L. Greif & Bro., Inc., and the Greif Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 396 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of L. GREIF & BRO ., INC., AND THE GREIF COMPANY and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA , BALTIMORE JOINT
BOARD
Case No. C416.-Decided June 28, 1939
Men's Clothing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion-Company-
Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation and admin-
istration ; support ; formation of new organization due in part to respondent's
illegal activity in connection with former organization of employees ; speech
to employees by respondent 's counsel indicating respondent 's partiality toward
inside type of organization ; meetings summoned by ringing of factory bell and
held away from plant during working hours without objection by respondent;
supervisory employees were present at organization meeting and signed mem-
bership applications ; activities permitted during working hours ; hasty recog-
nition as exclusive bargaining agency without verifying claimed membership ;
check-off ; withdrawal of recognition and disestablishment , ordered-Contract:
abrogation of, ordered-Check-off : respondent ordered to reimburse employees
for dues checked off.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board.
Weinberg, Sweeten cti Green, by Mr. Leonard Weinberg and Mr.
Harry J. Green, of Baltimore, Md., for the respondent.
Mr. Marcy M. Ehudin, of Baltimore, Md., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. D. Eugene Walsh, of Westminster, Md., for the Association.
Mr. Julius Schlezinger and Mr. William Stix, of counsel to the
Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, Baltimore Joint Board, herein called the Amalgamated,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland),
issued its complaint dated July 23, 1937, against L. Greif & Bro.,
Inc., Westminster, Maryland, herein called the respondent,' alleging
t Before it was amended by a motion to conform the pleadings to proof, the complaint
erroneously designated this respondent as "L Greif & Brothers , Inc." Upon agreement
of the parties the Trial Examiner during the hearing dismissed the complaint in so far
as it charged that The Greif Company, a co -respondent , had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged therein. -
13 N. L . R. B, No. 47.
396
L. GREIF & BRO., INCORPORATED 397
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting connnerce, 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 that the respondent had
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration
of a labor organization, The Carroll Workers Association of West-
minster,2 herein called the Association, and had contributed financial
aid and other support to it. The complaint and accompanying notice
of hearing were duly served upon the parties. The respondent filed
an answer to the complaint in which it admitted certain allegations
of fact as to its business but denied that it had engaged in unfair
labor practices.
The Association filed a petition to intervene on August 12, 1937,
which was allowed, and on September 16, 1937, an answer to the
complaint in which it disclaimed knowledge as to certain of the
allegations contained therein and denied the remainder.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Westminster, Maryland,
on September 20 and 21, 1937, before Alvin J. Rockwell, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond-
ent, the Amalgamated, and the Association were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the con-
clusion of the Board's case the respondent made a motion to dismiss
the complaint, which was denied by the Trial Examiner. To this
and to other rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and objec-
tions to the admission of evidence, exceptions were taken. Again at
the end of the hearing the respondent made a motion to dismiss the
complaint which, along with other motions, was taken under ad-
visement and later denied by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate
Report. The Board has reviewed and, having found that no preju-
dicial errors were committed, hereby affirms all rulings of the Trial
Examiner.
On December 6, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that
the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and,
in addition, withdraw all recognition from the Association as rep-
resentative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were subsequently filed
by the respondent and the Association.
g Erroneously referred to in the complaint , prior to its amendment by the motion to
conform the pleadings to proof , as "Carroll Workers Association of Westminster."
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 12, 1938, after notice to the parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board, in which the
respondent and the Association appeared by counsel and partici-
pated. The Board has considered the exceptions filed by both the
respondent and the Association and finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
L. Greif & Bro., Inc., a Maryland corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of various types of men's clothing. It operates 12 or
13 factories located in the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia. The respondent is one of the 10 largest manufacturers of
men's clothing in the United States.
The only factories of the respondent involved in this proceeding
are those located in Westminster, Maryland, which are herein called
the Westminster plant. The Westminster plant consists of two
branches, one for the manufacture of coats and the other for the
manufacture of pants, herein called the coat shop and the pants
shop, located several blocks from each other. About 600 workers
are employed in the Westminster plant.
