Bradford Dyeing Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 604 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of BRADFORD DYEING ASSOCIATION (U. S. A.) ( a Corpo-
ration) and TEXTILE WORKERS' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF THE
C. I. O.
Case No. C-265.-Decided December ^?2, 1937
Textile Dyeing, Printing, and Finishing Industa y-Interference, Restraint, or
Coercion: expressed opposition to outside labor organizations ; attempt to per-
suade employees not to join or to resign from union-Discrimination: dis-
charge-Company Dominated Union: domination and interference with estab-
lishment and administration of ; support ; sponsoring and fostering growth of ;
disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Unit Appropriate for Collec-
tive Bargaining: production and maintenance workers-Representatives: proof
of choice ; membership in union-Collective Bargaining: refusal to negotiate
with representatives ; dilatory tactics ; attempt to destroy union's majority--
Reinstatement Ordered- employees discharged-Back Pay: awarded
Mr. Edward Schneider, for the Board.
Greenough, Lyman c Cross, by Mr. George Paul Slade and Mr. T.
Dexter Clarke, of Providence, R. I., for the Respondent.
Mr. John Ferguson, of Westerly, R. I., for the Federation.
Mr. J. Mark Jacobson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by the Textile Workers' Organizing Com-
mittee, herein called the T. W. O. C., the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the First
Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated June 30,
1937, against Bradford Dyeing Association (U. S. A.), Bradford,
Rhode Island, herein called the respondent. The complaint and
notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent. The
complaint alleged that the, respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, herein called the Act. The respondent in its answer
dated July 6, 1937, denied each and every material allegation of the
complaint.
604
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 605
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Westerly , Rhode Island,
on July 12 to 16, 1937 , before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. A written motion to intervene in this pro-
ceeding was filed with the Regional Director by B. D . A. Employees'
Federation , herein called the Federation, and was resubmitted at the
hearing; the Trial Examiner granted this motion with certain re-
strictions relative to the intervenor 's role in this proceeding , agreed
upon by counsel for the Federation , the respondent , and the Board,
At the outset of the hearing the respondent resubmitted the follow-
ing motions which it had previously filed with the Regional Director:
(a) "Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss ", contesting the
jurisdiction of the Board upon the ground that the respondent is not
engaged in interstate commerce; ( b) motion to dismiss portions of
the complaint as improperly drafted; and ( c) motion for a bill of
particulars . These motions were denied by the Trial Examiner.'
During the hearing, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint were,
upon motion , amended by changing the date therein from April 23,
1937, to April 16, 1937.
The Board , the respondent , and the Federation were represented
by counsel . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded to the respondent . The Federation was permitted to
examine witnesses and to produce evidence within the scope of the
procedural arrangements agreed to by the Federation upon the grant-
ing of its motion of intervention . Subsequent to the hearing the
respondent filed requests for findings of fact and law.
On October 16, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report finding that the respondent had committed unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce- within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
(3), and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were thereafter filed by the respondent and the
Federation.
The Board has reviewed the ruling of the Trial Examiner on mo-
tions and on objections to the admission and exclusion of evidence
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. Those rulings
are hereby affirmed. As set forth below , wealso find that the evidence
supports the findings and conclusions made by the Trial Examiner
in his Intermediate Report that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (2), (3 ), and (5 ), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
' During the hearing the respondent renewed its motion to dismiss on the ground that
the respondent is not engaged in interstate commerce and that, therefore, the Board
lacks jurisdiction. The Trial Examiner denied this motion.
0
606 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Rhode Island corporation, has its plant and
principal office at Bradford, Town of Westerly, Rhode Island, and
an office in New York City. The majority of its stock is owned by
stockholders of Bradford Dyeing Association, Ltd., of England; and
the two companies have an interlocking directorate.
