Cooper, Wells & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1939

16 N.L.R.B. 27 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS
Cases Nos. C-736 and C-737.-Decided October 17, 1939
Hosiery Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion:
charges of, not sustained-Company-dominated Unions : charges of , not sus-
tained-Complaint : dismissed.
Mr. Earl R. Cross, for the Board.
Courshon d Freeman, by Mr. R. L. Freeman, of Chicago, Ill., Mr.
A. Edward Brown, of St. Joseph, Mich., and Mr. C. H. Eyster, of
Decatur, Ala., for the respondent.
Peach & Caddell, by Mr. John H. Peach, of Decatur, Ala., for the
Independent.
Mr. Allan Lind, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges duly filed 1 by American Federation of
Hosiery. Workers, herein called the A. F. H. W., the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint,
dated May 3, 1938, against Cooper, Wells & Company, St. Joseph,
Michigan, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. In substance, the complaint as amended al-
leged that on or about April 20, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of,
and supported, two labor organizations,2 one formed at its plant in
'Separate charges were filed by the A. F. A. W. In the Seventh and Tenth Regional
offices of the Board. On January 19, 1938, the Board ordered the matter arising out of
the charges filed in the Tenth Region transferred to and consolidated with the matter
arising out of the charges filed in the Seventh Region.
2 Although the complaint originally referred to the two organizations as a single organi-
zation, the record shows that they were separate and distinct labor organizations. This
error was remedied by a motion granted by the Trial Examiner at the hearing.
16 N. L. R. B., No. 6.
27
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Joseph, Michigan, and the other at its plant in Decatur, Alabama.
The St. Joseph labor organization is known as Cooper, Wells and
Company Employees' Association, referred to in the record and
herein called the Committee of Eleven. The labor organization
formed at the respondent's plant in Decatur, Alabama, is known as
the Independent Organization for Collective Bargaining of Em-
ployees of Cooper, Wells and Company of Decatur, Alabama, and is
herein called the Independent. The complaint further alleges that
the respondent, by expressing opposition to the A. F. H. W., by in-
timidating and coercing its employees into signing so-called loyalty
petitions and other petitions, and by other acts, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
.guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. The complaint and an accom-
panying notice of hearing were duly served on the parties, and
upon the Independent and the Committee of Eleven. On May 10,
1938, the respondent filed its answer in which it denied, that it had
engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in St. Joseph, Michigan,
from May 12 to 18, 1938, and at Decatur, Alabama, from May 23 to
26, 1938, before Hugh C. McCarthy, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board. At the hearing the Independent filed a petition
to intervene in the proceeding. This petition was granted by the
Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Independent
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
'During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On June 29, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port,. in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the 'complaint,
and recommended that the respondent cease and desist its unfair
labor practices and disestablish the Independent and the Committee
of Eleven as bargaining representatives of its employees. There-
after, the respondent and the Independent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
On April 14 and on August 8, 1939, oral argument was had before
'the Board at Washington, D. C. The respondent was represented by
counsel and participated in the arguments. A brief has also been
"submitted by the respondent. ' .
The Board has considered the exceptions 'to the Intermediate Re-
port.. ,As indicated by our findings, conclusions of law, and order set
COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY' 29
forth below, we sustain the exceptions to the findings of the Trial
Examiner that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Cooper, Wells & Company is a Michigan corporation with its prin-
cipal offices located at St. Joseph, Michigan. The respondent is also
licensed to do business in the State of Alabama. It is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of silk hosiery. It operates
two hosiery-manufacturing plants, one at St. Joseph, Michigan, and
the other at Decatur, Alabama. All of the raw materials used by
the respondent, including silk, cotton yarn, rayon, combination yarn,
worsted, and wool yarn, are obtained and shipped to its plants from
outside the States of Michigan and Alabama. The respondent ships
all of the products manufactured at its Decatur plant to its St.
Joseph plant for final processing operations. Approximately 93 per
.cent of the finished products manufactured and processed at the re-
spondent's St. Joseph plant are shipped out of the State of Michigan.
The respondent employs approximately 275 employees at its Decatur
plant and approximately 435 employees at its St. Joseph plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization
affiliated at the time of the hearing with the Committee for Industrial
Organization and admitting to its membership the production and
maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding clerical and
supervisory employees.
Cooper, Wells and Company Employees' Association is an unaffili-
ated labor organization admitting to membership the respondent's
employees at its St. Joseph plant, excluding supervisory employees.
