union; Majestic Metal Specialties
Shop Council, as the Council ; Majestic Workers Committee, as the Committee ; Workers
League, as the League ; the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board ; and the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, as
the Act.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1873
The complaint alleged in substance that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices: (1) On and since September 1, 1949, by interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees concerning their union affiliations, threatening them
to refrain from union activities, keeping the meetings of the Union under surveil-
lance, and warning them to become members of the Council; (2) on and since
September 7, 1949, by sponsoring and promoting the Council, the Committee, and
the Workers League and by dominating and interfering with them and contribut-
ing financially to their support ; and on November 9, 1949, by assigning Edward
LaCourse to more arduous work and on November 14, 1949, by discharging Ad-
jutor Bissonnette and thereafter refusing to reinstate them to their former
or sybstantially equivalent 1)ositions. Thereby, it alleged, the Respondent had
deprived its employees of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The amended answer of the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional facts con-
cerning interstate commerce on its part; pleaded lack of knowledge as to the
named labor organizations ; denied all of the alleged unfair labor practices ; and
set up a "Special Defense." Simultaneously with its answer the Respondent
filed a "Motion for a Bill of Particulars."
The second case, No. 1-RC-1239, arose upon a. petition filed by the Union on
September 29, 1949, with the Regional Director of the First Region for a certi-
fication of representatives in the Respondent's plant at Moosup, Connecticut.
Thereafter, on October 27, 1949, the Union and the Respondent executed and filed
a "Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election." Pursuant to such stipu-
lation an election was conducted at the Respondent's plant on November 8, 1949.
The tally of ballots returned showed that 112' votes were cast for the Union,
213 votes against the Union, and 29 ballots challenged out of 367 eligible
voters. On November 9, 1949, the Union protested the results of the election
on the ground of intimidation of the employees by the Company. The aforesaid
Regional Director, on January 5, 1950, issued his "Report on Objections" in
which he recommended, for the reasons therein stated, that "the objections
filed by the Union be sustained." The Respondent thereafter filed its exceptions
to such report. On January 30, 1950, the Board, through its Executive Secretary,
entered an "Order Directing Hearing on Objections and Exceptions." The
order consolidating the two cases for hearing followed on April 3, 1950.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Providence, Rhode Island, from
April 17 through 29, 1950, before Hamilton Gardner, the undersigned Trial
Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the beginning of
the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the Respondent's "Motion for a Bill of
Particulars" and "Motion to Separate" the two cases. During the hearing and
at its close the General Counsel moved to strike from the answer those portions
of paragraph 3 and 4 setting forth testimony given at a trial in a superior court
of the State of Connecticut. This motion was taken under advisement ; it is
now granted. Similarly the General Counsel moved to strike from the answer
such portions of paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 and paragraph 1 of the amended answer
as refer to the scope of the charges on file herein. The Trial Examiner took
this motion under advisement. On the authority of the Cathey Lumber case 2
it is now granted. During the hearing various motions were made by both
parties to strike certain testimony and documents. Except as such motions are
hereinafter granted or modified, they are hereby denied. During the hearing
the Trial Examiner permitted the General Counsel to amend the complaint by
adding to paragraphs 4 and 10 the name of the Workers League as an organiza-
' Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157.
1874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion concerning which the Respondent allegedly violated Section 8 (a) (2) of
the Act. In connection therewith the Trial Examiner granted a continuance
on request of the Respondent from Friday, April 21, to Wednesday, April 26,
1950. Approximately 1 hour before the end of the hearing and while the
General Counsel was presenting proof in rebuttal, he moved to amend the com-
plaint by adding an allegation of violation of Section 8 (a) (4). The Trial
Examiner reserved ruling. The motion is now denied: At the conclusion of
the hearing a motion of the General Counsel, to which no objection was entered,
was granted to amend the pleadings in minor matters to conform to the proof.
At the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by
counsel and the Union by authorized representatives. Full opportunity was
afforded all parties to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The parties were advised of their
right to present oral arguments at the opening and closing of the hearing. The
General Counsel presented a lengthy closing argument. The parties were like-
wise informed of their right to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and briefs. The Respondent filed a brief and the General Counsel submitted
a brief memorandum.