The respondent is engaged in the business of dyeing and finishing
cotton, rayon, and acetate piece goods, and employs over 700 workers
at its Bradford plant.2 It has about 200 customers, more than one-
half of whom are located outside the State of Rhode Island. These
customers, known in the trade as converters, purchase unfinished
cloth, or grey goods, from textile mills and ship them to the respond-
ent's Bradford plant, together with dyeing, finishing, and reshipment
instructions, retaining title to the goods throughout the finishing
process. The grey goods arrive at the plant by railroad 8 and truck
in cases and bales containing cloth in lengths ranging from 20 to 120
yards. As a general rule, processing instructions arrive with the
goods or very. soon thereafter. The goods are then taken into the
"grey room" and opened; the pieces sewed together to provide a con-
tinuous flow of the goods into the dyeing vats; and after it has been
dyed and finished, the cloth is inspected, folded, and packed for
shipment. From the time the grey goods arrive at the plant until
the finished cloth is shipped out in accordance with the converter's
instructions, the respondent's operations are practically continuous.
During 1936 the respondent processed 23,745,747 yards of cotton
cloth and 33,685,199 yards of rayon cloth; and during the first six
months of 1937 the respondent processed 12,282,922 yards of cotton
cloth and 16,930,914 yards of rayon cloth. More than one-half of this
cloth came from points outside the State of Rhode Island ;4 and about
90 per cent of the finished cloth was shipped to points outside the
State of Rhode Island. In addition, the respondent in 1936 sold on
its own account 588,000 yards of remnants, secured during the finish-
ing process, and about 90 per cent thereof were shipped to points
outside the State of Rhode Island, principally to a single customer in
New York City.
During 1936 the respondent purchased 325,111 pounds of colors and
dyestuffs at a price of $355,856. Forty per cent of these essential sup-
plies came from points outside the State of Rhode Island.
2 During 1935 the respondent paid out in wages, exclusive of salaries , $604,614.68,
and in 1937 its monthly pay roll was approximately $75,000.
8 The respondent has a spur track connecting with the New York, New Haven & Hart-
ford Railroad.
' Over one-half of the respondent 's income was secured from work done on goods ar-
riving from other states.
0
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 607
On December 23, 1935, George Summersby, president of the re-
spondent, in a sworn declaration in conjunction with the respondent's
registration of its trade mark, "B. D. A. Mel Brae", stated that "said
trade mark is used by said corporation in commerce among the several
States of the United States." The respondent did not deny that it is
still using this trade mark.
The dyeing and finishing industry, of which the respondent is an
important member; forms a bottle-neck for the textile industry be-
tween the producers and the consumers of cloth; and a labor dispute a
that clogged up this bottle-neck would create chaos in the entire tex-
tile industry. The market for finished textiles depends upon the un-
interrupted operation of the dyeing and finishing branch of the in-
dustry; and the stoppage of these processing plants would deprive
the needle trades and other consumers of finished cloth of the goods
essential to their production, would cause the grey goods to pile up
at the cotton and rayon mills, and would, in turn, compel the latter to
diminish their production of cloth and their orders for raw materials.
The flow of commodities in interstate commerce would thus be widely
affected .7
II. THE UNIONS
The Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called the C., 1. 0., is
a labor organization. It admits to membership all the employees of
the respondent, except supervisory and clerical employees.
The B. D. A. Employees' Federation, affiliated with Associated
Workers of Printing, Finishing and Allied Industries, is a labor
organization. It admits to membership all non-supervisory employees
of the respondent. '
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharges
Percy Schofield, until his discharge on April 16, 1937, was em-
ployed by the respondent for five or six years as a "jigger", or dyeing
machine operator. Edward Nelson, until his discharge on April 3,
1937, was employed by the respondent for two years as a carpenter.
Schofield became interested in the T. W. O. C. on March 27, 1937,
when he attended a meeting of that organization in a nearby com-
' The respondent 's plant is medium sized, compared to similar dyeing and finishing
plants in the United States.
O The record indicates that the 1929 strike at the respondent's plant stopped all ship-
ments thereto and therefrom
' For a mole complete description of the textile dyeing and finishing industry see Met-
ter of Martin Dyeing and Finishing Company and Federation of Dyers, F'enishera, Print-
eis and Blcacheis of America. 2 N. L. R. B. 403. Board's Exhibit No. 9.
608
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
munity. That night he secured and had signed by employees of the
respondent eight T. W. O. C. membership cards. The next day Scho-
field got 700 more cards and on March 29 he took the cards to the
respondent 's plant and gave one-half of them to Nelson . Within
three days they distributed all the cards among the respondent's
employees , and then secured an additional 1,000 T. W. O. C. mem-
bership cards, which they similarly distributed.
