Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 332 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in MORTUARY EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL No. 151, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OII.ERs, affiliated
with AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or in any other labor organization of
our employees, by discriminatorily refusing to reinstate any of our employees
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their membership, activities,
and sympathies ; threaten employees with discharge or the loss of their jobs
or threaten not to employ or reinstate them because of their union activities;
promise our employees benefits or threaten them with reprisals in order to
discourage membership in any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other 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 MORTUARY EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No. 151,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F. or L, 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 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.
WE WILL offer to the 15 individuals whose names are listed below im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their respective former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay or expenses they
may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them :
Enrico D. Fennel Dale Bullard Betty Jean Fenton
Charles J. Woodward Victor Hartman Walter Zinzer
Joseph May Doris E. Art J. D. Angel
Levern C. Davis Howard W. Givens Harold Bryant
John Lipsey Earl Sanders William S. Jehlen
All our employees are free to become or remain members of MORTUARY EM-
PLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 151, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or FIREMEN AND
OILERS, A. F. OF L., or of any other labor organization, except to the extent above
stated.
PIERCE BROTHERS
Employer.
Dated-------------------------------- By--------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 1-CA-839. December 10, 1951
Decision and Order
On July 31, 1951, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
97 NLRB No. 53.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE_ CORPORATION 333
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
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 supporting brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addi-
tions and modifications : 2
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by interrogation of
its employees, and by threats of reprisal and promises of benefits, the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, in so
finding, we do not rely, as did the Trial Examiner, on Glassman's
admonitions to the employees that they consult their priest for
guidance in voting against the Union; nor do we rely on Saxe's speech
to the employees in October 1950.
2. We find, for the reasons detailed in the Intermediate Report,
that Simonne Tremblay was constructively discharged on September
26, 1950, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act .3 More-
over, even assuming arguendo that there was no such constructive
discharge, but that, as the Respondent contends, Tremblay volun-
tarily quit on that date, the question would still remain whether the
Respondent's refusal to reemploy her on December 19, 1950, was
discriminatory.
The only reason given by the Respondent for its refusal to rehire
Tremblay on that date was that she had quit. However, as the Trial
Examiner found, she was known to the Respondent to be one of the
most ardent advocates of the Union, and was the subject of frequent
threats of reprisal and interrogation by the Respondent during the
period of her employment. In view of these facts, and of the Re-
spondent's acknowledgment that she was one of its most efficient
1 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Reynolds and Styles].
2 The following minor corrections of the Trial Examiner' s findings are noted : ( 1) There
is no evidence to support the finding that in July 1950 the Respondent had promised to
set piece rates; (2) contrary to the finding in footnote 4 of the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent did, in fact, deny at the hearing that it maintained lists of its employees
indicating the extent of their union activity ; (3) while the Examiner found that Newfield
offered Lesante 5 dollars plus the expense of a baby sitter to spy upon the Union, the
record shows that Newfield offered her only 5 dollars ; (4) there is no evidence that
Lesante's version of her interview with Nadeau, as reported to Newfield, was "concocted"
between Nadeau and Lesante ; and (5) contrary to the Examiner's finding, Gaudette did
not accept the Respondent's offer of reinstatement in the letter of February 27, 1951.
None of these inaccuracies in the Trial Examiner's findings is of such a nature as to
affect his ultimate conclusion, or our concurrence therein.
3 Olin Industries, Inc., 97 NLRB 100.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, and in the absence of any evidence that no work was
available for her on that date, we find that even assuming that she
voluntarily quit on September 26, 1950, the Respondent's refusal to
rehire her on December 19, 1950, was prompted by her union activity,
and therefore violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent dis-
criminated against Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine
Nadeau, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. In so
finding, we rely upon the following circumstances, in addition to those
set forth in the Intermediate Report :
Plessis was laid off on October 4, 1950, together with all the other
fancy stitchers, but was not rehired, like the others, when she first
applied for work on October 9. When she again applied on October
11, her supervisor, Newfield, told her there would be no work for
her "until the damn Union is settled." At the same time, Respondent
had recalled to work other fancy stitchers with less seniority than
Plessis.4
In view of these circumstances, -and the other circumstances recited
by the Trial Examiner, particularly the frequent interrogation of
Plessis and the prominent role in the organization of the plant
ascribed to her by the Respondent, we find that the Respondent re-
fused to reinstate her on October 9, 1950, because of her union activity,
thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Nadeau was the only double stitcher laid off on October 4, 1950.
Although she was told at that time to return on October 9, she was
informed on that date that there was no work for her. Subsequent
applications by her for reemployment were similarly rebuffed, until
she was finally rehired on February 27, 1951. The other double
stitchers, who remained at work during the entire period of her layoff,
included at least one less experienced employee.5 Moreover, although
Nadeau had considerable experience as a fancy stitcher, and in the
past had been transferred to such work when there was no double
stitching to be done, she was not, between October 4 and February 27,
4 Glassman testified that seniority was given weight in selecting employees for reten-
tion in the event of layoffs . This is confirmed by the experience of Lesante , who was
rehired after calling Glassman 's attention to the fact that junior employees were at that
time employed by the Respondent . While Glassman stated, also , that factors other than
seniority were considered , there was no evidence as to which, if any, of those other factors
were relied upon by the Respondent in recalling other employees in preference to Plessis.
Nor was any other evidence offered by the Respondent to justify the disparate treatment
of Plessis.
o This was Kay Murphy who was learning the work of double stitcher Florence Poirier,
another double stitcher, had been hired in May 1950, 1 month before Nadeau was rehired
by the Respondent . However, Nadeau 's total employment for the Respondent covered a
period of 4 years, whereas there was no evidence that Poirier had been employed by the
Respondent before May 1950. Apart from introducing an exhibit showing the production
records of Poirler and Nadeau since May and June 1950, respectively, Respondent offered
no evidence to justify the selection of Nadeau as the only double stitcher to be laid off
or the subsequent refusal to rehire her.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 335
offered reemployment as a fancy stitcher, notwithstanding that during
that period the Respondent found it necessary - to hire several new
fancy stitchers.
In view of these circumstances, and in view of the other circum-
stances set forth in the Intermediate Report, particularly the promi-
nent role in the Union's organizational campaign ascribed to Nadeau
by the Respondent, her refusal to comply with Glassman's 'request on
September 26 that she oppose the Union, Newfield's efforts to keep
Nadeau under surveillance through Lesante; and Newfield's inquiry
of Lesante about the middle of November whether Nadeau could be
turned against the Union if she was recalled to work, we find that the
Respondent laid off Nadeau on October 4 for discriminatory reasons,
thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Gaudette, like Plessis, was laid off together with the other fancy
stitchers on October 4, 1950, with instructions to return on October 9.