On or about May 8, 1950, the Respondent filed a.written motion to reopen the
hearing to present evidence on the General Counsel's proposed amendment to
the complaint adding an alleged violation of Section 8 (a) (4). In view of
the foregoing denial of such amendment, no necessity exists for reopening the
hearing. The Respondent's motion to do so is therefore denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc., is a corporation of the State of Connecticut
with its principal office and plant at Moosup, Windham County, therein. Its
business consists of the manufacture and sale of compacts, cigarette cases, and
similar specialties . It purchases annually raw materials valued in excess of
$100,000, of which 50 percent is shipped from States outside Connecticut. Its
annual production exceeds $150,000 in value and of this 75 percent is sold in
States other than Connecticut.
The Respondent 's answer admits it is engaged in interstate commerce within
the meaning of the Act. I so find.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It was stipulated in open hearing between the General Counsel and counsel
for the Respondent that Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
For reasons hereinafter appearing I also find that Majestic Metal Specialties,
Shop Council, Majestic Workers Committee, and the Workers League are labor
organizations as defined by said section.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The over-all background
1. Identity of persons involved
To facilitate understanding this case, it is advisable to identify the principal
persons involved.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1'875
a. Respondent
Nathan Kasdan was president of the Company. Herman Moe held the office
of assistant . to the president and acted as general manager during Kasdan's
frequent absences in New York City and Florida. Other officials were Isidore'
Israelitt, factory production manager ; Arnie M. Gross, sales coordinator ; Wil-
liam Ross, purchasing agent; . Jean Henault, comptroller in charge of office ;
Frederick Anderson, plant supervisor ; and Henry J. Marchesseault, bookkeeper.
Of these, only Moe, Henault, and Marchesseault testified. The names of various
foremen, assistant foremen, and "floor ladies" appear in the record ; they will
be identified later at the proper places.
b. Union and employees' organizations
Joseph E. Paquin, a nonemployee who testified for the General Counsel, was
the business agent for the Union. Henry J. Marchesseault, bookkeeper, was
active in starting the Council. Richard Daggett, electrician, appears as-ft
leader.in the formation of the Committee. Gabriel Migneault, an employee in
the polishing department, acted as the first chairman of the Workers League.
Estelle J. Gill, a worker in the stamping department, was the custodian of the,
"Majestic Employees Fund."
c. The discharges
According to the complaint, the Respondent discharged Adjutor (known as
Archie) Bissonnette on November 14, 1949, and assigned Edward LaCourse to
less agreeable work on November 9, 1949.
d. Union drive
The campaign of the Union for membership among the Respondents' employees
and for certification as their representative under the Act began about the
middle of August 1949 and continued until the election of November 8, 19491
which was conducted by the Board. Meetings were held at Moosup, where the
plant is located, in the nearby town of Danielson, and at the homes of various
employees. These were intended to be of weekly occurrence, but a few were
missed. Paquin and others from the Union supervised the drive. Some em-
ployees actively assisted them. Union literature was distributed at the gates
of the plant; union buttons were distributed and many were worn during
working hours ; membership was solicited and application cards signed. These
activities were intensified as the date of the election approached. The record
is silent as to any attempts at unionization after the election.
e. The plant
Moosup, where the Company's plant is located, is a town of about 2,500 in-
habitants, situated in the eastern part of Connecticut near the Rhode Island
border. The manufacturing processes of the Company are conducted almost
entirely in one main factory. The building is divided into departments-as-
sembly, gold and silver or metal room, lacquer, maintenance, office, plating,
shipping, polishing, stamping, tool and die, and wiping. Polishing and stamp-,
ing departments employed most workmen. In general a foreman was in charge
of each department and in a few cases there were assistant foremen. So-called
"floor ladies" functioned under these in several instances. During the period
involved the Respondent employed about 400 people ; at the time of the hearing
1'876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this had been reduced to approximately 180. A substantial proportion of the
workers were women.
The "Bachelors Quarters" referred to frequently in the record was a small
separate building where some of the male employees lived and took their meals.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint avers various types of violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act. They will be considered separately.