On the night of April 1 and while he was off duty, Nelson, contrary
to the rules of the respondent , visited the plant in order to get some
T. W. O. C. membership cards that employees had signed and left
for him.
On April 2 George Summersby , president and general manager
of the respondent , stopped Schofield at work and discussed with him
the work of the "jiggers" and then raised the matter of C. I. O.
activities at the plant . Summersby told Schofield that he could see
no value in an outside labor organization and suggested the forma-
tion of a shop union . Schofield replied that he had never seen a shop
union that was any good. This was the first time that Schofield
had heard any reference to a local or shop union in the plant . During
this conversation Nelson approached them, and Schofield introduced
him to Summersby as one who was assisting him in organizing the
respondent 's employees for the T. W: O. C.
About 10: 30 A. M. that same day, Silvia , the respondent's pay-
master, told Nelson that Summersby wanted to see him at his office
during the day. Silvia knew that Nelson was organizing for the
T. W. O. C. and endeavored to ascertain the names of other employees
active in the union.
During the afternoon of April 2 , a conference was held at Sum-
mersby's office among Summersby , Schofield, and three other "jiggers"
to discuss possible adjustment in the pay of the "jiggers". Again,
Summersby brought up the C. I. 0., and told the conferees that
he would not recognize a C. I. O. union and that a shop union was
more desirable . During this conference , Nelson entered the office,
stating that he had heard that a union organization committee was
meeting with Summersby. Summersby ordered Nelson out of the
office, telling him that the conference did not concern him and re-
marking after Nelson's departure that Nelson was a troublemaker
and that he did not like Nelson.
About 3 o'clock that same afternoon , just before he went off duty 8
Nelson was told by Greenhalgh , the respondent's watchman, that
Summersby wanted to see him at the office. Nelson, after waiting
an hour and a half, was finally called in by Summersby . Summersby
told Nelson that he knew that Nelson had been in the plant the
8 The first shift worked from 7 A. M. to 3 P. M.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS . 609
previous night, but that he would not be punished for violating the
rules in so doing. Summersby inquired of Nelson what was the
trouble at the plant and what need there was for union organiza-
tion; and he remarked that if the workers were organizing why they
did not organize a local union. This was the first mention that
Nelson had heard of a local union at tho plant. Summersby told
Nelson that he would cooperate with a local union and suggested
that Nelson participate in the formation of such an organization.
Summersby knew that a T. W. O. C. committee of the respondent's
employees was meeting that night for the purpose of drafting a
bargaining agreement to be presented to the respondent; and Sum-
mersby asked Nelson to put before this committee the suggestion
that a local rather than a C. I. O. union be formed. When Nelson
did not respond favorably to Summersby's proposal of a local union,
the latter told him : "You are a pretty young fellow, Nelson, and if
you keep doing what you are doing you are going to land in jail."
On the morning of April 3, Nelson arrived at work early and
answered inquiries from individual workers concerning the com-
mittee meeting of the previous night. Nelson testified that he started
work at seven o'clock by assisting a worker, Alex Thompson, in
some work and then started a job which he had previously been
instructed to do that day. At 7:25 A. M. Dudley, the carpenter
foreman, saw Nelson and asked him when he intended to begin his
work. Dudley testified that he caught Nelson talking to other men
at work and that he could not get Nelson to begin work until 7: 30
A. M., and that he reported Nelson to Pierce, his superior and chief
engineer. Dudley admitted that between 7: 00 and 7:25 o'clock, even
though he had not seen him do so, Nelson might have been working
on a job with Thompson. Dudley further admitted that, although
on previous occasions Nelson had started work late or quit early and
had talked to men during working hours, he had not reported him.
Dudley stated, moreover, that on these previous occasions Nelson had
conversed with the men about ordinary subjects, whereas on the morn-
ing of April 3 he talked to them about the union; and that this time
he "got sore". Pierce admitted that he had seen men at work talking
to one another, but had never discharged or laid off anyone for doing so.
About three o'clock that same afternoon Dudley told Nelson that
Summersby wanted to see him, and they went to the main office.