The principal raw materials used at the Westminster plant are
wool, cotton, silk, and linen. Approximately 90 per cent of these
raw materials are obtained by the respondent from outside the State
of Maryland. The products of the Westminster plant are sold to
retailers throughout the United States and its territories, about 90
per cent being shipped to customers located outside of Maryland.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Baltimore Joint
Board, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, is
a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the
Westminster plant.
The Carroll Workers Association of Westminster is an unaffiliated
labor organization, membership in which is open exclusively to em-
ployees of the Westminster plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A labor and beneficial organization known as the Carroll Mutual
Benefit Association existed among the employees of the Westminster
plant for several years prior to April 1937. About that time the
Amalgamated commenced a drive to organize the respondent's West-
L. GREIF & BRO., INCORPORATED 399
minster employees. Paul Mannino, manager of the Westminster
plant, knew and informed Irvin D. Greif, the respondent's vice presi-
dent and treasurer, that some employees had joined the Amalga-
mated.
The Amalgamated held a meeting at Reisterstown, near Westmin-
ster, on the evening of April 29, 1937. On the following day at 9:30
in the morning, an hour and a half after work at the plant had
started, a bell 8 rang and all employees were ordered by their super-
visors to go to the Armory where, in addition to Lee D. Greif, Irvin
Greif, and Leonard Weinberg, the respondent's counsel , there were
present as invited guests of the respondent, D. Eugene Walsh, city
attorney of Westminster and counsel for the Association in this pro-
ceeding, Walter H. Davis, an automobile dealer and owner of the
building in which the coat shop is located, Pearre Jas. Wantz,
cashier of the Union National Bank of Westminster, and other prom-
inent citizens of Westminster.4 Irvin Greif opened the proceedings by
stating that he understood that many of the employees had been
asking questions concerning the April 12 decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States in cases arising under the Act,' and that
he had called the meeting so that the respondent's attorney might
tell them the meaning of those decisions.
Weinberg made a short speech in which he explained to the em-
ployees their rights under the Act. He declared that the decisions
of the Supreme Court upheld the right of workers to bargain collec-
tively and to form or join labor organizations of their own choosing
without interference from their employer ; that collective bargaining,
which consisted in dealing with one's employer through a labor
organization instead of individually, was not new to his listeners
since they had practiced it through their own organization, the
Carroll Mutual Benefit Association, herein called the Mutual; that
because of the Supreme Court decisions, however, the Mutual could
no longer legally serve as a collective bargaining agency, for the
respondent might have assisted in its formation or activity; that
8 A long ring on this bell ordinarily signifies that it is time to begin or to stop work.
Other rings are used to summon Mannino or the mechanics.
* As Walsh entered the Armony, he encountered Mayor George Matthews of Westminster,
who thereupon came to the meeting at his invitation . Irvin Greif explained the presence
of these townspeople by saying : ". . . in order that there may never be any question as
to what is said here and in order that no one may ever say that we have attempted to
influence or coerce you in any way, we have asked our plant manager to invite some
representative citizens of this community to attend this meeting and to hear what is
going on." It was scarcely necessary , however, to have these citizens present as witnesses
to what might be said at the meeting since Greif, although he did not at the time reveal
it, had brought with him a shorthand reporter to make a transcript of the proceedings.
6 National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. I; National
Labor Relations Board v. Fruehau f Trailer Co , 301 U. S. 49; National Labor Relations
Board v. Friedman -Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U. S. 58 ; Associated Press V National
Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 103; Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v.
National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 142.
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the workers had three courses of action open to them-to refrain from
joining any labor organizations, to join an outside labor organization,
or to form a labor organization of their own-and that, irrespective
of which one they selected, they would not be discriminated against
by the respondent. Among other things, he said :
* * * If you desire to form a new organization yourselves
in place of the Carroll Mutual Benefit Association which, under
the law, can no longer represent you, you have the absolute right
to take that course. If you do decide to do that, the law prevents
L. Greif & Brother, or any representative of L. Greif & Brother,
any foreman of theirs, or anybody else who is in a superior posi-
tion to you in the plant, from helping or assisting you in doing
it. They can not assist in the formation or in the maintenance
of that kind of organization any longer.