1. Alleged surveillance
Proof offered by the General Counsel as to surveillance by the Respondent
of the union campaign among its employees relates to two union assemblies early
in the drive.
a. Union meeting at Moosup
This was the first union meeting and was held at Moosup about August 10,
1.949. According to Adjutor (Archie) Bissonnette, who testified for the Gen-
eral Counsel, he attended this gathering and sat alongside Philip Post, foreman
of the polishing department. He also noticed that Norman Lamoureux, an
assistant foreman, was present. Thereupon Bissonnette arose and called the
chairman's attention to the fact "that there was a few foremen around. I
didn't feel as if they should be present in a union meeting." Then "the chair-
.man politely asked all foremen if they kindly walk out, as they wasn't invited
in the union meeting." Post, Lamoureux, and Daggett, plant electrician, im-
mediately left.
Norman Lamoureux corroborated this testimony as a witness for the Re-
spondent. He further stated that no company officer or supervisor asked him
to sit in on the meeting and he did not report back to them nor did he take
down the names of employees. Post was not called as a witness. Raymond
Lamoureux, a cousin of Norman, testifying for the Respondent, agreed with the
latter.
Herman Moe, assistant to the president, denied that he had "sent out any
employees to attend the meetings of the union."
. The record is completely silent as to any report to the Company by Post,
Lamoureux, or Daggett. In one of its later pamphlets, distributed as an
invitation to a meeting on September 8, 1949 (on file as an exhibit), the Union
insisted: "(Bosses, assistant bosses, etc., will not be welcomed.)."
As to this meeting, I find that the Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a)
(1) by exercising surveillance over its employees.'
b. Union meeting at Danielson
This gathering was held at an unspecified date late in August 1949.
Joseph D. Paquin, business agent for .the Union, testified that he presided at
the meeting. He stated that after a motion to adjourn had been made a group
of men walked in ; that Norman Lamoureux walked up to his desk, pounded on
it, and demanded that the meeting continue ; and yelled to a "fellow" at the
door to take the names of the employees present. Bissonnette corroborated this.
On cross-examination Paquin asserted that the motion to adjourn had already
passed when Lamoureux accosted him, but on redirect he stated that it passed
lvhen "the group was walking in."
-30f. Daly Bros. Shoe Co., Inc., 86 NLRB 1282 ; Mission Oil Co., 88 NLRB 743.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1877
Later Paquin resumed the witness stand to change his testimony. He now
identified the man who came to his desk as Raymond Lamoureux and the.man
at the door as Norman.
Three members of the Lamoureux family testified about this incident for the
Respondent, Raymond and Adelphus, who are brothers, and Norman, their
cousin. All worked for the Company and it was stipulated that Norman, an
assistant foreman, was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Raymond Lamoureux admitted attending the meeting. He asserted that he
was not requested to do so by the Company. He denied going up to the chair-
man's table at all ; denied that he said anything whatever to Paquin ; and denied
that he told anyone to take the names of employees.
Adelphus Lamoureux testified that he came to the door of the hall where the-
assembly was held in time to hear something about a motion to adjourn. He-
insisted he did not see his brother Raymond approach the chairman's table and
talk to him. He stated Moe had not sent him to. the meeting and he did not
report to Moe about it.
Norman Lamoureux denied that he attended the Danielson meeting at all, but
only the first union meeting at Moosup, which he was asked to leave. He ad-
mitted being in Danielson on that evening and that he rode back and forth
from Moosup in his cousin Adelphus' car.
Thus there exists a direct conflict in the testimony ,concerning this incident.
In view of Paquin's confusion as to identity of the Lamoureux who he stated
argued with him ; of the general unreliability of Bissonnette as a witness, of
which more will be said later ; of the complete absence of proof of any company
participation in or even knowledge of the matter-I credit the version of the
Lamoureux.