Dudley testified that before he left the office he heard Summersby ask
Nelson if he had decided some question which they had discussed the
previous afternoon and that, when Nelson replied in the negative,
Summersby said : "Well, then, if you can't give me a satisfactory
answer on that, I have thought it over and I have decided to lay you
off for two weeks and let you think it over." Nelson testified that
610
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Summersby was referring to his proposal that Nelson present to the
plant committee the formation of a local union; and that, when he
reported that the committee had rejected that suggestion, Summersby
"got sore", accused him of starting work late and of violating com-
pany rules by returning to' the plant after working hours, implied
that he may have been at the plant at night in order to steal, and laid
him off for two weeks to "cool off" on the ground that Nelson was
"too excited about the whole thing." Summersby's version of this
conversation was somewhat different. Summersby testified that on
April 2 he had told Nelson that his union activities did not interest
him, but had reprimanded him for ungentlemanly conduct and insub-
ordination demonstrated in his interrupting the talks with Schofield
and the committee of "jiggers" earlier that day, and that, on April 3
when Dudley had told him that he could not get Nelson to begin his
work on time and that Nelson was a nuisance around the plant, he
felt that Nelson was not only insubordinate but also defiant.
Dudley testified that Nelson was a very good workman.
Nelson did not apply for reinstatement at the end of the two week
period because Bernard, United States Department of Labor concilia-
tor, and Salerno, head of the Rhode Island branch of the T. W. O. C.,
after two conferences with Summersby told Nelson that the respond-
ent would not take him back. Summersby admitted telling Bernard :
"I couldn't take back either one of them [Nelson and Schofield]
because it would break down the discipline of our plant."
A careful weighing of all the testimony, in the light of the circum-
stances set forth hereafter, leads us to the -conclusion that the
respondent discharged Nelson because of his activities on behalf of
the T. W. O. C.
Schofield was laid off or discharged on April 6 under the follow-
ing circumstances. During the evening of April 4, a T. W. O. C. mass
meeting of the respondent's employees was held at which Schofield
and Nelson conspicuously sat on the platform along with the
T. W. O. C. organizers and speakers. And on April 5 Schofield
continued to distribute union membership cards among the respond-
ent's employees. On April 6 about 2:25 P. M. Schofield was told
that Summersby desired to see him at his office. Schofield testified
that Shawn, second hand or assistant foreman, gave him the message
and that immediately thereafter Hopwood, boss dyer, repeated it to
him and gave him permission to wash up before going to Sum-
mersby's office. Hopwood at first denied seeing Schofield at that
time, but upon cross-examination stated that he could not remember
whether he had seen Schofield at the jig. Schofield went to the locker
room, washed, and changed his clothes. While he was in the locker
room, Schofield met two workers, Nicholas and Johnson, and, con-
trary to the respondent's rules, they all smoked.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 611
At this point Hopwood, contrary to his usual custom, entered the
locker room and caught Schofield smoking. He did not see, according
to his testimony, the other two men smoking. Nicholas, testifying as
a witness for the respondent,° stated that just before Hopwood en-
tered the room he had put out his cigarette and that Johnson was
partially hidden behind the lockers where very likely his smoking
would not have been seen by Hopwood. Nicholas testified that he
heard Hopwood, at the time he caught Schofield smoking, say that
he "had him now." Hopwood attempted to explain away this re-
mark by stating that he had been searching the plant for Schofield
in order to give him Summersby's message. However, this explana-
tion does not conform to the fact that approximately fifteen minutes
previously the message had actually been delivered to Schofield.
Although the respondent forbade smoking anywhere within the,
plant except the main office, the rule had not been vigorously en-
forced. The record indicates that employees had openly broken the
rule without being caught, or had actually been caught by foremen
who, however, had not reported them. Hopwood testified that he
had caught four employees smoking and that in each instance he
had personally laid off the guilty worker.10 In Schofield's case,
however, Hopwood personally did not discipline him but, contrary
to his usual practice, reported him to Pawson, the respondent's vice-
president.
Schofield went directly from the locker room to Summersby's office;
and while he waited in the outer office, Summersby learned that
Schofield had been caught smoking. Without informing Schofield
why he had asked him to come to the office, although two of his supe-
riors had told him to report to him, Summersby merely remarked
that Schofield knew what the respondent generally did to men caught
smoking and that he could not expect any more leniency than any-
one else. Schofield testified that he was laid off for two weeks; Sum-
mersby, that he then and there discharged Schofield. In any event,
Schofield did not apply for reinstatement because, as stated above,
Summersby told Bernard and Salerno that the respondent would not
reemploy him.