You may, however, if you wish, get yourselves a lawyer, go to
some reputable citizen of the community, not connected in any
way with L. Greif & Brother or with anybody in authority here,
and have them advise you how to go about it, if you do not know
how to go about it yourselves.
If your organization represents the majority of the workers
in the plant, then that organization, under the law, will have the
right to bargain collectively for all of the employees in the plant.
In any event, we want you to know that we stand ready and
willing at all times, as we always have, to listen to and to try
and satisfy any suggestions or any complaints or any requests
that you individually or collectively through your own organi-
zation, or some other organization, wish to make. And you may,
but you don't have to, go outside of your group to select repre-
sentatives to deal with L. Greif c Brother on your behalf.
You can, but you don't have to, contribute to any one for the
privilege of having them represent you in any dealings with
your employers. [Italics supplied.]
Following his speech, Weinberg answered questions from the floor.
The inquiries were chiefly concerned with the formation of an inside
union and Weinberg furnished the information requested. Helen
Rickell, one of the employees, stated that she believed wages should
be higher and hours shorter and concluded by making a motion that
the employees form an organization of their own. Weinberg point-
edly rejected this motion, as follows:
As to your making the motion you have suggested to form
your own organization here, we can not have anything to do
with it, unfortunately; I am sorry to tell you the law prevents
us from helping you to do that this morning. We got this hall
L. GREIF & BRO., INCORPORATED 401
for this meeting and the Labor Board might say we got the hall
in order to do this, we are using our own hall for that purpose.
But there is no reason in the world-the applause that you all
gave seems apparently to be in compliment of what Miss Nick-
ell said, that you are having too long hours and not making
enough money, also that you want to join or form your own
organization.
Let me explain to you about this. If you form your own
organization and your representatives go to Mr. Ma'ivinno or
Mr. Greif and make the suggestion or the complaint you have
made, the law provides that Mr. Greif will have to deal with
you. I believe after all these years you know he would deal
with you anyhow. There is no reason why you should not ex-
press yourselves here or anywhere else. But I would ask you,
if you are going to form an organization, or if you are going
to join one, whether it is in existence now or not, not to do it
here this morning, because we can not have anything to do with
it ourselves. We might be charged by some one who is antag-
onistic to it, on the inside or outside, of having fostered the
thing. You have a perfectly good organization now, I am told,
which has been in existence for some time. We could not deal
with that organization any longer, however, because some time
in the past we may have assisted in your giving a dance, we may
have assisted it to the extent of giving them a hall; we may
have donated ice cream, or something of that kind. Some
people contend that is influencing and coercing the employes.
Therefore, we can not let you do that in here this morning.
But you can do it the minute you walk out of here.e
I just want you to understand you have the right to do what
you want to do. If you do not know how to do it, I can not
show you, but there are other lawyers much better than I am.
There are plenty of business men, . . . there are plenty o l
people among you, I am sure, who must know your business,
and can show you how to do what you want to do. [Italics
supplied.]
Compare the following excerpt from Weinberg 's cross-examination of Joseph W. Bowers,
one of the Board 's witnesses :
Q. And didn't I tell you and the rest of the people who were gathered here
that day, that is, the rest of the workers , that you couldn 't go outside and just
form another organization of the same people with the same of eers or the same
name, or just change a few names or change the name and have the same kind of
organization ? Didn ' t I tell you that?
A. If you did, I didn't hear it.
In fact , as indicated by the stenographic transcript of the meeting introduced as an
exhibit by the respondent subsequent to the examination of this witness , Weinberg made
no such statement.
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While Weinberg presented to the employees three possible courses
of action, we are of the opinion that he placed special emphasis on
one of them-that of forming an inside union. He stated that the
employees had the right to form a new organization in place of the
Carroll Mutual Benefit Association, which he referred to as a "per-
fectly good organization," and gratuitously remarked that the
applause given to Rickell indicated in part that the workers favored
a plant union. Stating that "unfortunately" the respondent could
not help them, he said that they were free, immediately on leaving
the meeting, to form a new organization. By declaring that the
workers could, though they did not have to, contribute to anyone to
represent them in collective bargaining, Weinberg voiced an argu-
ment against a union of the affiliated type; by suggesting that advice
might be obtained from "other lawyers" or "plenty of business
men"-persons to whom it would be unnecessary for employees to
turn if they desired to join a union affiliated with a national organ-
ization-he pointed the way toward the formation of an inside union.
