Northwestern Mutual Fire Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1943

46 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE AssocIATION , A CORrO-
RATION, NORTHWEST CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION , AND E. M.
GREENWOOD and OFFICE, EMPLOYEES UNION, INSURANCE DIVISION
LOCAL 22418, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-2257.-Decided January 7, 1943,
Jurisdiction : casualty insurance industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
.Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: maintaining surveillance over union meet-
ing ; disparaging union and union's leaders ; attempting to influence union
leader to abandon organizational activities; coercing union leader to destroy
union membership cards and to abandon union.
Company-Dominated Union: disparity of treatment between "outside" union and
"inside" union ; solicitation by company 'representatives of members for "in-
side" organization ; domination- and control of administration' of "inside"
organization by company supervisors and representatives ; financial support
and assistance.
Discrimination-Testifying Under Act: transfer and demotion and refusal to
return to former position of ,employee because of -union membership and
activity, and because employee gave testimony under the Act.
Remedial Orders: Companies ordered to disestablish dominated organization,
abrogate contract therewith, and to reinstate with back pay employee dis-
criminated against ; individual found to be an employer and acting in the in-
terest of Companies, ordered to cease and desist his unfair labor practices
and post notices thereof on the main door of his suite of offices.
Definitions : individual, acting in interest of respondents, held employer within
the meaning of. Section,2 (2) of the Act.
Mr. Daniel R. Dimick and Mr. Louis Penfield, for the Board.
Shank, Belt, Rode d Cook, by Mr. Jo D. Cook, of Seattle, Wash.,
for the respondents.
Teter, Roberts f Shefellman, by Mr. F. M. Roberts, of Seattle,
Wash., for the Association.
Mr. Marvin C. Wahl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Office Employees Union,
Insurance Division, Local 22418, affiliated with the American Federa-
46 N. L. R. B., No. 92. '
825
'826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint dated
March 19, 1942, against Northwestern Mutual Fire Association and
Northwest Casualty Company,- herein-,individually referred 'to as
Mutual and Casualty and collectively called the respondents, and
E. M. Greenwood, an individual, herein called Greenwood, alleging
that the respondents and Greenwood had engaged in and were engag-
ing 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 Relation Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act,, and that the
respondents had engaged in and'wereengaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce ' within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, together
with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondents,
Greenwood, the Union, and 'Association of Insurance Employees,
alleged in the complaint to be company-dominated and herein called
the Association.
Withi respect' to the, unfair :labor practices, -the, corriplaint' alleged
in substance that (1), on or about December 5, 1940, and thereafter, the
respondents and Greenwood promoted, sponsored, dominated, and
interfered with the 'formation and administration of the Association
,and contributed financial and other support to it; (2) the respondents
-transferred and demoted- Raymond J. O'Connell to a less desirable
-and less remunerative position because of his membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union; and (3) by these acts and by dis-
.,paraging the Union, warning the employees not to become or remain
members of the Union, questioning employees as to union membership,
and maintaining surveillance of 'the union organizational meeting,
the respondents and Greenwood have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the employees of the respondents in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. - - -
On April 10, 1942, the respondents filed their answer, denying that
they were engaged in commerce within the meaning of - the Act and
that they had committed any unfair labor practices. Greenwood
failed to file an answer. -
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from April 27 to May 9, 1942,
inclusive, at Seattle, Washington, before Thomas S. Wilson, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The' Board,
the respondents, and - the Association -were 'represented by counsel.,
Greenwood made no appearance. At the commencement of the hear-
ing, the Association moved to intervene in the proceeding; the motion
' • NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL, FIRE ASSOCIATION 827
wa's granted. Thereafter • the Association filed an answer denying that
it had been dominated or interfered with by the respondents. All
parties except Greenwood 1 participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was. afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing , the complaint was amended to
allege that the respondents had discharged Raymond J. O'Connell,
xn violation of Section 8 (4) of the Aet,2 because he gave , testimony
at the hearing, and the respondents amended their answer to allege
that he . had been discharged because he " improperly , secretly and
without permission copied private records of these respondents' and
communicated the contents of such records to outside parties." Dur-
ing the course of the ' hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner, alid finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed: The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated
July 9, 1942, copies of,which were duly served upon the parties. He
.found that the'respondents had engaged in and were engaging in un-
fair labor practices ; within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and
(4) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and that Greenwood, had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices , within the
cleaning of Section 8 ('1) and ( 2) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
Act. He - recomnnended thattthe respondents and Greenwood cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, including the rein-
statement by the respondents of Raymond J. O'Connell with back
pay, deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. On Au-
gust 21 and 26, 1942 , the Association and the respondents , respectively,
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support
thereof.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held - before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C:, on September 8, 1942, for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondents were represented by counsel and -presented argument
to the Board.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and the briefs in'support thereof, and , insofar as the exceptions
'are, inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth
below, finds them to be without merit.