On April 2, Summersby had praised Schofield and held him up as
a model for Nelson to follow.
To refute the charge that Schofield and Nelson had been dis-
charged for reason of their T. W. O. C. organization activities, the
e That night Nicholas informed Schofield that immediately after the locker room inci-
dent Hopwood told him : "If anything comes of this , I want you to be a witness that
Schofield was smoking" Hopwood admitted telling Nicholas to remember that he had
seen Schofield smoking
10 Eight months before this locker room incident Schofield had been laid off two weeks
for violating the "no smoking" rule.
612 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent introduced evidence that on April 8 an employee named
Rhodes, while under the influence of liquor, had unsuccessfully at-
tempted to organize a sit-down strike at the plant, that Pawson
"cooled" him off, and that the respondent did not discharge him.
This attempt to show that the respondent did not discriminate
against employees active in the T. W. O. C., however, is not very
convincing. By April 8, the Federation, discussed below, had become
established and the threat of the T. W. O. C. had passed. Moreover,
Rhodes himself became a member of the Federation and Ashworth,
,the temporary president of the Federation, interceded on his behalf
with the respondent.
We find that Percy Schofield and Edward Nelson were discharged
for the reason that they had joined and assisted the T. W. O. C.
They have secured no other regular or substantially equivalent em-
ployment since their discharge. Inasmuch as their employments
were terminated by unfair labor practices, they at all times thereafter
retained their status as employees of the respondent within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
B. The Federation
The above recital of facts indicates that on April 2 Summersby
suggested to Nelson, Schofield, and a committee of "jiggers" the
formation of a shop or local union, that he then expressed his hos-
tility to the T. W. O. C., and that he asked Schofield and Nelson to
participate in the organization of a shop or local union.
On the morning of April 6, about eleven o'clock, 12 or 14 em-
ployees from different departments of the plant, selected by their
bosses, met with Summersby and Pawson in Summersby's office, pre-
sumably to discuss certain grievances. Among other things they
discussed unions in general, and in particular the merits of the
T. W. O. C. and shop unions. Several of the employees present at
this conference-including Potter, who was selected temporary sec-
retary of the Federation-testified that Summersby declared that
he would not recognize the C. I. O. and advised them to form a local
union. During this meeting the conferees saw on Summersby's table
certain packages; and when Summersby and Pawson left the room,
they opened these packages. The packages contained literature
signed by the "Committee for Organization of the B. D. A. Em-
ployees Federation" and membership cards for the Federation.
None knew where the literature and cards came from or who had
ordered and paid for their printing. Nor did the respondent during
the hearing explain the presence of the cards and literature on
Summersby's table.
Before this conference adjourned Ashworth was chosen temporary
president of the Federation and Potter, temporary secretary. Pot-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 613
ter secured Summersby's permission to pass out Federation litera-
ture and membership cards during working hours among the em-
ployees at the plant, and he posted Federation notices on the plant
bulletin board.
During the afternoon of April 6 a second Federation organization
meeting was held at the respondent's office for the benefit of some
second shift employees and for the purpose of counting the Federa-
tion cards that had already been signed and returned by the work-
ers. William Durfee, Jr., a first shift employee, testified that about
four o'clock that afternoon Silvia, respondent's paymaster, visited
him at home and inquired how deep he was in the C. I. O. and that,
when he replied that he was not active, Silvia asked him if he would
be willing to talk to Summersby. Silvia and Durfee drove to the
plant; and Durfee and Summersby talked about the C. I. O. and
local unions. Summersby then told Durfee that a committee had
gotten together to form a local union because he had told its mem-
bers that he would not recognize the C. I. O. but would cooperate
with a local union. Summersby stated that he was sorry that
Durfee had been left out of the morning meeting. Summersby pre-
ceded Durfee into the next office, where the afternoon meeting was
then being held, in order to ask the committee members if they would
mind Durfee joining them. When Durfee entered the meeting, Ash-
worth stated the purposes of the meeting; Summersby again ex-
plained the advantages of a local union and the bad features of the
C. I. 0.; and again Federation literature and membership cards were
distributed. It is significant that the respondent made no attempt to
cross-examine Durfee.