The Independent. Organization for Collective Bargaining of the
Employees of Cooper, Wells and Company of Decatur, Alabama, is
an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership the re-
spondent's employees at its Decatur plant, excluding supervisory
employees, watchmen, and clerical employees.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged unfair labor practices at St. Joseph, Michigan
Prior to 1937 no labor organization existed at the respondent's
St. Joseph plant. Early in 1937, a group of knitters at the plant
formed a Knitters Club for the purpose of bettering their working
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conditions. In the latter part of March 1937, Kelsey Smith, an
A. F. H. W. organizer, appeared in St. Joseph and began organizing
the employees. On April 4, at a meeting of the Knitters Club, Smith
urged the formation of an A. F. H. W. local. Within a few weeks
25 employees had signed applications for membership. On April
25, 1937, a charter was granted to a local union and it became Branch
No. 133 of the A. F. H. W.
While a majority of the members of the Knitters Club favored
affiliating with the A. F. H. W., there remained a militant minority
of about nine employees who were opposed to it because of its affili-
ation with the Committee for Industrial Organization. This mi-
nority began agitation against the A. F. H. W. soon after Smith
appeared on the scene. On April 27 the employees who were opposed
to the A. F. H. W. circulated a petition among the employees, which
read :
We pledge ourselves to be loyal to Cooper, Wells & Co. and
forget all union activities.
While this petition was circulated in the plant during working hours,
it was established that the circulation of petitions was a common
occurrence in the respondent's plant. With but two -minor excep-
tions,' the circulation of the petition was unmarred by any super-
visory influence. In view of our discussion below, we do not consider
these exceptions of such a nature as to constitute unfair labor prac-
tices on the part of the respondent.
On April 30 the proponents of this counter movement' secured
the services of an attorney to guide them in formal matters attendant
upon the formation of an independent union. Under the guidance
of the attorney, a petition was drawn up designating 11 persons as
the collective bargaining agents of the employees. Between April
30 and May 4 the Committee of Eleven secured the signatures of
approximately 276 of the 435 employees in the plant to its petition.
The. signatures were, on the whole, procured outside of the plant.
On May. 5 the Committee of Eleven presented its signed petition to
the respondent's officers and requested recognition as the exclusive
bargaining agent of the employees. After checking the signatures on
the petition with its pay roll, the respondent granted. the -desired
recognition.
From the record it appears that the respondent's officers main-
tained a neutral attitude toward unionization,of its-employees. In
' Alma Herman, a-woman employee, testified that her foreman asked her to talk to the
employee who was 'circulating the petition. Herman al! first 'refused to do so, but later
changed her mind . Herman did not sign the petition. One other woman employee, Sarah
La Violette, testified that during the circulation of the petition her foreman, James Fish,
asked her why she joined the A. F. H. W. and characterized all unions as a "bunch of
graft." While this testimony was denied by Fish, we do not credit his denial . La Violette,
'however, also refused to sign the petition. •
COOPER, WELLS- & COMPANY 31
conformity with this policy, the respondent held a meeting. of its
foremen in the plant on or about April 15, 1937,' and instructed the
foremen that they were to take no part in the organizational activi-
ties of the employees. There is some testimony as to remarks made
by foremen and subforemen indicating hostility to the A.'F. H. W.
Much of this testimony is denied by the supervisors involved. We
have examined this evidence and are not convinced, in the light of
the entire record, that it establishes any interference of a substantial
nature.
While certain proponents of the Committee of Eleven' included in
their arguments to employees assertions to the effect that the re-
spondent proposed to close down the plant if the A. F. H. W. became
organized, there is no showing in the record that the respondent sanc-
tioned such utterances. On the other hand, it was established that
rumors to the effect that those employees who did not join the A. F.
H. W. would lose their positions were also disseminated among the
workers. Upon being advised of such rumors by certain female em-
ployees who requested the respondent's officers to state its position
in the matter, the respondent called a meeting of its women em-
ployees on April 28, 1937. At this meeting the respondent's officers
denied rumors to the effect that the mill would be closed down or
that the employees would be discharged for their union activities.
The respondent's officers also made it clear that the union affiliation
of the employees was a matter for the employees themselves to decide
and that the respondent could have no voice in the matter.