I therefore find no violation of Section 8 (a) (1) with respect to this meeting-
2. Statements by company officers or supervisors
By far the greater part of the proof in this part of the General Counsel's case
consists of alleged illegal statements by officers or supervisors of the Respond-
ent. It will be attempted to discuss them in chronological order, but no certainty
exists that such a result will eventuate, because in most instances the exact
dates of the statements lack much of definiteness and certainty. Too often the
time is fixed only as before or after some other event which, in turn, is related
to still something else.
a. Post to LaCourse
Without contradiction the testimony established that Post was foreman of the
polishing department. It was stipulated by counsel for the parties that all
foremen were supervisors under the Act. This conversation supposedly took
place "about a week" after an election in the department to choose representa-
tives for the Council. The date of that election is vaguely fixed as some time in
September 1949. The place testified to was the polishing department where La-
Course then worked. LaCourse was the only witness to refer to it. According to
him :
Mr. Post said if I stopped listening to Archie [Bissonnette] he'd give me
some good jobs in there. . . . I didn't say anything. I just walked away.
The witness could not "remember just exactly when," but he asserted that
later Post came several times to his machine and "was just telling me about how
we didn't need a union in there."
4878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LaCourse was not cross-examined about these matters, nor was Post put on the
witness stand to contradict them. On the record they remained unrefuted, except
for Moe's sweeping denial :
Q. Now, referring to the charge in the complaint concerning the claim that
the Company warned employees not to join the union, will you. state whether
or not, to your knowledge, any such warning was made by the Company to
its employees?
A. Never was, and the Company certainly would not tolerate any such
warning by any of its supervisors.
The Board has held that such general denials by an officer of a respondent
employer does not absolve it as against specific undisputed testimony of state-
ments which are coercive.'
As pointed out hereafter, the Trial Examiner did not place a high valuation
on LaCourse's credibility as a witness ; but under the circumstances in this
particular instance it is found that through Post's statement the Company
violated Section 8 (a) (1).
b. Moe to Inez Rose
Mrs. Rose, a former employee in the examining department, was a member of
the union committee in the shop and as such participated in negotiations for the
election of November 8. She testified concerning a conversation between herself
and Moe, assistant to the president. The time is not fixed except in a question
by the General Counsel on direct examination :
Q. Did you have any conversation with him [Moe] after the conference'?
A. Yes.
Q. And when and where did that conversation take place?
A. I had gone back to my table to work and Mr. Moe came up and told me
he was shocked and amazed to see that I was on the union side. . . .
I asked him why he was, and he said be didn't know, he just was.
The witness was not cross-examined on her story, nor did Moe testify about
it except in the broad denial quoted supra. Her testimony is credited.
c. Moe to Mrs. Clarissa Bullard
Bullard worked in the forenoon in the wiping department and cooked after-
noons in the Bachelors' Quarters. She had signed a union card in the preelec-
tion campaign and claimed to have been laid off about Christmas 1949. Again
the time is fixed only in a question of the General Counsel, without even an
answer by her :
Q. Now, at any time before the election that was held on November 8, of
1949, did you have any talks with Mr. Moe?
A. He stopped me once.
Q. And what did he say to you?
A. Well, I had just left Mrs. Rose. I leave the mill about 2: 30 every
afternoon to go over to Bachelors' Quarters to cook. . . . Mr. Moe was
going up toward the Buffing Department, and he stopped me and talked to me.
During the conversation he said, "You know, Mrs. Bullard, you are being
judged by the company you keep."
4 Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia, 85 NLRB 1439.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC . 1879
Bullard replied that if he referred to Mrs. Rose she intended to keep right on
talking to the latter.
The witness also testified about a second conversation with Moe in the
Bachelors ' Quarters some time "just prior to one of . . the Council meet-
ings . . . before the election , but I don't remember the date ." She stated :
A. He [Moe] just asked me if there was any possible chance of Mrs.
Rose changing her mind, and I said, "No."
Q. Changing her mind with respect to what?
A. Union.
Again the witness was not subjected to cross-examination as to these conver-
sations and Moe did not mention them except in his general denial. Under the
circumstances I credit Bullard 's testimony.