On the afternoon of April 7, before the first shift went off duty,
the Federation held a mass meeting in the respondent's shipping
room attended by about 200 men. The employees were told to attend
by their foremen and they were paid by the respondent for the time
spent at the meeting. Both Ashworth and Summersby addressed
the meeting. Several witnesses testified that Summersby told the
employees he would not recognize the C. I. O. and he favored a shop
union. During and after this meeting, supervisory employees of
the respondent passed out Federation membership cards.
During the next two days a large number of Federation cards were
signed by the workers; and on April 9 the Federation had secured
484 members, many of whom had previously joined the C. I. O. On
that day the Federation officers and organization committee met, with
Summersby's permission, in the respondent's grey room and prepared
a letter to the respondent advising that the Federation had signed
up a majority of the plant's employees and requesting that the Fed-
eration be recognized as sole -bargaining agent for the respondent's
employees. Ashworth took the letter and the Federation cards into
614 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Summersby's office. Ashworth testified that Summersby and Silvia
checked the number of Federation cards against the respondent's pay
roll, but did not compare signatures. Ashworth left the cards with
Summersby for about a week ; nevertheless, that same day the re-
spondent by letter granted the Federation recognition as exclusive
bargaining representative for its employees. Thereafter Ashworth
discussed a number of minor grievances with Summersby and ad-
justed them in a few instances.
On April 11 the Federation elected permanent officers. Subse-
quently, meetings of the Federation executive committee were held
at the Bradford Social Club, which property was owned by the
respondent. The Federation paid no rent for the use of that meeting
place. Potter testified that, with the permission of the respondent's
watchman, he had used the respondent's automobile for Federation
purposes.
On April 23 the Federation voted to affiliate with Associated
Workers of Printing, Finishing and Allied Industries, which had
been organized on April 3, 1937; and on May 22 the Federation re-
ceived its charter. Prior to this affiliation, the Federation possessed
no charter, constitution, or by-laws.
Potter, who testified that he had helped organize-the Federation
partly to prevent the success of the T. W. O. C., admitted that the
Federation affiliated with the Associated Workers in order to prove
to the respondent's employees that the Federation was not a com-
pany union.
The following instances are also significant in evaluating the labor
practices of the respondent. After the discharge of Nelson, Sum-
mersby saw Nelson putting up C. I. O. posters along the town high-
ways and tore them down. Summersby called in and reprimanded
an employee named Kenyon for having a C. I. O. card on the back
of his automobile, and told him that he would not recognize that
union. On April 11 Summersby inserted in the Westerly Sun, a
local newspaper, an advertisement, entitled "The Strike That Failed";
in which he drew analogies to the failure of a Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany strike "instigated by ,unlawful C. I. O. agitators." And on
April 25 Summersby gave a scare statement to the Westerly Sun
that the respondent's parent corporation, because of labor unrest, was
considering the transfer of machinery from the Bradford plant to
Egypt.
We, find that the respondent has participated in, dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Federation
and that by intimidation and coercion compelled its employees to
join the Federation, contrary to the provisions and intent of Section
8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 615
C. Refusal to, Bargain Collectively
The complaint alleged that the production and maintenance de-
partments at the respondent's Bradford plant constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The respondent in its answer,
although questioning their materiality, admitted the above allega-
tions."
We find that a unit composed of all the production and mainte-
nance employees at the respondent's Bradford plant, except super-
visory and clerical employees, would, insure to the respondent's
employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act, and constitutes a unit
which is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment.
The record indicates that by April 4, 465 or 467 of the respond-
ent's employees in the appropriate unit had signed T. W. O. C. mem-
bership cards and that there were less than 780 employees in the
appropriate unit. On or before April 10, 481 employees of the
respondent signed up with the T. W. O. C. Although the original
T. W. O. C. membership cards were not introduced into the record,
counsel for the respondent and the Federation compared a type-
written T. W. O. C. membership list with the original signed mem-
bership cards; counsel for all parties agreed that this typewritten list,
which was admitted as an exhibit, was a true and correct list of the
names appearing on the T. W. O. C. membership cards and that the
total number of such names was 482.