TJpon• the entire record in the case, the Board snakes the following :
1 Although Greenwood was not represented at the hearing, he testified as a witness for
the respondents
2A supplemental charge concerning the discharge of O'Connell was duly filed by the
Union.
I
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondent Northwestern Mutual Fire Association is a mutual
corporation having its principal place of business and home office in
the Northwestern Mutual Insurance Building in Seattle, Washington.
It is engaged in the business of providing indemnity against loss by
fire and allied hazards. It does business in the 48 States of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and the mainland Provinces of the
Dominion of Canada through various departmental offices located in
10 States of the United States and 2 Provinces of the Dominion of
Canada.
The business of Northwestern'Mutual Fire Association is managed
and directed. by, officers and directors located at the home office. All
drafts used in the payment of losses in the United States are drawn on
Seattle banks.
As of December 31, 1941, there • were, in force with Northwestern
Mutual Fire Association net premiums totaling $13,265,829:10. In the
year 1941, the total net' premiums which it received for all policies
written amounted to $7,945,569.02, of which all but $853,725.43 was
received from outside the State of Washington. During that year,
the net'amount paid for losses amounted to $2,587,918.17, of which all
but $280,841.55 was paid to claimants outside the State of Washington.
On December 31, 1941, Mutual's admitted assets totaled $10,630,-
465.80.' Among such assets were :
Cash (including deposits in banks) ----------------- $2,563,058.46
U. S. and Canadian Government bonds and obliga-
tions ------------------------------------------- *2,952,425.-00,
U S. and Canadian political subdivisions ----------- *963,110.56
Railroad bonds----------------------------------- *326,368.40
Public Utility bonds------------------------ ------ *78, 350. 00
Industrial and Miscellaneous bonds---------------- *158, 110. 00
Stocks---------------------------------------- *1,313,009.37
• (Market value).
The respondent Northwest Casualty Company is a stock corpora-
tion having its home office and principal place of business in the North-
western Mutual Insurance Building in Seattle. It occupies the same
offices as Northwestern Mutual Fire Association and the employees of
both corporations are identical. Northwestern Mutual Fire Associa-
tion owns all the stock of Northwest Casualty Company. The officers
and directors of the two corporations are substantially identical.
Northwest Casualty Company is engaged primarily in. the business
of writing automobile casualty and liability, plate glass, and burglary
insurance in 16 States of the United States and 2 Provinces of the
I
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 829
Dominion of Canada. It insures both commercial and ,private auto-
mobiles against various types of losses and liability. In the year 1941,
the net premiums which it received for all policies written amounted
to $2,915,167.12, of which $1,156,454.79 was received for policies writ-
ten in the State of Washington. The net losses paid by it during that
year,amounted to $1,157,246.06. As of December 31, 1941, there were
in force net premiums totaling $2,989,406.71. On that date the ad-
mitted assets totaled $3,477,063.31. Among such assets were :
Cash (including deposits in banks) ---------------- $329,472.41
U. S. and Canadian Government bonds_____________ *1, 540,159.00
States, Territories, and Possessions-bonds--------- *243,300.00
Political Subdivisions---bonds ---------------------- *979,551.93
Railroad bonds___________________________________ *44,646.98
*(Market value).