Partly because of her fear of being interviewed by Glassman, Gaudette
did not return until October 13, when Newfield told her he didn't know
when she could return to work. About a week later, when she again
asked Newfield for work, he stated that he had just laid off the fancy
stitchers. Gaudette, upon investigation, was informed by other fancy
stitchers that they had not been laid off. When, on October 27,
Gaudette was finally recalled to work, Newfield, while professing dis-
interest in her attitude toward the Union, admonished her "not to
talk too much."
In view of these circumstances, together with the findings of the
Trial Examiner, particularly as to Newfield's inquiry of Gaudette's
fellow employees whether she was one of the leaders in the union
activities in the plant, as well as his interrogation of Gaudette herself,
we find that the Respondent's refusal to rehire Gaudette between Oc-
tober 13, when she first applied for work, and October 27 was due to her
union activities, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8
(a) (3) and (1) of the Act"
Gaudette was later discharged, on November 16, 1950, allegedly for
defective work. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, and
for the reasons stated by him, that her discharge on that date was dis-
criminatory, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
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
6 As in the case of Plessis, the Respondent offered no evidence to. justify the refusal to
rehire Gaudette on October 13. As found by the Trial Examiner , she had a total of 18
years' experience as a fancy stitcher , and the Respondent had made no adverse comment
upon her work prior to her layoff.
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board hereby orders .that Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corporation,
Saco, Maine, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Shoe Workers of
America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all production and
maintenance employees of the Respondent, excluding executives, sales-
men, foremen, office and clerical employees, part-time employees,
watchmen, professional employees and supervisors.
(b) Discouraging membership in United Shoe Workers of America,
CIO, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
of its employees.
(c) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Open
Door Committee, or the formation or administration of any other
labor organization, and from contributing support to the Open Door
Committee, or to any other labor organization.
(d) Recognizing the Open Door Committee, or any successor there-
to, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(e) By interrogation, threats of reprisal, promises of benefits, or
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 United Shoe Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Shoe Workers
of America, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit hereinabove described with respect
to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
(b) Make whole Simonne Tremblay, Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette,
and Germaine Nadeau for any loss of pay each may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner
provided in the section of the Intermediate Report -entitled "The
Remedy," and specifically make whole Simonne Tremblay and Ger-
maine Nadeau for the loss of pay which each suffered by reason of the
Respondent's failure to pay them in accordance with the increased
rate of pay granted to other employees on October 29, 1950.
(c) Withdraw all recognition from the Open Door Committee as
the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
SAXE -GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 337
with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and completely disestablish such organization as such representative.
(d) Post in conspicuous places at its plant in Saco, Maine, in
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa-
tives, 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 the employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notice shall not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) 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.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the UNITED
SHOE WORKERS OF ArTERICA, CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with
respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of Saxe-Glass-
man Shoe Corporation, excluding executives, salesmen, fore-
men, office and clerical employees, part-time employees,
watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors.
WE HEREBY WITHDRAW recognition from, and completely dis-
establish, the Open Door Committee as the representative of any
of our employees for the purpose of dealing with, us concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
rgent, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recog-
nize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
' If this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States court of appeals, there shall
be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of a United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the administratioa
of the Open Door Committee or the formation or administration
of any other labor organization or contribute financial or other
support to the Open Door Committee or any other labor
organization.
WE wn L make whole the employees named below for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them :
Simonne Tremblay
Lea Plessis
Bertha Gaudette
Germaine Nadeau
WE wn.L NOT by interrogation, threats of reprisal, promises
of benefits, or in any other manlier, interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNrrED
SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of this
union, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such
activity except as 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. 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 activity on behalf of any such labor
organization. -
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION
Employer.
Dated ------------------ By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on December 18, 1950, by United Shoe Workers of
America, CIO, hereinafter called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein respectively referred to as the General Counsel'
and the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massa-
chusetts ), issued a complaint dated March 19, 1951 , against Sate-Glassman-Shoe
1 The attorney for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing is included within
this term.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 339
Corporation, hereinafter called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent
has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1), (2 ), (3), and ( 5) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter called the Act. Copies
of the complaint , the charge , and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent : ( 1) Formed, dominated , and interfered with a labor or-
ganization of its employees known as the Open Door Committee in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (2) of the Act ; (2) discharged , laid off, and refused to reinstate
four named employees because of their membership in, and activities on behalf
of, the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act; (3) refused to bargain
with the Union at specified dates from August 24 , 1950, to December 22, 1950, as
the duly certified representative of the Respondent 's employees in the appropriate
unit in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act; and (4) by the above and
other enumerated acts interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
The Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the
complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Biddeford , Maine, from April 17
to April 19, 1951, inclusive, and in Boston , Massachusetts , on April 25, 1951,
before the undersigned designated Trial Examiner . The Respondent and the
General Counsel were represented by counsel , participated in the hearing, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the *issues involved . At the be-
ginning of the hearing the undersigned denied the motion of the Respondent to
dismiss the complaint herein on the ground that said complaint did not allege
compliance by the charging Union, or by the national or international labor
organization with which it is affiliated , with the requirements of Section 9 (f),
(g), and ( h) of the Act . The parties waived oral argument at the conclusion
of the hearing but briefs were received from the Respondent and the General
Counsel on June 15, 1951.
Upon the entire record .in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corporation is and has been at all times herein mentioned
a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of Maine, having its principal office and place of business in the city of
Saco, Maine, where it has been continuously engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of shoes and related products. The Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business, causes, and continually has caused at all times
herein mentioned, large quantities of leather, shoe findings, and other raw mate-
rials used in the manufacture of shoes to be purchased and transported in inter-
state commerce from and through the various States of the United States other
than the State of Maine, and causes, and continuously has caused at all times
herein mentioned, substantial quantities of shoes to be sold and transported from
said plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States other than the
State of Maine.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Sometime in July 1950, after the Respondent had rebuffed the efforts of some
of its employees to make the Respondent set piece rates on some of the work
going through the plant as the Respondent had promised but neglected to do,
employee Simonne Tremblay approached a union organizer to see if the Union
could assist the employees. Quite soon thereafter the Union began organizing
the employees at the plant.
Upon learning of this turn of events, the Respondent's supervisory personnel
from the various foremen to the president began a campaign of intiiuidation,
interference, and restraint designed to prevent the organization of the employees'
Benny Newfield, foreman of the stitching room, commenced shortly after the
union campaign began to ask many, if not all, of the employees whether they
had signed union cards, whether they were "for the Union," and whether they
were going to vote for the Union in the consent election the Respondent agreed
to. These inquiries were made not once but many times to each employee. He
also interrogated various of the employees under his supervision whether or
not certain named employees in his department were in favor of the Union.'