We are of the opinion that the evidence does not bear out the
allegations of the complaint with respect to the organizational ac-
tivities at St. Joseph, Michigan. It appears from the above discus-
sion that the Committee of Eleven was conceived by employees who
were opposed to the formation of a union affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization. There is no showing that the
respondent fostered such opposition. On the other hand, it appears
that the respondent's officers sought to maintain a neutral attitude
in the conflict between the rival organizations. While certain minor
supervisors acted contrary to the respondent's instructions, in view
of the respondent's open declaration that the employees were free to
join any labor organization they desired, we are not convinced that
such actions on the part of the respondent's supervisors interfered
with, restrained, or coerced the employees in their exercise of the
rights guaranteed by the Act.4
{ By so holding we do not mean to imply that as a general rule an employer may avoid
the consequences of the coercive acts of its supervisory employees merely by Instructing
such supervisors to take no part in organizational activities, or by making general
announcements of. neutrality to. Its employees . The question in each case is 'a matter of
degree depending upon such circumstances as the status of the supervisors involved, the
effect of their statements upon the employees , the steps which the employer takes to
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with
the formation or administration of the Committee of Eleven or con-
tributed financial or other support to it and has not interfered with,
restrained, or coerced its St. Joseph employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. Alleged unfair labor practices at Decatur, Alabama
1. Alleged domination and support of the Independent
The A. F. H. W. began its organizational campaign among the
respondent's employees in Decatur, Alabama, in May 1937. On May
10 the Chamber of -Commerce of Decatur called a meeting of the
businessmen in the community for the purpose of reviewing the labor
situation in Decatur. It is evident from the record that the meeting.
of the Chamber of Commerce was called for the purpose of opposing
the campaign of the A. F. H. W; However, there is no showing
that the respondent participated in the activities of the Chamber of
Commerce.
On the day following the meeting, John Patterson, a director of
the Chamber of Commerce, came to the respondent's plant for the
ostensible purpose of obtaining a position in the plant for a friend.
A group of employees, gathered in front of the respondent's plant,
suspected Patterson of furthering the efforts of the Chamber of
Commerce to interfere with the right of the employees to organize.
Adel Powers, who was the leader of the group, suggested that the
employees go into the office and ask Patterson his purpose. Pursuant
to this suggestion three employees accompanied Powers into the
office.' While there is some conflict in the evidence as to what actually
occurred in the office, the following pertinent facts are virtually
undisputed. Powers opened the conversation by protesting the ac-
tions of the Chamber of Commerce and demanded to know of the
respondent's supervisors, Frank Yaney and H. M. Jones, the re-
spondent's labor policy. Yaney and Jones stated that they were not
in a position to express the respondent's labor policy and that under
the Act their "hands were tied" so far as expressing their own opinion
was concerned. The conversation continued for some time with
Powers reiterating his demand that the supervisors express the 're-
spondent's labor policy. Finally, Patterson intervened and suggested
that the employees take the matter up with the respondent' s officers
remove any impression which such statements may have created , and the respondent's
known attitude . toward the unionization of its employees . Cf. Matter of Inland Steel
Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, et al., 9 N. L. R. B . 783, 812; Matter
of Goshen Rubber Manufacturing Company and 'United Rubber Workers of America, It
N. L. it. B. 1346.
6 These four employees were, or later became, members of the A . F. H. W.
COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY 33
in St. Joseph, Michigan. Patterson agreed to act as an intermediary
for the purpose of contacting the respondent's officers. Either Pat-
terson or one of the employees-the record is not clear on this point-
suggested that a petition be signed by a majority of the employees
indicating their desire to have the respondent's officers come to Decatur
and explain its policy. While there is some testimony on the part
of the employees that Patterson declared his hostility toward an out-
side labor union and suggested the formation of an inside union,
there is no showing that the respondent's supervisors acquiesced in
or sanctioned such utterances. The supervisors repeatedly stated that
their "hands were tied" so far as the expression of an opinion on
labor matters was concerned.
Pursuant to the suggestion, the four employees spent the rest of
the day in obtaining signatures of the employees on a blank piece
of paper. The employees were orally told that by signing they were
indicating their desire to have the respondent's officers come to
Decatur and explain its labor policy. After securing approximately
55 signatures the four employees came to Patterson's office. When
they appeared at his office Patterson was conferring with the re-
spondent's supervisors and several other businessmen of the com-
munity. The admitted object of the conference was to discuss the
general labor situation in Decatur and specifically whether Patterson
had violated the Act. While the presence of the respondent's super-
visors at this meeting appears somewhat suspicious, we cannot say
that it establishes a violation of the Act on the part of the respondent.
After the above conference Patterson saw the four employees and
agreed to telephone the respondent's officers the next morning. On
the next day Patterson telephoned Nicholas Lahr, the respondent's
manager and vice president, and told him that the employees wanted
him to come to Decatur and express the respondent's labor policy.
On the following day Lahr sent a telegram to his supervisors at
Decatur indicating his willingness to have an open meeting with
the employees and suggested that such a meeting be arranged for
May 15. On May 15 the respondent's officers, accompanied by coun-
sel, appeared at a meeting of the employees. After some preliminary
questions and answers respondent's counsel explained, in substance,
that under the Act the employees were free to join any organization
they desired. There were no anti-union utterances interspersed.
After the meeting was over Quimby Sewell, an employee of the
respondent, asked a Board's Field Examiner who was present at the
meeting, whether it would be possible under the Act to organize an
independent organization. The Field Examiner indicated that this
was permissible under the Act. Sewell, together with another" em-
ployee, James Belew, then conceived the plan of forming an inde-
pendent union.