At the conclusion of the meeting Rickell consulted Elsie Arbaugh,
an office employee, and Ruby Bowers, a former president of the
Mutual, and suggested that action be taken immediately. These
women and Kathryn Copenhaver, then president of the Mutual, at
once approached Walsh, the city attorney, and requested his help in
forming a labor organization. Because of what Weinberg had said,
Walsh refused to discuss the matter in the Armory, but, when they
were outside, he told the women to see him the following day.
At about 2:30 o'clock on April 30, Arbaugh, who worked in the
coat shop, telephoned Rickell at the pants shop to tell her that there
was a great deal of agitation among the workers at the coat shop
for the formation of an inside union and that, if she could obtain a
hall, she was going to call a meeting of employees that afternoon.
A few minutes later she telephoned again to report that she had
secured a hall. Word of the meeting was passed around through the
plant. At 3 o'clock Evelyn Myers, an office employee in the pants
shop, at Rickell's direction rang the closing bell and all employees
quit work for the day.7
The meeting, which was held at the hall of the Junior Order of
United American Mechanics, was attended by all employees, including
supervisors. Gehr, a hardware dealer and plumber, who was present
as a representative of the Chamber of Commerce,8 was requested to
preside by Arbaugh, but declined, whereupon Arbaugh appointed
Rickell temporary chairman. Gehr addressed the assembly and said
7 During April and May 1937 , the usual closing time was 4 or 4: 30 o'clock
8 The record does not reveal haw the Chamber of Commerce or Gehr was informed of
this meeting. Rickell testified that the telephone calls from Arbaugh had occurred at
2 : 30 and 2: 45 o'clock, respectively . The meeting began at 3: 30.
L. GREIF & BRO., INCORPORATED 403
that the employees could join an outside union or form one of their
own and that the Chamber of Commerce would be "a hundred per
cent behind the people" whichever choice they made. Because the
hall was small and there was a great deal of confusion, no business
was transacted except that, at Arbaugh's suggestion, it was decided
to meet on the following Monday, May 3, at the Armory.
Rickell saw Walsh on Saturday, May 1. He agreed to help her
form an independent union and prepared the articles and bylaws of
the Association over the week end.
On May 3, the bell was again rung at 3 o'clock and the employees
left work to go to the Armory. Walsh presided and opened the
meeting by saying that the employees did not have to form an organ-
ization of their own and that they could join any outside union that
they desired to. Membership applications were distributed and signed
by 400 or 500 workers, including supervisory employees. Subsequently,
office and supervisory employees 9 were asked by Walsh to leave and a
motion was passed, by a unanimous voice vote, to form an inside
union. Thereafter, the articles of association and bylaws, previously
prepared by Walsh, were adopted and officers were elected. Three
prominent citizens of Westminster, including Wantz, the bank
cashier, and Frank Thomas, a retired contractor, both of whom had
been at the morning meeting on April 30, were present and served as
tellers for the election of officers.
At the Association meeting on May 12, a committee was selected to
request that the respondent grant the Association recognition as the
exclusive collective bargaining agency. On May 13, this committee
informed the respondent that the Association represented more than
51 per cent of the employees of the Westminster plant and offered to
exhibit signed membership cards, but it appears that the respondent
accepted the Association's tally and made no effort to count or verify
the cards. On May 15, the respondent granted the Association recog-
nition as the exclusive collective bargaining agency for its West-
minister employees. Subsequently employees solicited memberships
in the plant during working hours.
On June 30, the respondent and the Association entered into a writ-
ten contract concerning wages, hours, and working conditions, effective
as of June 14, for 1 year and thereafter unless terminated upon 90
days' notice given by either party prior to June 15 of any year. This
contract embodied a 10-per cent wage increase which had been previ-
ously negotiated and provided that, upon written authorization from
individual employees, dues to the Association would be checked off
from their wages. Blank forms for this authorization were prepared
Office employees were later permitted to participate in the activities of the Association.