Newfield told employee Tremblay, one of the most ardent advocates of the
Union, during one of their many discussions about the Union that "If I go down-
stairs and say everything you said here, you will be fired." Newfield informed
employees that their names were "on a list downstairs" (referring to the Re-
spondent's office) as being "for the Union." Newfield threatened various em-
ployees that they "were to be called downstairs" because of their attitude
towards the Union. He also informed employee Nadeau that "your name is
downstairs for the Union . . . [Simonne and Lea] are 1 and 2 on the list, you
are 3. You are going to get called downstairs."
Plant Manager Fred Junior engaged in the same type of a campaign as Fore-
man Newfield. After telling Tremblay and Plessis that he had heard they
"were making a lot of trouble upstairs organizing the fancy stitchers," he re-
minded them that he could discharge anyone he cared to. At the conclusion
of the interview Junior ordered the employees "to go upstairs now and talk
against the Union." They were also told that if they wanted holidays, all they
had to do was to go see President Joel Glassman. In other interviews Junior
threatened the employees that "if the Union came in, they would move the
plant to the Canadian border." Another employee who was in favor of the
union organization was ordered by Junior : "You go upstairs and say a few
nice words about the shop so I can hear about it, just like I heard that you
were for the Union."
Thus both Newfield and Junior were using threats and promises of benefits
to intimidate the employees under their jurisdiction to abandon the Union.
On September 18, 1950, the Union and the Respondent executed an agreement
for a consent election among "all production and maintenance employees of the
2 The Respondent's brief quite candidly admits that the acts of Foreman Benny Newfield
and Plant Manager Fred Junior amounted to violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the'Act
but attempts to excuse the Respondent from responsibility therefor on the grounds, that
there is no evidence that the Respondent had ordered its supervisors to engage in such
conduct. This contention will be discussed hereinafter
8 For the sake of brevity, these incidents will be treated in general and not in detail.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 341
Company but excluding executives, salesmen, foremen, office and clerical em-
ployees, part-time employees, watchmen, professional employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act" to determine the question as to whether the Union
was the exclusive representative of the employees in the afore-described unit.
The afore-mentioned campaign of interference, restraint, and coercion initi-
ated by Newfield and Junior was culminated in the interviews with the in-
dividual employees whom Joel Glassman called to his office for that purpose.
From lists 4 of the employees containing, among other things, notations of loans
or other benefits bestowed upon the individual employees named, matters which
were designed, according to Glassman, to assist him in the interviews, Glass-
man summoned the employees to his office where he interviewed them individ-
ually or in small groups as he chose. Although he originally intended to inter-
view each employee in the plant, Glassman was unable to accomplish this
although he interviewed almost all of them.
Glassman exercised considerable selectivity in these interviews as to who and
how many were called to the office as well as to the contents of his remarks.
On September 22, 1950, 4 days after the execution of the consent election
agreement, Newfield sent Lea Plessis to Glassman's office where she was inter-
viewed by Glassman. According to Glassman's extremely generalized testimony,
he took pains in each of these interviews to explain to the employees being
interviewed that, as we were living in a democracy, they were entitled to vote
for or against the Union as they chose. After this preliminary statement the
interviews, as Glassman recalled them, consisted largely of an explanation of
the numerous benefits which the Respondent claimed it had conferred upon its
employees and the Respondent's reasons why the employees should vote against
the Union in the coming election. According to Plessis' undenied testimony,
which the undersigned credits, Glassman stated near the beginning of his inter-
view with her that "I heard that you talk an awful lot about union upstairs . . .
ypu know I can fire you for that." Then he continued by giving his usual argu-
ment as to why the employees would be better off without having to pay for a
union, stressing the benefits the Respondent had given the employees in such
matters as the use of the cafeteria, loans to employees, etc.' Following this
Joel asked : "Do you think if God was here, He would tell you to vote yes [for
the Union] ?" And then instructed her to consult her priest.'
Promptly upon the return of Plessis to the stitching department after the
conclusion of her interview with Glassman, Newfield came to her and inquired
as to how she was going to vote in the election!
In his interview with Tremblay on September 22, Glassman stated that "after
the election," he would "fix everything." He amplified this remark during his
interview with Plessis when he said : "I'll fix everything up after October 11,
even the firing to be done."
4 Although requested to produce these lists, the Respondent failed to do so stating that
they could not be located. Thus it could not be determined that these were the same lists
on which Tremblay, Plessis, and Nadeau were listed as the 1, 2, and 3 union adherents.
The Respondent made no denial during the hearing that the union members were listed
in the office as testified to by the General Counsel's witnesses.
" Plessis was one of the employees who had borrowed money from the Respondent, a part
of which was owing.
6 Although Glassman did not mention it during his testimony, it was apparently his custom
to refer his employees of French descent to their priests for guidance that they should vote
against the Union. This appeal to the employees' religion is obviously an attempt by the
Respondent 's president to intimidate his employees to abandon the Union and, therefore, a
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4 This would indicate considerable close coordination between Glassman and Newfield in
sampling the results of the Glassman interviews.
986209-52-vol. 97--23
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 26 Glassman recalled Plessis to his office where, after reiterating
his original talk, he mentioned : "After I spoke to you the other day-you went
up and talked to the girls about the Union, and you had them confused." 8
Also on September 26, 1950, employee Germaine Nadeau was interviewed by
Glassman. This interview, in the undenied words of Nadeau, was as follows :
I got into the office, and I sat down. Joel was busy at the time with a
phone call . He hung up on the phone and he said, "I guess you know what
you are downstairs for." I said, "No, I could be called for most anything."
He said, "Well," he said, "you know what you are down here for." And I
looked at him and I kind of stayed stunned. I didn't think of what I could
have been downstairs for, and there could be several reasons. So I said,
"No," I said, "I don't know what I am down here for." He said, "For this
nuisance that has been going around for these last few weeks." And I said,
"Nuisance?" He said, "Yes, the Union." And I said, "Oh, that ; I am not
here to be bothered about that." I said , "I am here to mind my own busi-
ness." I said , "I am supposed to be here to work , and I want to mind my
own business , and that's all there is to it."
He said , "Well, you know, some girls gave me your name, and I have on the
list down here that you are for the Union." I said, "Yes, you have my name.
I heard about it." He said, "Well," he said, "what are you going to do?"
I says, "Well, there is nothing I want to do." I said, "I told you I am here
to mind my own business, and I intend to do that."
And he said, "Well, then, you know there are some girls here in the shop
that came down here the night before the last," he said, "and they came down
here to talk for Benny, to keep his job." I said, "They are a bunch of two-
faced women." He said, "They came over here and swore to God as Catholics
that they are against the Union, and all the time they were for it." He said,
"I know they were for it." And he said after he said, "I knew they were for
it," I couldn't say anything because I didn't know who the girls were that
were downstairs. So I said, "Now, look, I told you before I am here to mind
my own business, and I intend it to be that way."