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,, On or about May 18 Belew and Sewell consulted a local attorney
who thereafter guided them in formal matters pertaining to the
formation of an independent union. A petition was drawn up in
which the signatories agreed to name a representative committee to
conduct bargaining relations with the respondent. Beginning May
22, the two employees proceeded to secure signatures of the employees
to this petition. By Jude 5, 206 of the approximately 275 employees
had signed the petition. While it appears from the record that some
of the signatures were procured during working hours, there is no
showing of any supervisory influence. On the other hand, the record
shows that the A. F. H. W. also solicited membership in the plant
during working hours.
On or about May 30 a group of Committee of Eleven members
from St. Joseph, ostensibly on vacation for the Memorial Day holi-
day, came to Decatur for the purpose of investigating rumors to the
effect that the employees at Decatur were rapidly joining the
A. F. H. W. When they arrived at the respondent's plant they re-
quested permission of the respondent's supervisors to go through the
plant and talk to the employees. This request was denied until, in
response to a telegram sent the respondent's officers at St. Joseph,
an answer was received stating that it was all right to allow the
employees to go through the plant. The St. Joseph employees then
went through the plant and made arrangements to meet with the
leaders of the independent union after work. There is no showing
that employees generally were solicited on behalf of an inside
organization at this time.
As a result of the contact made by the St. Joseph employees with
the leaders of the Independent group at Decatur, the Independent
took on a form somewhat similar to that of the Committee of Eleven.
On or about June 3, 1937, at a meeting of the employees held off
company property, 11 persons were chosen to represent the employees
as a Committee of Eleven for the purposes of collective bargaining.
This committee adopted a set of bylaws similar to that already in
force in St. Joseph. On or about June 5 the Committee of Eleven
at Decatur elected its officers and authorized its secretary and chair-
man to arrange for a conference between the respondent and the
committee. On June 9 a conference was held with the respondent's
officers and, after checking the signatures on the above-mentioned
petition with its pay roll, the respondent recognized the Independent
as the bargaining agent of its employees.
We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with
the formation or administration of, or contributed support to, the
Independent.
COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY -35
2. Alleged interference , restraint, and coercion
While the record reveals that a great deal of anti-union literature
was distributed among the employees in the Decatur plant, there is
no showing in the record that the respondent took any part in this
distribution. Furthermore, it was revealed that the A. F. H. W.'s
official publication, the Hosiery Worker, also was distributed to the
respondent's employees in the mill.
Only one incident is cited to show any discrimination on the part
of the respondent"in'the distribution of the opposing types of publi-
cations. W. J. Frazier, general organizer for the A. F. H. W.,
testified that sometime in May 1937, when he first attempted to dis-
tribute copies of the Hosiery Worker in front of the respondent's
plant, he was prevented from so doing by the local Chief of Police
who told him that the company had complained of his actions. The
Chief of Police, however, advised Frazier to go to the Mayor and
secure a 'permit to distribute his literature. Acting upon this advice
Frazier saw the Mayor, who simply requested Frazier not to dis-
tribute the literature on company property. Frazier agreed to this
limitation but later regretted his decision when he discovered that
he could not reach the employees because most of them came to work
in automobiles. Frazier testified that, on the other hand, when two
unidentified persons distributed copies of an anti-C. I. O. publication
to the employees they were specifically requested by the respondent's
supervisor, Yaney, to distribute their literature at the employees'
entrance.
The respondent's supervisors, Yaney and Jones, both denied that
they had complained to the police about Frazier's activities and
Yaney denied that he had witnessed the passing out of anti-C. I. O.
literature. It appears from the recordthat Frazier's testimony was
somewhat colored by his espousal of the A. F. H. W.' s cause. Fur-
thermore, it was admitted by Frazier that beginning in June 1937
the Hosiery Worker has been distributed to the employees at the
plant entrance without hindrance. In view of all the circumstances
we are not persuaded by this claim of discrimination.,
We find that the respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of • the Act. Since none ' of the allegations of unfair labor
practice have been found to be supported by the record, the complaint
will be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations and business of the respondent constitute a con-
tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Cooper, Wells and
Company Employees Association, and Independent Organization for
Collective Bargaining of the Employees of Cooper, Wells and Com-
pany of Decatur, Alabama, are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not dominated or interfered with the forma-
tion or administration of, or contributed financial or other support
to, Cooper, Wells and Company Employees Association or Independ-
ent Organization for Collective Bargaining of the Employees of
Cooper, Wells and Company of Decatur, Alabama, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of ' the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
.the complaint against the respondent, Cooper, Wells & Company, St.
Joseph, Michigan, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
0