It has funds on deposit in banks located in various States and
Provinces.
The respondent E. M. Greenwood is an individual who sometime
prior to 1933 subleased to the respondents the Seattle building in which
their home offices are located. Greenwood renamed the building the
"Northwest Mutual Insurance Building" as part of the inducement
for the execution of the lease. Greenwood, as manager of the build-
ing, occupies an office there from which he supervises'the maintenance
of the building. In 1934, at the respondents' request, the building
underwent a large amount of remodeling. The work was financed by
a loan made to Greenwood by the respondents and secured by him
through a mortgage on the building. In December 1940, there was
about $423,000 still due on this loan. As manager of the building,
Greenwood. has also carried a substantial amount of insurance with
the' respondents. Greenwood, who' was also 'a promoter, had secured
personal loans from the respondents as his promotional activities
required.
In view of the nature and scope of their activities, we find that the
respondents are engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act .-3
II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Office Employees Union, Insurance Division, Local 22418, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,' ad-
mitting to membership employees of the respondents.
Association of 'Insurance Employees is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation, admitting to membership employees of the respondents.
P
3 See Matter of Polish National Alliance of the United States of North America and
Office Employees' Union No. 20732, A. F. of L, 42 N. L R. B. 1375; Matter of John Han-
cock Life Insurance Company and American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insur-
ance Agents Union No. 21571, 26 N. L. R. B. 1024.
830 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR =RELATIONS. BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
'a
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion; domination and interference
with the formation and a dministratio't o f the Association
In October-1940, Howard Sylvester, a 'salaried salesman in the em-
ploy of the respondents at their home - office` in Seattle, conceived the
idea of organizing a union of the respondents" home office employees,
to be affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Sylvester, 'as=
sisted by Raymond J. O'Connell, assistant ,cashier, carried on a secret
organizational campaign with considerable : success. Subsequently
they announced plans for a general meeting of x,11 'the employees to
be held at a local hotel on December 4, 1940, after working hours, for
the purpose of forming a labor organization. . ,
On. the morning of December 4, L. C. Downing, assistant treasurer,
of the respondents in charge of purchasing and banking, learned that
the A. F. of L. meeting was to take place. He testified that his in-
formant was an employee whose name he could not recall. Downing
promptly related this information to L. D. Brill, the respondents'
secretary and treasurer. Brill testified that the news' came to him as a
"surprise, a bombshell.".
As a result of this information, a special meeting of the respondents'
governing staff 4 was held that afternoon. M. D. L., Rhodes, presi-
dent, Corwin S. Shank, general counsel and vice chairman of the board
of directors, and Brill attended the meeting. Brill testified that the
governing staff determined to send Downing and Ainsworth Blogg,
the respondents' personnel officer, to the organizational meeting to see,
"what was' going on" and "to report back" to Brill. Thereafter, Brill
sent for Downing and Blogg and ordered them to attend the union
meeting, to report the facts back to him, to take no part in the dis-
cussion, and to leave if requested to do so.,
The Union held 'its scheduled meeting, at ,which a ,group of em-
ployees variously estimated as numbering from 50 to 80 were present.