He said, "Are you for the Union?" I said, "No, I am not for the Union "
He said, "You know the Union"-he said, "here"-he had a shoe and he
threw the shoe on the table. He said, "Here, can you make that shoe for
$2?" I said, "No, I am not here to patent the shoe or to sell it." I said,
"I don't know anything about that." He said, "Well, since you are not for
the Union," he said, "I'd like you to go upstairs and make a soap box speech
against the Union," he said, "and then you can have anything you want on
your pay check or otherwise." And I said, "I wouldn't think of doing it for
the Union ," and I said, "I wouldn ' t do it for you, either." And I went
upstairs.
In its evidence and brief the Respondent did not deny that the above-found
facts actually occurred but merely argued that the Respondent could not be held
responsible for these violations of Section 8 (a) (1) because : ( 1) There was no
evidence that the Respondent ordered Newfield or Junior to coerce the em-
ployees; (2) the discharge of Newfield and Junior in February 1951 proved
that their acts were not sanctioned by the Respondent ; and (3 ) it was "impos-
sible" for the Respondent to deny the testimony of the General Counsel's wit-
nesses because Newfield was then working in New Yoik City. While these
arguments are astute , they are unsound both as to law and fact. The Respond-
s Plessis had obeyed Glassman's orders to talk against the Union but had prefaced her
remarks by telling the employees not to believe her.
I
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 343
ent's first argument omits the fact that Glassman himself was an integral part
of the campaign of coercion and intimidation originally engaged in by Newfield
and Junior. It also forgets the fact that Newfield and Junior were responsible
supervisors whose acts not only were never publicly-or privately-repudiated
by the Respondent but, on the contrary, were in fact implemented by Glassman
during his own personal inters ogation of the employees.' As the undersigned
refused to allow the General Counsel to probe the reasons for the discharge of
Newfield and Junior upon objection by the Respondent, and, therefore, this
record fails to show why the Respondent dispensed with their services so that
the Respondent's second argument is based upon whole cloth. As to the Re-
spondent's third argument, the record affirmatively shows that at least by the
second evening of the hearing, Respondent's counsel knew that Newfield main-
tained a residence at Old Orchard Beach, 5 miles distance from Biddeford, even
though he was employed in New York City. Thus the record affirmatively shows
that Newfield was not unavailable to testify. There was a complete dearth of
evidence even to suggest that Junior was unavailable if the Respondent had
seen fit to produce him as a witness. Therefore the Respondent's arguments are
patently unsound.
On the basis of the undenied testimony the undersigned, therefore, finds that
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating its employees both as to
their own as well as to their fellow employees' union membership, activities,
and sympathies, threatening to discharge union adherents, promising benefits
If the employees would refrain from joining and voting for the Union, and
threatening to close the plant or move the same if the Union won the consent
election.
2. The refusal to bargain
On September 18, 1950, the Respondent and the Union executed a consent elec-
tion agreement to determine whether or not the Union was the exclusive repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees.
The undersigned finds, in accordance with the agreement of the parties in
the consent election, that the appropriate unit consisted of : "All production and
maintenance employees of the Company but excluding executives, salesmen,
foremen, office and clerical employees, part-time employees, watchmen, pro-
fessional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act."
On October 11, 1950, in accordance with the terms of this consent election
agreement, the Board conducted an election among the employees in the
appropriate unit above described. The vote at this election was 188 in favor
of the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees to 145 against.
The Respondent duly filed objections to this election based upon allegations
accusing the Union of (1) threats of injury to employees unless the employees
voted for the Union; (2) falsely identifying persons voting in the election; (3)
financial inducements made by the Union to employees to vote for the Union ;
9 The Respondent also argues from the fact that Glassman told Tremblay that "after" the
election , he would fix everything-and to Plessis added the significant phrase "even the
firing to be done"-that Glassman meant thereby that he intended to discharge Newfield
and Junior thereby repudiating their antiunion campaign . In advancing this argument the
Respondent misconstrues the meaning which the employees would have drawn from this
remark. As Newfield and Junior were not discharged until 4 months later , February 1951,
the employees could not conceivably have anticipated that the discharges referred to were to
be those of Newfield and Junior. The natural construction the employees would have given
this remark was that the firing was to be of union adherents. Nor could the discharge of
Newfield and Junior at that late date have any effect upon the unfair labor practices
committed by the Respondent some 4 months previous thereto.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and (4 ) threats of loss of employment unless the employees voted for the Union.
As the Respondent acknowledged during the instant hearing , the Respondent
produced and filed with the Regional Director all the evidence it had to support
these contentions . On November 20, 1950 , as indicated in his "Report on Objec-
tions and Certification of Representatives," the Regional Director after discuss-
ing the Respondent 's claims in detail and rejecting the same found , as does the
undersigned , that "It is hereby certified that the majority of the valid ballots
has been cast for United Shoe Workers of America, C. I. O. and that pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act said organization is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the Unit defined [above] for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment and other conditions of employment."
Thereafter on December 28, 1950 , the Respondent filed the following designated
as "Appeal from Regional Director 's Denial of Hearing" :
Now comes the Employer in the above-entitled case and hereby appeals
to the Board from the Order of the Regional Director denying the Company's
application for a hearing on its objections to the conduct of the election in
this case; and
Moves that the Board vacate the Certification issued by the Regional
Director and either
(a) Order the Regional Director to conduct such a hearing; or
(b) Assign a Trial Examiner of the Board to conduct a hearing for the
Board on the Employer's objections.
To which the Associate Executive Secretary of the Board replied on January
23, 1951, as follows :
The Board is in receipt of your letter of December 28, 1950, enclosing the
Employer's Motion for Appeal and brief in the above-captioned matter.
Our files indicate that the parties to this case had agreed to resolve the
question raised by the petition through the medium of a consent election
agreement. The consent election agreement states in part that "the determi-
nation of the Regional Director shall be final and binding upon any
question . . .
It is the firm policy of the Board that where the parties have entered into
such an agreement, that it will not intervene when any of the parties indicate
disapproval of the judgment exercised by the Regional Director. The
Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 203.54, indicate this policy. Accord-
ingly, pursuant to this policy, the Board will not pass upon the Employer's
motion and brief in this matter.
At the instant hearing the Respondent made an effort to reopen the merits
of the objections to the election. Upon objection, the undersigned refused to
permit the reopening of the merits but agreed to hear any and all evidence the
Respondent might care to produce showing any arbitrary and capricious action
by the Regional Director in reaching this decision . Subsequently the Respond-
ent withdrew any contention that the Regional Director had acted in an arbi-
trary or capricious manner.