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the respondent and signatures were solicited by Association
members at the plant during working hours.1°
On one occasion during hours, while their supervisors were at hand,
three employees were called away from their posts by members of
the Association and conducted to a vacant room, adjacent to but not
a part of the respondent's shop, where they were questioned by the
Board of Managers of the Association as to the reason for their par-
ticipation in the picketing of another Westminster business establish-
ment which, the managers feared, might embarrass the respondent.
None of these three employees was interrogated about or reprimanded
for this interruption of work, nor, so far as the record discloses, was
any officer of the Association.
While the respondent sought to avoid the appearance of interference
with and domination of its employees' selection of a bargaining rep-
resentative, the foregoing findings reveal that by its activities before,
in connection with, and after the formation of the Association the
respondent dominated and supported that organization.
Establishment of the Association followed so closely upon dissolution
of the Mutual that it is necessary, in order fully to understand the
respondent's relation to the former, to consider the effect of its domi-
nation and support of the latter. The respondent, by giving aid to the
Mutual, has conveyed to its workers the partiality with which it re-
garded inside unions. Experience with the Mutual had accustomed
them to collective action through a labor organization guided and
supported by the respondent. Thus by the time the Mutual was dis-
solved the background of the respondent's illegal conduct had served
to render its employees sensitive to its organizational preferences and
receptive to the idea of forming an unaffiliated union.
Under these circumstances the respondent should have exercised
especial care not only to remove the effects of its former invasion of
the rights which the Act guarantees to employees but also to observe
those rights in the future. Instead, however, with full knowledge
of the employees' habituation to its domination of their bargaining
agency and their readiness, upon suggestion, to adopt a form of
organization acceptable to it, the respondent pursued a course of con-
duct designed to prompt the formation and stimulate the develop-
ment of an inside union.
In April the Amalgamated began to organize the respondent's em-
ployees. The respondent learned of these efforts. On April 30, in
his speech at the Armory, Weinberg declared that it was necessary
to disband the Mutual but stated that the employees were free to
form a union of their own as soon as they left the hall. Persons
10 The Association paid the respondent $1.50 In July and $ .50 in September as "service
expense" for the check-off.
L. GREIF & BRO., IN CORPORATED 405
theretofore active in the Mutual immediately laid plans for an unaffili-
ated.union. There followed meetings which took place on the after-
noon of April 30 and on May 3 which were announced by the factory
bell, the same bell which had been rung to signal the meeting at which
the Mutual was dissolved, although prior to April 30, in so far as the
record discloses, it had never been sounded except by authority of
the respondent. Supervisory employees, moreover, attended the after-
noon meeting on April 30 and were not excluded from the May 3 as-
sembly until after they had signed membership applications. The
Association obtained 400 or 450-a large preponderance-of its mem-
bers at the latter meeting. The use of the factory bell to summon
meetings, the holding of these meetings during working hours, and
the attendance of supervisory employees made plain to the workers
that the respondent wanted them to form, join, and participate in
the activities of the Association. We find that the respondent dom-
inated and interfered with the formation of the Association.
Even after the Association was established the respondent con-
tinued to grant employees extraordinary privileges to facilitate their
participation in its activities. In so far as the record discloses, all
but one of the Association's meetings were held during working
hours.- Two or three of them took place in the morning, the work-
ers leaving the plant to attend the meetings and then returning to
work at their conclusion. Before each meeting the bells were rung
at the direction of an Association member without objection from
the respondent. To announce at least one meeting a notice was posted
on a time clock by an office girl. On the single occasion when an
attempt was made to hold a meeting after hours, the attendance was
so small that the meeting was called off. Rickell testified that she
had, without objection, "gone around the plant doing business" for
the Association. We have seen that Association officers attended
meetings of its Board of Managers and were permitted to summon
employees from their posts during hours, and that solicitation of
members and of check-off authorizations took place in the shop.