Among the last persons to arrive were Downing and Blogg, who took
seats in the rear: After Sylvester,, as chairman of the meeting, had
welcomed the management representatives,'he and Charles C. Hughes,
an A. F. of L. organizer, delivered addresses. At the conclusion of
the speeches, Sylvester, requested Downing and Blogg to leave the
meeting, and they complied. Thereafter a number of the persons
present signed membership application cards. 4
Following their arrival at the office on December 5,•Downing and
Blogg made their, report on the union meeting to Brill. Later they
4M D. L Rhodes,, president, -Corwin S Shank, general counsel and vice chairman of,
the board of directors, and J H. Edhhards,,chairmanlof the board of directors, constituted,
the governing staff, which has authority to conduct the affairs of the companies between
quarterly meetings of the board of directors.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 831,
repeated the report at the regular daily meeting-of the governing staff;
which was also attended by Attorney Belt, a member of Shank's firm.
According to Brill's uncontradicted testimony, which we credit, Down-
ing and Blogg recounted the names of some of the persons present at
the meeting, mentioning expressly those of Sylvester and O'Connell,
and described the course of the meeting. They reported that Sylves-
ter's talk had been one "berating the organization [the' respondents],
its attitude towards its employees, tremendous salaries that were paid
to, executives, and the aihount-of money they had available; and the.
assets, and so on and so forth." The governing staff then directed Brill
to prepare the following notice :
DECEMBER 5, 1940.
Yesterday it came to my attention for the first time that certain
employees were considering forming a union. This is to advise
you that if anyone in your department asks your views 'with
reference to this, you inform them that under the law the company,
is not permitted to give advice on the subject.
(Signed) L., D. BRInr,
Secretary.
Copies , of this notice were distributed that afternoon to the heads of
all- the respondents' departments. Although the respondents, in their
answer alleged that these notices were posted on their bulletin boards,
there is no such evidence in the record.
On the morning of December 5, according to the uncontradicted
testimony of W. H. Crisman, manager of the respondents' Seattle Sales
Agency in which Sylvester worked, Sylvester informed Crisman that
"we" had formed a union of the employees the previous evening.
Crisman testified that he inquired as to who "we" were, and that Syl-
vester named a few of the individual members. According to Sylvester,
Crisman then stated,, "Sylvester, you sure got a,low-minded bunch in
that union." ^ Crisman testified that he might have made this statement.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the statement was made by
Crisman. Crisman further testified that he also asked Sylvester during
this conversation whether he was working for the respondents or for
the Union. Shortly thereafter, Crisman reported this conversation to
J. D. Fletcher who, as head of the Washington Department, was Cris-
man's immediate superior. The following day Crisman reported the
conversation'to Brill. '
During the same morning, Sylvester entered J. D. Fletcher's office
and told him that he was organizing a union. Crisman had already
reported to Fletcher his conversation with Sylvester. Fletcher testified
that he isked, Sylvester what his interest was in organizing the Union,
to which Sylvester replied that in his opinion the duties of .a, business.
V
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agent and the functions of an insurance salesman were not incompatible,
and" that he intended to be both.
Fletcher further testified , and we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that after Sylvester had departed , Fletcher telephoned Sylvester's
wife, who had been Fletcher 's secretary for 3 years prior to her mar-
riage, and inquired whether her husband was , not "going off the deep
end again ," referring to a nervous ailment which Sylvester had suffered
the previous year. After telling her of her husband 's activities on
behalf of the Union , Fletcher asked if he was "actually serious" about
the Union . Mrs. Sylvester replied that her husband was in good
health and was "entirely serious and conscientious" about the Union.
Upon completing this call , Fletcher immediately telephoned John
Sylvester , Howard's brother and a long-time friend and fraternity
brother of Fletcher. John Sylvester was an attorney , associated with
a firm representing a number of insurance companies, and John testified
that he was eager to secure more such clients . John further testified
that Fletcher ,told him of his-brother 's union activities - and stated that
matters "had come to a head ," that "there had to be a decision one way
or the other." Fletcher admitted that he told John , "all I wanted to
know was whether Howard would decide whether he was an insurance
agent or an organizer ." As a result of this conversation , John im-
mediately telephoned Howard and requested Howard to come to see him
at once. When Howard arrived , John informed him that Fletcher
had telephoned him. John testified that he told Howard "that he
could not combine insurance work with union work . .. and that
his activities would reach the point where he would have to decide,
one way or the other ." He further testified that he impressed upon
Howard the position that he, John; would be in if his brother were
doing things "that were known to, be adverse to insurance companies"
and that it would be embarrassing to him as an attorney representing
insurance companies to have his brother "on the other side of the
picture." Howard testified that John further said W him, "I want
you'to drop [the Union ] and get outof it. You are not going to help
yourself and you are not going to help me." John Sylvester testified
that he was not certain of having made these statements , but did not ,
deny having made them. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
John made the statements which Howard attributed to him. Both
John and Howard acknowledged that the conversation became heated
before Howard departed.