A portion of paragraph 6 of the consent election agreement executed by the
Respondent on September 18, 1950 , provided as follows : "If the challenges are
determinative of the results of the election , the Regional Director shall in-
vestigate the challenges and issue a report thereon . The method of investiga-
tion of objections and challenges , including the question whether a hearing
should be held in connection therewith , shall be determined by the Regional
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 345
Director, whose decision shall be final and bindings 10 In the absence of arbi-
trary and capricious action by the Regional Director in determining challenges
and objections to the election, this provision of the agreement precludes appeals
from the Regional Director's decision on the merits of the objections as
well as to his determination of the methods of investigation of those claims.
When, therefore, the Respondent during the hearing withdrew its original con-
tention that the actions of the Regional Director had been arbitrary and capri-
cious in arriving at his judgments both as to the merits of the objections and
to the method used for the investigation of those contentions, there remained
nothing appealable to nor determinable by the undersigned. If an employee of
the Board is arbitrary and capricious in his official acts, that fact should be
brought to the attention of the Board and, if proved, that employee should be
properly punished. The Respondent's several expressions of opinion as to the
Regional Director here made upon the record makes it clear that he is not
such an employee. Surely, also, due process does not require a hearing upon
objections to an election made by either party when that party has specifically
waived his rights to such a hearing. By demanding such a hearing after
solemnly and carefully entering into an agreement waiving the right to such
a hearing, the Respondent appears to be repudiating a solemn agreement entered
into by it. It might even constitute some evidence that the Respondent was
using this method as a maneuver to prevent the necessity of bargaining with
the duly constituted bargaining agent of its employees.
The undersigned finds, therefore, in accordance with the decision of the
Regional Director, that on October 11, 1950, and at all times thereafter, United
Shoe Workers of America, CIO, was and now is the exclusive representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit above described.
The undisputed evidence proves, and the Respondent admits, that by letters
dated August 24, November 22, December 5, and December 22, 1950, the Union
requested the Respondent to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of
the employees in that unit. The Respondent refused even to reply to these
requests except that, on December 28, 1950, the Respondent enclosed and sent
to the Union its appeal to the Board above quoted.
Based upon this undisputed evidence, the undersigned finds that, on Novem-
ber 22, 1950, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent has refused to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive and certified representative of the employees
in the above-found appropriate unit in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
•
3. Surveillance
The election of October 11, 1950, did not end the Respondent's antiunion
campaign. In fact it appears to have intensified it.
On November 2, 1950, the Union held its second meeting in a hall in the town
of Biddeford. Foremen Newfield and Belanger, accompanied by several of the
antiunion girl employees, parked in a red car directly in front of the entrance
of this hall at the scheduled meeting time. When this was called to Union Or-
ganizer Dallman's attention, he went outside and spoke to the foremen and
thereupon returned to the hall. A few minutes later Newfield, Belanger, and
party left this parking place only to return within a matter of minutes in a
black car which they parked across the street from the entrance to the hall and
where they remained until after the conclusion of the meeting.
In its brief the Respondent suggests that the foremen might have been on
legitimate business. This suggestion hardly explains the extraordinary strata-
10 In its brief Respondent states that the above-quoted part of this consent election
agreement was "in small print" ( emphasis as in brief ). This emphatic claim is a misstate-
ment of fact as the provision is in the regular sized print used throughout the agreement.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gem of moving a complete party of five or six persons from a red automobile to
a black one nor the reluctance of the foremen to park their automobiles at any
place but exactly in front of the hail where the Union was holding its meetings.
Nor was this open surveillance the only surveillance the Respondent indulged
in during this time.
Mrs. Beatrice Lesante, an employee, had been laid off by Respondent in Sep-
tember and not recalled to work when work picked up. Requiring work in order
to maintain an invalid child, Lesante returned to the plant on October 4, told
Glassman of her necessity, and upon discovering that two girls with less sen-
iority than herself had been recalled and were then working, she was sent by
Glassman to Newfield for a job. After the circumstances and the discovery had
been explained to Newfield, he offered Lesante her job back.
Early on the morning of October 14,1950, Newfield and employee Laboute drove
up in front of the Lesante house. Laboute aroused Mrs. Lesante saying that
Newfield wanted to see her in his automobile. When Lesante invited Newfield
into the house, Newfield insisted upon holding the conversation in his automo-
bile. In the automobile Newfield stated that he had heard that Lesante was
Nadeau's best friend, that the Union had certain tricks of getting into a factory
and he would like to know what those tricks were. He then asked Lesante to
investigate and report back to him whether or not the Union had paid her sister-
in-law for voting in the election. Newfield stated that this was only to satisfy
his own curiosity. Laboute suggested to Lesante that she "play up" to Nadeau,
find out what union activities were taking place from Nadeau, and let Newfield
know. After Newfield had given Lesante his telephone number, he and Laboute
departed.
About an hour later Newfield returned alone to the house of Lesante. He
produced a typewritten paper stating that on October 13, 1950, Nadeau had
asked Lesante to execute a paper for the Union. When Lesante protested that
this statement was erroneous, Newfield replied : "You know I could make it
tough for you later." Mrs. Lesante thereupon signed the statement still pro-
testing that it was not true. n
The following day, Sunday, Lesante telephoned Newfield that she had talked to
her sister-in-law and discovered that the Union had not paid her but had only
requested that she appear at the polls and vote.
About a month or so later Newfield inquired in the shop whether Lesante
had seen Nadeau and whether, if he recalled Nadeau to work, he could "convert
her" to be antiunion. Then he asked : "Do you think there is any way in which
you could find out about union activities and let me know. I could make it
worth your while. I am in a position where I could help you quite a bit." New-
field then requested Lesante to attend the union meeting and report back to him
what occurred there, offering her $5 per evening plus the expense of a baby sitter
if she would do so. After vainly protesting and because, as Lesante testified,
she had to have the work, Lesante finally agreed to see her friend, Nadeau, and
report back whatever she might learn about the Union.
A few days later Lesante did see Nadeau, told her the whole story, and then
reported back to Newfield a story concocted between Nadeau and herself that
Nadeau had become suspicious of Lesante and had "kicked her out of the house."
Upon hearing this report, Newfield said : "Well, forget it." "
"Whether this was one of the affidavits the Respondent submitted to the Regional
Director is not disclosed by the record.
- v If untrue, this testimony was so .detailed involving a number of persons other than
Newfield that it could have been denied by others involved even assuming-that Newfield
was actually available as a witness. No such witnesses appeared to contradict Lesante.