The record further indicates that as early as April 2 the respondent
knew that the T. W. O. C. had signed up a majority of the employees
at the plant. On the afternoon of that day Nelson, while waiting to
see Summersby, told one of the employees on the respondent's, office
staff that over 60 per cent of the workers had already signed up with
the T. W. O. C. The record indicates that Summersby was well
advised at all times as to what progress the T. W. O. C. was making
in its organization drive.
On the evening of April 2, a committee composed of Nelson, Scho-
field, and other representatives from the various departments of the
respondent's plant met for the purpose of drafting a proposed bar-
gaining agreement between the T. W. O. C. and the respondent.
Summersby knew beforehand about this meeting and its purpose,
inasmuch as he suggested to Nelson that he lay before the meeting
the suggestion that a shop union be organized. The discharge of
"The respondent stated that it uses the term "processing department " for what the
complaint calls the "production department."
67573-38-vol iv-40
6 16 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nelson on April 3, when he refused to reconsider Summersby's shop
union suggestion, and of Schofield only two working days later,
forestalled an immediate bargaining demand by the T. W. 0. C.
shop committee.
On April 2 and at all times thereafter Summersby emphatically
informed the respondent's employees, including Schofield and Nelson,
that the respondent would not recognize or deal with the T. W. 0. C.
The language and actions of the respondent rendered futile any
immediate demand by the T. W. 0. C. for collective bargaining with
the respondent.
Further, on April 8 or 13 Salerno, head of the Rhode Island branch
of the T. W. 0. C., had a conference at Providence with Summersby
and Bernard of the United States Department of Labor, at which
they discussed the discharge of Schofield and Nelson and possible
collective bargaining between the respondent and T. W. 0. C.12
Summersby stated at this meeting that he would negotiate with the
T. W. 0. C. if it had a majority of the employees, and told Salerno
to see his attorney, Cross. Thereafter, Salerno talked with Cross,
who told him that the T. W. 0. C. would not be able to accomplish
anything in the way of collective bargaining with the respondent.
Nevertheless, on April 16 Salerno went to Westerly and again con-
ferred with Summersby and Bernard. Salerno told Summersby that
the T. W. 0. C. had a majority of the plant and offered to show the
membership cards to Bernard and to have Bernard check the names
on the cards against the respondent's pay roll. This offer Summersby
rejected. During this conference Salerno handed Summersby a type-
written draft of a proposed bargaining agreement. Summersby said
that he would look it over, for what it was worth, but that the
respondent had already signed a bargaining agreement • with the
Federation.
We find that at all times since April 4, 1937, the majority of the
respondent's employees in an appropriate unit had designated the
T. W. 0. C. as their bargaining agent. The respondent contends
that subsequent to the above date many of its employees revoked the
authority of the T. W. 0. C. to represent them and that by April 9
a majority of the employees had authorized the Federation to act
as their bargaining representative. However, the record is clear that,
had it not been for the unfair labor practices of the respondent in
organizing and fostering the Federation and in persuading, intimi-
dating, and coercing its employees to join the Federation and leave
the T. W. 0. C., the respondent's employees would have remained
members of the T. W. 0. C. The unfair labor practices of the re-
spondent cannot operate to change the bargaining representative pre-
12 Salerno fixes the date as April 8 and recalled that it was vnmediately after Schu-
field•s and Nelson' s dlschaiges Summersby fixed the date as April 13
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 617
viously selected by the untrammelled will of the majority. Accord-
ingly, we find that on April 4, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
T. W. 0. C., pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit for pur-
poses of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment.
We further find that the respondent at all times since April 4 has
refused to bargain collectively with the T. W. 0. C., as the repre-
sentative of its employees, contrary to the provisions and intent of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Upon the whole record, we find that the activities of the re-
spondent 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, com-
merce, and transportation among the several States, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
As we have found that Percy Schofield and Edward Nelson were
discharged because of the respondent's unfair labor practices, we
shall order the respondent to offer to reinstate them and we shall
award them back pay for the period from the dates of their dis-
charges to the dates on which they obtain regular and substantially
equivalent employment, less any amounts earned by them in the
meantime.