But, assuming their authenticity , neither of these uncontradicted statements
by Moe, standing alone , would carry substantial weight as to restraint and
coercion . Even when taken together , they show only a mild expression of
opinion not coupled with any threat or promise of reward . I find them not to
be violative of Section 8 (a) (1).
d.. Henault to Helen Brierly
Helen Brierly worked for the Company in the lacquer department and testi-
fied she was laid off the day before Christmas , 1949, and not recalled. Jean
Henault was her foreman . Her testimony set forth that about a week before
the November 8 election :
He [Henault] called me into the back room one day and what he was
actually talking about was the union coming into the shop . . . . That if
the union got in, Mr. Kasdan would close the shop, and we would all be out
of a job, and we should all think it over before we did anything about voting
for the union.
Brierly was not cross -examined regarding this statement . Henault testified
but he did not deny it. The only attempt to challenge Brierly's credibility was
Henault's testimony that she voluntarily quit instead of being laid off. The
disparity on this point is not sufficiently weighty to overcome her uncontroverted
testimony concerning the declaration by Henault , particularly in view of the
fact that he was a witness himself. Brierly ' s testimony is therefore credited.
It has long been held that threats to close a plant if a union entered are viola-
tive of Section 8 (a) (1) .' I so find.
e. Kasdan's letter to the employees
On November 4, 1949, 4 days before the election, Nathan Kasdan, president
of the Respondent , sent a letter on company stationery to each employee. Rather
than risk summarizing it incorrectly , the Trial Examiner sets it forth in full :
NOVEMBER 4, 1949.
MY DEAR EMPLOYEE :
I am sending this letter to you at your home, hoping that you will discuss
it with your family. As you know, we are having an election next Tuesday
to determine whether you are to be represented by the C. I. O. or NO union.
I would like to present several facts for your considerations.
E N. L. R . B. v. Atlantic Stages , decided Feb . 6, 1950, 25 LRAM 2362, 180 F. 2d 727
( C. A. 5) ; Rub-R Engraving Co., 89 NLRB 475.
1880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. I brought Majestic to Moosup about ten years ago (when it was called
the ghost town) thereby giving you steady employment.
2. Our wage rates have been liberal.
3. I have given you paid vacations, three paid holidays, bonuses when pos-
sible, and other benefits (all without union participation).
4. I borrowed large sums of money to keep you working when I had no
orders on hand and to pay for your vacations.
5. Seniority has been practiced by Majestic over the years.
6. Majestic is one of the few plants,working full time in this area.
I want you also to know that Majestic is still in the "red," owing a tre-
mendous sum of money. I have spent many sleepless nights planning your
future as well as the future of Majestic.
As soon as I can, with your help, get out of the "red," I expect to offer
you a choice of several plans which will bring happiness and contentment
to us all.
Obviously, everything depends on you and on plant production and on the.
earning power of Majestic as a whole. Without funds, I cannot give you
anything.
When you vote Tuesday, the decision as to what is best for you and
Majestic is in your hands.
In my thinking, I have thought of (1) Profit sharing with the long end
of the profit going to the workers. [Italics supplied.] (2) To give you
additional paid holidays, insurance and other benefits as rapidly as Ma-
jestic's earning power will permit. (3) Periodical bonus arrangements.
I assure you that as soon as Majestic is out of the "red," I will so advise
you in order that we can plan and build together for the future.
Sincerely yours,
P. S.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC.,
/s/ NATHAN KASOAN, President.
Be sure to cast your ballot on Tuesday next !
As will appear later, the subjects of additional paid holidays and insurance
had already been discussed between the Respondent and the Council and since
1942, except 1948, Christmas bonuses had been paid. But "profit sharing with
the long end of the profit going to the workers" is-here mentioned for the first
time.
Section 8 (c) of the At permits any expression of opinion by employer or
employee "if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise
of benefit." Conceding for the sake of argument that the letter contains no
expressed threat, does mention of the "thinking" by Kasdan about "profit shar-
ing with the long end of the profit going to the workers" constitute a "promise of
benefit?"
The phrase must be taken in context of the entire paragraph, the third next
preceding paragraph, which refers to "happiness and contentment to us all,"
and to the surrounding circumstances, particularly the election 4 days away.
Viewed in that light, it seems clearly to be a "promise of benefit." It is so held.
It is not necessary to decide whether the rest of the letter is or is not a proper
exercise of the free speech guaranteed in Section'8 (c).