The respondent's attempt to explain why it tolerated the Asso-
ciation's disruption of its working schedule is not convincing. After
employees had walked out and held their first meeting during work-
ing hours, Mannino reported to Irvin Greif that there would prob-
ably be other requests to hold such meetings and inquired as to what
course he should pursue. Greif testified :
After conferring with counsel , that is, after conferring with
you (Weinberg), we instructed (Mannino) that if he got re-
"The record contains references to at least six meetings . The Association 's bylaws,
never honored by observance in this respect , provide that meetings should be held on the
first Monday evening in each month The record indicates that the Mutual held its
meetincs on 'Monday evenings and not during working hours
187930-39-vol 13-27
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quests for those meetings during the day that he should allow
them; because he explained to me that a lot of our workers
lived out of town and that the people had said that it would
be hard to get the workers at the meetings later in the evening,
and for that reason we felt it good judgment to allow them to
hold these meetings during the day, if they wanted to do it,
because of the fact we were trying to run a clothing business
and we certainly could not continue to have this upset going
on like it had been going on.
Subsequently, when asked what "upset" he was referring to, he
explained :
There was so much discussion going on about the whole affair
that our counsel felt it was all right to allow these meetings in
order to get through.12
We find that Greif, in issuing his instructions to Mannino, was
motivated quite as much by solicitude for the successful development
of the Association as by concern over the "upset" that organizational
activity was causing in the conduct of the business. In order to
establish the Association, the respondent relaxed the discipline which
it customarily maintained over its workers. Moreover, it temporarily
relinquished its claim to the employees' productive efforts, without,
however, according them freedom to engage in their own pursuits
because implicit in their license to leave the plant was an injunction
to attend the Association meetings. We find, that by permitting
plant facilities to be used for summoning meetings and by permitting
meetings and other activities during working hours, the respondent
interfered with and supported the Association.
Soon after the Association was formed the respondent recognized
it as the exclusive collective bargaining agency of its employees.
Recognition lent the Association prestige which aided it in obtaining
members. That the respondent did not even verify the membership
claimed by the Association is evidence of the favor with which it
regarded that organization. The respondent's subsequent concession
of the check-off was made with a readiness which presents a sharp
contrast to the hostility with which employers customarily meet a,
demand for this accommodation. By instituting the check-off the
respondent rendered the Association financially stable, placed upon
it another sign of its approval, and gave it tangible support.
That the Mutual was illegal was admitted by the respondent, and
we have found that the formation of the Association was intimately
12 The allowance of meetings was not a merely temporary expedient , for the Association
was permitted to hold them during working hours in May, June, July, and August. (The
last meeting prior to the hearing was in August )
L. GREIF & BRO., INCORPORATED 407
connected with the prior existence of the Mutual.'s Through Wein-
berg's speech the respondent made known to the employees its pref-
erence for an inside union.14 Officers of the Association were per-
mitted during working hours to engage in Association business, to
summon employees to appear before them, and to use plant equip-
ment for announcing meetings,"" which all employees were allowed
to attend during the workday without objection from the respond-
ent.1e Supervisors were present at the early meetings which led to
the Association's establishment and at one of them they signed mem-
bership applications. From these facts it is evident that the respond-
ent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration
of the Association. After the Association was formed the respondent
quickly accorded it recognition 11 and subsequently agreed to institute
a check-off system,18 thereby giving additional assistance to the
dominated organization.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association and has con-
tributed support to it, and has thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
.Upon the whole record we find that 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
' See Kansas City Structural Steel Company and International Association of Bridge.
St) uctural and Ornamental Iron Workers , Shopmen Workers , Local 520 et al., 12 N. L. R. B.
327; Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee et al., 9 N. L R B.
783.
14 See Western Garment Manufacturing Co et al and Paul M. Peterson, President,
Utah State Federation of Labor, 10 N. L. R. B. 567 ; Inland Steel Company and Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, supra; Yates-American Machine Company and Amalga-
mated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1787, 7 N. L.
R. B. 627.
15 See Indianapolis Glove Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
Local No. 145, 5 N. L. R. B 231 ( meeting announced over loudspeaker ) ; New Idea, Inc.
and The A. F. of L, 5 N. L. R . B. 381 ( meeting announced by foremen).
16 See Lady Ester Lingerie Corp. and International Ladies Garment Workers Union-
Affiliate with the Committee for Industrial Org., 10 N. L. R B. 518; and cases supra,
footnote 15.