It is clear that the respondent was instrumental in organizing and
compelled many of its employees, contrary to their desires, to join
the Federation. In order to remedy its unlawful conduct therein, the
respondent must cease requiring, urging, or intimidating its employ-
ees to join or remain members of the Federation; must cease con-
tributing financial or other support to the Federation; and must
withdraw all recognition from the Federation as an organization
representative of the respondent's employees for the purposes of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work.
We shall also order the respondent to bargain collectively with
the T. W. 0. C. as representative of all its non-supervisory and non-
clerical employees at its Bradford, Rhode Island, plant. Prior to the
hearing many of the members of the T. W. 0. C. joined the Feder-
ation and by implication renounced their T. W. 0. C. affiliation. We
have found that such action was the result of the respondent's unfair
labor practices. We are ordering the respondent to inform its em-
618 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees that they are free to become or remain members of the
T. W. O. C. and are not required to become or remain members of
the Federation. In the presence of such a finding and order, to re-
frain from ordering the respondent to bargain collectively with the
T. W. O. C., would be to hold that the obligation of one subdivision
of the Act may be evaded by the successful violation of another; that
the freely expressed wishes of the majority of the employees may
be destroyed if the employer brings to bear sufficient interference,
restraint, and coercion to undermine the representatives' majority
support. We cannot permit the purposes of the Act to be thus
circumvented.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers' Organizing Committee is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. B. D. A. Employees' Federation is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Percy Schofield and Edward Nelson are employees of the
respondent within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by discriminating 'in' regard to the hire and
tenure of Percy Schofield and Edward Nelson, and each of them,
and thereby discouraging membership ina labor organization, has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The respondent, by organizing and dominating the administra-
tion of the B. D. A. Employees' Federation, by actively sponsoring
membership in said organization among its employees, and by con-
tributing financial and other support to said organization, has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
7. The production and maintenance employees at the respondent's
Bradford, Rhode Island, plant, excluding all supervisory and cleri-
cal employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
8. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Textile Workers' Organiz-
ing Committee, having been designated as their representative by a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, was on April 4;
1937, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 619
of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
9. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively
with Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the above stated unit, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Bradford Dyeing Association (U. S. A.), Bradford, Rhode Island,
and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Cease and desist from in any manner dominating or interfering
with the administration of B. D. A. Employees' Federation or with
the formation or administration of any other labor organization of
its employees and from contributing financial or other support to
B. D. A. Employees' Association or any other labor organization of
its employees.
3. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Textile
Workers' Organizing Committee or any other labor organization of
its employees by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any terms or conditions of employment.
4. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with Tex-
tile Workers' Organizing Committee, as the exclusive representative
of the production and maintenance employees at its Bradford, Rhode
Island, slant, except supervisory and clerical employees.
5. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
a. Offer to Percy Schofield and Edward Nelson immediate and full
reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges;
b. Make whole Percy Schofield and Edward Nelson for any losses
of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tory acts, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to
620 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that which each would normally have earned as wages from the date
of his discharge (i. e., April 6, 1937, and April 3, 1937, respectively)
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less any amount
earned by each during that period;
c. Withdraw all recognition from B. D. A. Employees' Federation
as a representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work; and completely
disestablish said Federation as such representative;
d. Upon request bargain collectively with Textile Workers' Organ-
izing Committee, as the exclusive representative of the production
and maintenance employees at its Bradford, Rhode Island, plant,
except supervisory and clerical employees, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
e. Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its plant stating : (1) that the respondent will cease and
desist as provided in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this Order; (2) that
the respondent withdraws and will refrain from all recognition of
B. D. A. Employees' Federation as a representative of its employees
and completely disestablishes it as such representative; (3) that the
agreement signed with B. D. A. Employees' Federation recognizing
it as the bargaining agent for its members is void and of no effect;
(4) that to secure or retain employment a person need not become a
member of B. D. A. Employees' Federation; (5) that the respondent
will not discharge or in any manner discriminate against any em-
ployee or applicant for employment because of his membership in
Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, or because of his assisting such organization
or engaging in union activity; (6) that the respondent has instructed
its foremen, and other supervisory officials to remain neutral as be-
tween labor organizations and that any violations of this instruction
should be reported to it;
f. Such notices shall remain posted for a period of at least thirty
(30) consecutive days from the date of the posting; and
g. 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.