It is thoroughly established that such a "promise of benefit" violates Section
8 (a) (1) .6
6 See N. L. R. B. v. Bailey Co., 180 F. 2d 278 (C. A. 6) ; Northeastern Indiana Broad-
casting Co ., 88 NLRB 1381.
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC.
f. Main to Clarissa Bullard
1881
Floyd Main was foreman of the maintenance department and, as stipulated, a
supervisor as defined by the Act. Bullard has previously been identified. She
testified that on the afternoon before the November 8 election, in the Bachelors'
Quarters, Main told her :
He said he had been waiting for me several times and he wanted to talk to
me about the Union, and he says, "You know, of course, he says, the union
is paying Archie [Bissonnette] $500 if they get in. . . . I said I didn't
know that." He said, "Yes. That's the way the union works," and he says,.
"I want you to be sure . . . to stick to Mr. Kasdan because . . . he will
always use you right." He says, "Now, vote the right way."
No cross-examination on the conversation was made and Main was not called
to testify.
It is apparent the statement that Kasdan "will always use you right" is a
promise of benefit if Bullard would "stick to" him. I therefore find it is in
contravention of Section 8 (a) (1).
g. Supervisors
The. question as to who were supervisors under the Act becomes pertinent at
this point in connection with a statement alleged to have been made by Louis
Levine to Clarissa Bullard, as testified by her, sometime in the fall of 1949.
Moe, assistant to the president and general manager, gave testimony that during
that period Levine was carrying on experiments in developing new products and
had no employees working with or under him. The General Counsel offered no
proof that Levine possessed authority to do any of the things set forth in the
definition of supervisor in Section 2 (11) of the Act. What he said, therefore,
is in nowise binding on the Respondent and will not be considered.
In summation, several oral statements and a letter by responsible officers and
supervisors have been found to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). It should be
pointed out, however, that these declarations do not portray any bitter, vindictive,
actively hostile attitude towards the Union. No doubt a considerable portion of
the statements comes close to being permissible expression of opinion under
Section 8 (c). But equally without doubt they were at least in technical.
contravention of Section 8 (a) (1).
Conclusion as to Interference , Restraint , and Coercion
Under the facts set forth above I find that the Respondent, beginning on or
about September 1, 1949, interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
C. Domvnation of the Council, the Conunittee, and the Workers League
The complaint alleges that on or about September 7, 1950, the Respondent
formed the Majestic Metal Specialties Shop Council and the Majestic Workers
Committee and on October 26, 1949, formed the Workers League and since said
dates has dominated and interfered with them and contributed to their support-
all in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
1. The '•,Gripe Committee"
No charges are made against the Respondent with respect to the "Gripe Com-
mittee," because its activities chiefly antedated the 6-month period preceding
929970-51-vol. 92 120
1882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the filing of the original charge on November 16, 1949. It is mentioned here
only to point out its historical connection-with the forming of the Council.
Marchesseault, company bookkeeper, testifying for the General Counsel, stated
that this organization had functioned almost from the beginning of the Respond-
ent at Moosup, at least from 1940 or 1941. It consisted of representatives from
the various departments and dealt with management on matters I of mutual
interest. Moe learned of its existence when he entered the Company's employ-
ment in July 1949.
2. The Majestic Metal Specialties Shop Council
a. Formation
Henry J. Marchesseault, bookkeeper for the Respondent and not a supervisor,
took the lead in starting the Council and was the principal witness concerning it.
Except for minor details his testimony was not controverted.
He made his first moves about the middle of August 1949. This coincides with
the beginning of the union campaign in the plant. Marchesseault was familiar
with such an organization in a factory.where he had previously worked. First
of all, he discussed his proposal with Kasdan, the president, who told him to
go ahead and bring it before the "Gripe Committee." He also outlined it to
Gross, sales coordinator, and secured the latter's permission to hold the neces-
sary meetings with the employees and conduct the required elections. Moe
testified that Marchesseault also went over the project with him before acting.
Marchesseault then appeared before the "Gripe Committee" and explained his
plan. Moe was present at this meeting. The gathering requested Marchesseault
to go to the various departments and expound it tb the employees. Permission
to do so had already been obtained from Gross. Moe testified he knew of this
and made no objections.