Lesante was not impeached nor contradicted. In addition, in the opinion of, the under-
signed , Lesante was an honest witness whose testimony is worthy of credit.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 347
Without a question of a doubt the Respondent engaged in surveillance and in
espionage upon the Union and its members in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
4. Domination of the Open Door Committee
In the latter part of October 1950, while refusing to answer letters from the
Union and otherwise evading its duty to bargain with that organization as the
exclusive representative of the employees, Myer Saxe, treasurer of the' Respond-
ent, made a speech to the assembled employees in the plant cafeteria in which he
mentioned that, if it had not been for the "Fifth Columnists," the plant would
never have had an election. He also stated that he hoped that next year there
would be another election and the plant would return "to America." After
adding that "everything is not settled, the Union is not in yet," Saxe announced
a 10 percent wage increase for all the employees with the further suggestion that
he could see no reason for "strangers" to be running the plant.
This speech with its obvious threats and promises of benefits to employees
for becoming antiunion is not protected by the free speech provisions of the
Act and obviously violates Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In addition the granting
of a wage increase without consultation with the duly certified bargaining agent
of the employees also constitutes a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8 (a)
(5) of the Act.
. In the pay envelopes distributed on October 29, 1950, when this unilaterally
determined upon 10-percent wage increase went into effect, the Respondent placed
the following circular :
OUR "OPEN DOOR" POLICY
We feel that most of you are aware of the Saxe-Glassman Shoe Company's
"Open Door" Policy, and individually know of the personal as well as factory
problems that have been satisfactorily adjusted, by bringing them to our
attention. No superintendent or foreman in this plant is either offended
or disturbed by this procedure, because they are just as proud as we are of
this "Open Door" Policy.
We realize that there are certain times that neither Myer Saxe or Joel
Glassman is in the plant. Also, it is not always possible for an operator
to conveniently leave his work, and thereby cause a stoppage of work and
loss of pay to himself and his fellow employees. For these reasons, it
has been decided to form a committee of you employees, made up of rep-
resentatives from each department. This committee will be changed every
month, so that eventually, everyone will have the chance to serve on this
committee, if they so desire.
In the event that any of you wish to take up matters, either personal
or otherwise, directly with Myer Saxe, Joel Glassman or Fred Junior-your
department representative will contact one of us, so that a meeting can
be arranged without interrupting your work.
If you wish the committee to take up your individual problem, or even
general suggestions for any improvements in your department, there will be
meetings held every Tuesday morning, at which time, these matters will be
discussed and adjusted. (All committee members will be paid for loss of
the time while attending these meetings.)
We are confident that this committee, which is your very own, will help
bring us nearer and nearer to our goal of mutual confidence and complete
'understanding.
Myer Saxe
Joel Glassman
Fred Junior
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with this announcement of the Respondent, the room repre-
sentatives were selected in the plant on company time the following week. The
selection of these representatives was left by the Respondent to the discretion
of its foremen. In one department at least, Foreman Newfield conducted an
election by ballot among the employees while they were at work. After the
ballots had been passed around among the working employees, Newfield an-
nounced that Florence Gaudreau had been elected and then instructed her
to collect all the complaints of the employees so that she could present them
at a meeting the next Tuesday.
At 11: 45 a. in. that Tuesday, Newfield sent Gaudreau to this meeting which
was attended by Joel Glassman, the various foremen, and the Respondent's
selected representatives of the employees of the various divisions. At this
meeting the representatives of one of the other divisions presented so many
complaints and grievances that none of the other representatives had a chance
to voice the complaints which they had gathered. Gaudreau had checked out
of her division at 11: 45 so that she failed to receive pay for the time she
spent at this meeting.
The following Tuesday Newfield again sent Gaudreau to the meeting. This
time Plant Manager Junior presided over the representatives and stated that
he could see no sense in these meetings. However, the meeting lasted the full
hour before the Respondent excused the representatives to return to work.
This time Gaudreau failed to check out and was thus paid by the Respondent
for the time spent at the meeting.
Since then the Respondent has failed to convene another meeting of this
group.
The Respondent argues that this organization was "never intended to be a
labor organization" and thus Respondent's action in connection therewith is not
a violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. Whether intended as a labor organ-
ization or not, the Open Door Committee was participated in by employees for
the purpose of discussing wages, hours, conditions of employment, and grievances
and, therefore, was a labor organization under the definition of that term in
Section 2 (5) of the Act. Under these facts, the Respondent's "intent" is im-
material. The Open Door Committee was a labor organization. The Respondent
also argues that the committee has obviously gone out of existence and, therefore,
there is no necessity for formally disestablishing it. This is only partly so.
Obviously the Respondent formed the committee as an integral part of his cam-
paign to prevent the Union "from getting in" and, while the committee has not
been called into session by the Respondent since its second meeting, it has not
been disestablished and could be called into session again at any time if the
Respondent considered it wise to do so for its own antiunion purposes. In this
condition, the Open Door Committee remains at all times a threat to bona fide
collective bargaining. In view of the steadfast and unrelenting campaign by
the Respondent to keep the Union "out," it is necessary to have the Respondent
publicly disestablish this labor organization so obviously in violation of Section
8 (a) (2) of the Act and for the Respondent to assure the employees that it
will not again resort to this illegal stratagem.
Because of this undenied evidence, the undersigned finds that by forming,
establishing , and maintaining the Open Door Committee and granting it financial
and other support, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act and
further finds that, by establishing said committee at the time when the Re-
spondent was under a legal duty to' bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees, the Respondent also violated Section,8°(a) (5)
of this Act.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 349
5. The discharges
a. Simon'ne Tremblay
At the time of the hearing Tremblay had been a fancy stitcher for the Re-
spondent or its predecessor for 10 years or more. During that time she had been
one of the highest earning employees working on piece rates.
Tremblay was one of the employees who unsuccessfully tried to get the Re-
spondent to set piece rates on various operations on certain relatively new shoes.
After the Respondent rebuffed this effort, Tremblay sought the assistance of the
Union to help the employees with this problem. She then became one of the
most ardent union advocates in the plant.
After the Union had begun organizing and Tremblay had shown her prounion
sympathies openly in the plant by her advocacy of the Union, Foreman Newfield
on nume^bus occasions during working hours interrogated her about the Union
and its activities as well as argued with her about the necessities for having a
union in the plant.18 After one of these conversations, Newfield threatened that
"if I go downstairs [to the office] and say everything you said here, you will
be fired."
By August 19, 1950, Tremblay consulted a doctor who prescribed pills for a
nervous condition Tremblay had developed. Tremblay attributed this condition
to Newfield's numerous inquiries about the Union. The undersigned makes no
finding on this latter matter.
On August 30, Manager Junior called Tremblay to his office and granted her
a 9-cent increase on a certain type of work upon which Tremblay was working
with the following comment: "I heard that you and your friends were making
a lot of trouble upstairs organizing the fancy stitchers-I am giving you 9 cents
now-if the Union wasn't here, I'd block it, you wouldn't get it." After inter-
rogating Tremblay about the Union and the persons responsible for starting it,
Junior ordered Tremblay to "go upstairs now and talk against the Union."