17 See The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin
Workers of North America, Lodge 1528, 6 N. L. R. B. 654, order enforced 102 F. (2d) 383
(C. C. A., 7th) ; Lady Ester Lingerie Corp. and International Ladies Garment Workers
Union--Affiliate with the Committee for Industrial Org., supra ; G. Sommers & Co. and
Warehouse Employees Union No. 20297, of St. Paul, 5 N. L. R . B. 992; Regal Shirt Co.
and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 567.
1a See Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen, 2 N. L. R. B. 431, order enforced 303 U. S. 272; Carlisle Lumber Company
and Lumber and Sawmill Workers', Local 2511, Onalaska, Washington and Associated
Employees of Onalaska , Intervener, 2 N. L. It. B. 248, order enforced 94 F. (2d) 138
t(C.,C., A. 9th) and 99 F. ( 2d) 533 (C. C. A. 9th), certiorari denied 304 U. S 575 and
306 U S 646.
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association and contributed
support to it. It is essential in order to effectuate the purposes and
policies of the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from those activities and practices and to take certain affirmative
action more particularly described below.
The effects and consequences of 'the respondent's support, domi-
nation, and interference with the Association as well as continued
recognition of the Association as collective bargaining representative
of its employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise
by its employees of their right to self-organization and to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing. In order
to make the cease and desist portion of our order effective and to
remove this obstacle to the exercise of rights guaranteed under the
Act, we will order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from
and to disestablish the Association 19 as collective bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees .211
We have found that the respondent, as of June 14, 1937, entered
into an agreement with the Association concerning wages, hours, and
working conditions, to continue in effect from year to year unless 90
days' notice of a desire to terminate the agreement be given by either
party prior to June 15 of any year. We find that this contractual
relationship was a means by which the respondent utilized an em-
ployer-dominated labor organization to stifle self-organization among
and defeat collective bargaining by its employees. Under these
circumstances, any continuation, renewal, or modification of the con-
tract between the respondent and the Association would perpetuate
the forces which have deprived employees of the rights guaranteed
by the Act and would render ineffective other portions of our reme-
dial order. We will therefore direct the respondent to cease giving
effect to any contract existing between it and the Association 21
10 Our order will refer to the Association, "its successors and assigns ," because prior
to the hearing members of the Association procured a corporate charter with the intention
of transferring all assets , liabilities , and contracts of the Association to the incorporated
organization.
^ Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and
Tin Workers of North America, Local 66, 5 N L R B 930, order sustained as modified,
306 U. S 240 ; Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc et al and Local Division No 166.4 of
The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, 1 N. L R B. 1, order enforced 303 U. S. 261
21 Williams Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 23, 11
N L. R B 579; West Kentucky Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America,
District No. 23, 10 N L. R. B. 88.
L. GREIF & BRO., INCORPORATED 409
The record discloses that the respondent contracted with the Asso-
ciation to check off dues from the wages of Association members on
the basis of authorizations secured from employees. Consent to the
deductions was affected and induced by the same pressures as those
which stimulated the formation and development of the Association.
Conscious of the respondent 's solicitude for that organization, em-
ployees could not choose freely whether or not to authorize the dues
check-off . We shall direct the respondent to reimburse its employees
for amounts deducted from their wages as dues to the Association .12
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Baltimore Joint
Board, and The Carroll Workers Association of Westminster are
labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of The Carroll Workers Association of
Westminster, and by contributing support to it, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
3. 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
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 respondent, L. Greif & Bro., Inc., and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of The
Carroll Workers Association of Westminster, its successors and as-
signs, or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing support to
The Carroll Workers Association of Westminster, its successors and
assigns, or to any other labor organization of its employees;
22 Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company and Tewtsle Workers Organizing Committee,
8 N L R B 244; The Heller Brothe,s Company of Newcomerstown aid Internationah
Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L R B 646.
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Giving effect to its contract, or any modification or renewal
thereof, with The Carroll Workers Association of Westminster, its
successors and assigns;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, 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. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from The Carroll Workers Asso-
ciation of Westminster, its successors and assigns, as the representa-
tive of any 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 The Carroll Workers Association of Westminster, its
successors and assigns, as such representative;
(b) Reimburse its employees for dues which it has- checked, of,
from their wages on behalf of The Carroll Workers Association of
Westminster, its successors and assigns;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its West-
minster plant copies of this Order;
(d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took' no part in the considerat 'on' of
the above Decision and Order.