Accordingly Marchesseault conducted meetings in each department. He
arranged his schedules with the respective foremen. The meetings were held
during working hours and lasted from 5 to 15 minutes each. Gross sometimes
accompanied him. He "presumed" foremen and floor ladies were sometimes
present. (According to Moe's undisputed testimony, floor ladies were pri-
marily inspectors and not supervisors.) Other witnesses named specific foremen
and floor ladies who attended and even requested employees to attend. Marches-
seault explained the proposed organization and then called for a vote by show
of hands. All departments voted affirmatively with little opposition, although
Bissonnette testified he refused to vote.
On the day following-these meetings, or very soon thereafter, Marchesseault
conducted elections in each department to choose a representative and alternate
to the Council. These were held on company time. He provided blank ballots
and an office girl distributed them. Each employee wrote down two names and
returned them to the girl. They were then counted, either by Marchesseault
and his girl assistant, or by other assistants. Some foremen and floor ladies
were present but did not vote. The names of the successful candidates were
promptly published by Marchesseault.
The first meeting of the Council convened on September 7, 1949, at which
an organization was effected. Moe was elected chairman and four committees
were named: employees' relations, production, safety-welfare, and suggestions.
Sometime in late September, Moe called all the employees together in the
main corridor and addressed them. According to Rose, Carpenter, and Bullard,
witnesses for the General Counsel, he stated that the Company was in the
MAJESTIC METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 1883
"red"; that they should give the Council a chance'; that they could have account-
ants examine the books if desired ; and that they should work hard to get the
Company out of the "red" and thereby receive a Christmas bonus. This testi-
mony was not disputed and I credit it.
b. Organizational structure
The Council consisted of nine representatives from their respective depart-
ments, who would be replaced by alternates in case of absence. As voted, Moe
was elected permanent chairman and Ross, purchasing agent, as vice chairman.
In addition to the nine shop representatives the Council also included a "Super-
visory Group" of seven members in addition to Moe. The latter testified that
this group was partly elected by officers and supervisors and partly appointed
by himself. The personnel of this group, as shown by the minutes of September
7, deserves noting : Moe ; Ross, purchasing agent ; Gross, sales coordinator ;
Israellit, factory production manager ; Anderson, plant supervisor ; and Lincoln,
supervisor. The four committees named above functioned in the fields suggested
by their titles and reported back to the main body.
The Council adopted no constitution or bylaws. All employees were con-
sidered members and no dues were paid. No membership roll was kept, nor were
cards issued.
c. Functions
Marchesseault defined the purpose of the Council as being to improve on the
"Gripe Committee" as a medium to represent the employees in dealing with the
Company. The subject matter to be so considered was to include grievances,
rates of pay, hours, and working conditions. In fact, the Council did negotiate
with management regarding paid holidays, grievances of particular individuals,
,job classifications, bonus, safety appliances, production schedules, insurance,
vending machines and a fund therefrom, pay raises, seniority rights, and im-
provement suggestions. Marchesseault testified that the Union was mentioned
only once and that was in connection with a decision not to have the Council
.appear on the election ballot. This was not contradicted and I credit it.
d. Meetings
As shown by the Council's minutes in the record, meetings were held on
;September 7, 14, and 28 and October 13. (The final meeting of October 26 will
,be discussed separately.) Moe presided at all of these. Kasdan attended at
least one of them. They were held in the Bachelors' Quarters at noon but
-sometimes ran over into working time. Luncheon was- served for which the
Company paid. No regular secretary recorded the minutes, that function having
been performed by whichever office girl was available. Minutes were mimeo-
graphed in the Respondent's office and distributed to each Council member
-without cost.
e. Meeting of October 26, 1949
Before this final session of the Council two meetings had been held with a
field investigator of the Board. Present were Mrs. Rose and Bissonnette, em-
ployee-representatives of the Union, both of whom testified, three agents of
the Union and Kasdan, Moe, Israelitt, and possibly Gross for the Respondent.
.Moe gave his version. As usual in this case, the dates are somewhat indefinite,
.but all witnesses agreed these conferences with the Board field examiner