On September 22, 4 days after the execution of the consent election agreement
referred to before, Newfield, after a previous warning of the impending event,
sent Tremblay to the office where Joel Glassman lectured her about the Union
and the benefits which the Company granted its employees. When Tremblay told
Glassman about a previous incident when Junior had refused to allow some of
the employees to see Glassman about some grievances they had and about New-
field's continual interrogation of the employees as to their union affiliation and
sympathies, Glassman answered that he couldn't do anything "now" but "after
the election he would fix everything."
Promptly upon her return to the stitching room after this interview Newfield
came up and asked Tremblay who happened to be with her friend Plessis whether
she had "confidence in Joel" and in himself and then stated : "Well, now, you
are going to tell me what you are going to vote." When Newfield refused to
allow her time to consider the matter , Tremblay told him that she was going to
13 The undersigned is inclined to believe that Tremblay exaggerated the frequency and
length of these conversations when she testified that Newfield talked "union" with her
every day for a period of 3 months for 15 minutes or so per day . That these interrogations
were extremely frequent is amply proven not only by Tremblay 's testimony but also that
of the other witnesses in this proceeding . Although Newfield Interrogated Tremblay
almost daily about her union activities , the Respondent well knew that Tremblay was
one of the leading union advocates in the plant . In fact, about September 20, when
Newfield told employee Nadeau that she was to be interviewed by Glassman during his
interrogation of the employees as above found, Newfield told Nadeau that the names
of Tremblay , Plessis, and her own were listed as 1, 2, and 3 for the Union in Glassman's
office.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vote "No" [against the Union ]. Whereupon Newfield said : "Joel is going to
give you everything."
On September 26, Tremblay was again sent "downstairs " to see Glassman who
was angered because he had received a report that Tremblay had caused another
female employee to cry through her vigorous solicitation that she become a
union member. Although Tremblay denied this accusation , Glassman asked :
"If God was sitting here, [do] you think he'd tell you to-vote for the Union?-
Even your priest wouldn 't tell you to do it ." Glassman stated that he had "called
Boston" and learned that he could "fire" her. Tremblay then inquired : "If you
think I make so much trouble, why don 't you lay me off ? I am a nervous wreck
from having you and Benny [Newfield] on my heels." To this Glassman an-
swered : "If you feel so miserable , why don 't you quit?-Benny is going for his
interest and mine." After each had respectively refused to discharge or to quit,
Tremblay stated that she was going to fight for her rights even if sh,14Whad to go
to Augusta and Washington . Glassman 's answer was "You may have to go-
we will beat this thing through yet."
After this interview Tremblay returned to the stitching department where
she completed three more shoes , announced to her friends that she was quitting,
walked out of the plant, went to see her doctor , registered at the U. S. Employ-
ment Service where she reported that she had "quit" Saxe-Glassman , and then
telephoned the Union about the matter.
On October 11 Tremblay voted in the consent election and then on October 13
accompanied Nadeau who was then also out of employment , as will be more
fully related hereinafter , to see Newfield where Nadeau asked for her job.
Looking at both Nadeau and Tremblay , Newfield said , "No work for you."
Tremblay was one of the persons at the union meeting of November 2 who
saw and talked' to Newfield , Balanger , and their party which was keeping the
union meeting under surveillance.
On December 18, 1950 , the Union filed its original charge in this matter.
On December 19, Tremblay , in company with Nadeau , Gaudette , Ledaux, and
Union Official Bergeron , went to the plant where the employees asked Newfield
to reinstate them. This request was refused on the ground as far as Tremblay
was concerned that she had quit. Tremblay attempted to explain that she had
quit because she was under pressure all the time from continual interrogation
but Newfield paid no attention.
On February 28, 1951 , Tremblay received a letter from the Respondent offering
her employment which she accepted and has worked since that time. Although
on October 29, 1950 , the Respondent had granted a 10-percent wage increase to
all employees , the Respondent continued to pay Tremblay her old rate of 75
cents per hour. When this was brought to the Respondent 's attention at the
hearing, the Respondent , at the instance of its attorney , "corrected" her rate
of pay as of that date. The only other person similarly treated regarding pay
rates was Nadeau , the number two union person in the plant.
The Respondent contends that Tremblay "quit" voluntarily . The General
Counsel maintains that Tremblay was "constructively discharged ." There is
no question but that the Respondent considered Tremblay to be the number one
union advocate in the plant even as Newfield reported she was listed in the
office. There is also no question but that the Respondent through Newfield,
Junior , and Glassman interrogated her almost daily concerning the Union, as
heretofore found to violate Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act. Further there is no
question but that , after her second interview by Glassman during which he
invited her to leave the Respondent 's employ because of her union activities,
threatened her with his right to discharge her but carefully refrained from doing
so though making it clear to her that he was retaining that threat over her head,
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 351
Tremblay went back to her machine and in a mentally distressed state told her
fellow employees that she was quitting, a statement which she reiterated to the
U. S. Employment Service. Tremblay did quit as contended by the Respondent
but she did so under considerable constant pressure from the whole of the
Respondent's supervisory staff which, as shown heretofore, was fighting the
organization of the plant with every possible machination it could devise. Trem-
blay must have realized from this continual pressure from the Respondent's
supervisory staff that her days of employment by the Respondent were definitely
limited because of her union activities and solely because of those activities.
Under these conditions the undersigned concludes that the Respondent con-
structively discharged Tremblay on September 26, 1950, because of its objections
to her union activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
b. Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau
Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau were all working in the
stitching department under Foreman Newfield on October 4, 1950.
Plessis, during her last tour of employment with the Respondent, had worked
steadily since 1945. Gaudette had worked for the Respondent from December
1948 to June 1949, and again from May 1950 to November 16, 1950. She had
had a total of 18 years' experience as a fancy stitcher. Nadeau had a total of
4 years' employment with the Respondent, the last tour of employment being of
approximately 1 year's duration.
All three of these employees had joined the Union and all of them had been
subjected to interrogations by the Respondent's supervisory staff on numerous
occasions similar to those described heretofore. Plessis had been ordered by
Manager Junior, at the time he interrogated her, to "go upstairs and say some
nice words about the shop so that I can hear about it, just like I heard you were
for the Union." Plessis and Nadeau were both interviewed on the union question
by Glassman who admitted he had them listed as being "for the Union." Accord-
ing to Newfield, they were listed as being the number two and number three union
advocates in the plant. Just prior to the election of October 11, Newfield was
making inquiries of the employees as to whether or not Gaudette was one of the
leaders of the Union. Obviously the Respondent considered these three employ-
ees to be close rivals of Tremblay as union adherents.
On October 4, just 1 week before the scheduled election, Newfield laid off the
18 or 19 fancy stitchers in the department until October 9 upon the ground that
there was no work for them. Gaudette did not return on October 9 because she
feared she would be sent to be interviewed by Glassman. When Plessis reported
on October 9, Newfield told her that there was no work for her although most of
the other fancy stitchers in the department were returning to work. Plessis
returned again on October 11 as she heard all of the other fancy stitchers were
working but was again told by Newfield that he had sent word to her not to
report as there would be no work for her the rest of the week. After receiving a
letter from the Respondent requesting her return, Plessis returned on November
6 at which time Newfield inquired why she had been so strong for the Union
and ordered her not to talk to anyone "so you won't get into no trouble." Plessis
has worked steadily since that time.
During Glassman's interview with Nadeau on September 26, he informed her :
"I have on the list down here that you are for the Union," and then ordered her
to return to her department and "make a soapbox speech against the Union."
Nadeau refused to do so and 1 week later she *as laid off, the only double stitcher
so treated, by Newfield with a statement that there was "no work for her." , When
Nadeau returned on October 9, Newfield met her at the elevator with the infor-
matidn that there was no work for her.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 11, Nadeau acted as a union teller at the election. When she again
returned for work on October 13, this time accompanied by Tremblay, Newfield
reiterated that there was no work for them.
It is further to be recalled that the whole espionage incident involving New-
field and employee Beatrice Lesante was centered upon securing news of the union
activities from Nadeau. Newfield also inquired of Lesante whether she thought
that Newfield "could convert" Nadeau to be antiunion if he recalled her to
work.
It is clear from the Respondent's own undenied acts and words that Plessis
and Nadeau were not reinstated on October 9 because of Respondent's opposi-
tion to the Union and because of the Respondent's knowledge that they were the
second and third union advocates. Although their work had never been adversely
criticized, these two were not recalled even though new stitchers were employed
during the time that they were laid off.
There was one other element in the Gaudette case. Newfield recalled her to
work on October 27 though warning her not to talk too much. She thereupon
worked under this admonition until November 16, 1950, when Newfield brought
four or five shoes on which the stitches had pulled out of the plug which Gaudette
had sewn. These shoes had been heeled and soled, an operation which follows the
work Gaudette did. Newfield stated that he could not keep her on account of
this work and discharged her forthwith despite Gaudette's attempt to explain
that the damage must have been done in the lasting room where the shoes are
stretched prior to the heeling and soling operation.
Prior to the time the sewed uppers go to the lasting room, they are inspected"
These particular shoes had been heeled and soled so that it is obvious that they
had passed inspection after Gaudette had completed her work. Consequently
the damage must have been done in the lasting room or subsequent operations.
It was unprecedented for the Respondent to return for sewing repairs shoes which
had been heeled and soled. After heels and soles have been added, it becomes
impossible for repairs to be made to the sewing. All previous repairs had been
returned to Gaudette prior to the operations in the lasting room and subsequent
operations which, of course, is 'only practical as these subsequent operations pre-
vent the making of repairs to the sewing. Therefore it is apparent that the
Respondent was making use of damage done subsequently to Gaudette's work
as an excuse to rid itself of an employee whom it believed to be one of the strong
union people. The undersigned so finds.
Gaudette and Nadeau were offered jobs with the Respondent by similar let-
ters dated February 27, 1951. They accepted and have worked for the Re-
spondent since that time. However, like Tremblay, Nadeau was not paid the
increased rate for her job established by the Respondent's unilateral 10 percent
blanket increase of October 1950. This wage rate was not corrected in Nadeau's
case until called to the Respondent's attention during the hearing. While the
Respondent's brief states that this "inadvertance" had been fully corrected dur-
ing the hearing, this statement is not accurate for the Respondent also inadver-
tently forgot to make the correction retroactive to the date of the reemployment
of either Tremblay or Nadeau as it merely commenced the correct rate from the
date of the hearing.
The undersigned finds that the Respondent laid off or discharged Lea Plessis,
Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau because of their union beliefs and sympa-
thies and in order to discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
34 The Respondent acknowledges that the uppers were so inspected prior to being sent
to the lasting room.
SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 353
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in 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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act. •
It has been found that the Respondent on various dates discriminated in regard
to the hire or tenure of employment of Simonne Tremblay, Lea Plessis, Bertha
Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau by discriminatorily discharging or laying off
each of them in order to discourage membership in the Union. The undersigned
will, therefore, recommend that, as the Respondent has already reinstated or re-
employed each of the above-named employees, it make each of said employees
whole fQr any loss of pay which she may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against her by payment to each of them of a sum of money,
equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of
t4e discrimination to the date of her reinstatement, less her net earnings during
said period, to be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289. It is also recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make
available to the Board upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the
checking of the back pay due.
Having found that the Respondent on November 22, 1950, and at all times
thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit, it will be recommended that
the Respondent offer to and bargain collectively with the Union.
The undersigned has also found that the Respondent dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the labor organization known as the
Open Door Committee and, although this organization appears to have been
allowed to become dormant, the Respondent has never publicly disestablished
this organization, so the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent
publicly disestablish this labor organization as a representative of its employees.
Upon a consideration of the record the undersigned is convinced that the
Respondent's conduct in employing the many techniques it did to evade its duty
to bargain with the Union and to prevent the unionization of its employees
indicates an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally. In order,
therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the
Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,
and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights
guaranteed hi 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. United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent , but excluding
executives , salesmen , foremen , office and clerical employees , part-time employees,
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watchmen , professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Shoe Workers of America, CIO , was on October 11, 1950 , and at all
times material thereafter has been , and now is, the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on November 22, 1950 , and at all times thereafter , to bargain
with United Shoe Workers of America, CIO , as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the above -described appropriate unit, the Respondent has en-
gaged, and is engaging , in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
5. By discrim ,hating in the hire and tenure of employment of Simonne Trem-
blay, Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette , and Germaine Nadeau by either discharging
or laying off each of them thereby discouraging membership in the United Shoe
Workers of America, CIO , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
6. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
and giving financial and other assistance to the Open Door Committee, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
7. 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.
S. 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.]
PORT CHESTER ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and JOHN TAY-
LOR and WESTCHESTER-FAIRFIELD CHAPTER, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION, INC., PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
LOCAL UNION 501, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK-
ERS, AFL and JOHN TAYLOR and WESTCHESTER-FAIRFIELD CHAPTER,
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION, INO., PARTY TO
THE CONTRACT. Cases Nos. 2-CA-1115 and 2-CB-367. December
10, 1951
Decision and Order
On July 11, 1951, Trial Examiner Isadore, Greenberg issued his.
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondents had not engaged ' in certain other alleged unfair
97 NLRB No. 59.