Shank testified that sometime later he learned of Fletcher 's telephone
calls to Mrs. Howard Sylvester and John Sylvester and privately repri-
manded him for making them . No intimation , however, was 'given by
the respondents't& either Howard Sylvester or the employees that the
respondents disapproved of Fletcher 's conduct.
u
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE 'ASSOCIATION 833
Also on the morning of December 5, the union meeting of the
previous evening was the ' general topic of conversation among the
employees. Promptly upon their arrival at the office, Frank Fletcher
and Paine Paul, two employees who had attended the meeting, went
to the office of O. Jacobsen, their superior and head of the .collection
department, and, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Frank
'Fletcher, told Jacobsen about the events of the union meeting, that they
disapproved of the Union, and "that we wish to go on record to form an
[independent] union." According to Fletcher,'Jacobsen made no com-
ment. 'Thereafter, Frank Fletcher spent a considerable part of the
clay in obtaining 'information as to how to form an "independent"
union.
Other employees of the respondents, independently of Fletcher, also
took an active interest in investigating methods of forming an unaffili-
ated union. Ransom Calkins, a commissioned salesman, Pat Griffin
and John Jewett, two of the respondents' highest paid salaried sales-
inen,5 sought information from Crisman, their superior, about forming
an unaffiliated union, but according to Crisman, he told them only what
he had learned from his earlier conversation with Sylvester.
On the same day, according to the testimony of employee Lynn Long,
one of the active union members, Schnoberger, head of the auditing
department, inquired of 'Long about the Union and stated 'that Syl=
wester was "nothing but a racketeer," whose only interest in forming'
the Union was personal financial gain. Sylvester, having been in-
formed of this comment, testified that he told Brill about Schnoberger's
remark and that Brill replied :
You can't hold me responsible for what a man thinks about
unions; .... After all, Sylvester, there is,a lot of loose talk on the
part of the boys, about these unions, that there is some profit in it.,
Schnoberger was not called as a witness, and Brill did not testify with
respect to this conversation. We find, accordingly, as did the Trial
Examiner, that conversations occurfed in accordance with the uiicon-
troverted testimony of Long and Sylvester.
That afternoon, the governing staff called a meeting of all depart-
ment heads in Rhodes' office. Shank, as general counsel, presided. He
inquired if all those present had received copies of Brill's notice. After
receiving affirmative answers, Shank testified that he told them that
"there was a movement on between two' opposing factions in the [North-
western Mutual Fire]. Association, theA. F. L. on the one hand and
6 Although Calkins 'iris the leader iii the foiinat`ion of the Association, he failed to
join the Association after its formation. claiming that he was ineligible for member-
ship since he was not an employee , but was an independent contractor . After the Asso-
ciation began - functioning , Griffin and Jewett restricted their activities in the Associa-
tion to allowing their dues to be checked off.
504086-43-vol 46-53
834, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apparently some who were starting up a private union on the other."
Shank testified that he was unable to recall where or from whom he had
heard of the second "movement ." $o far as the record discloses, no
overt move had yet been made by the groups headed by Calkins or
Frank Fletcher in forming the Association , nor had either group even
given publicity to its ' ideas, except that Calkins had made known to
Crisman , and Frank Fletcher had advised Jacobsen of, their respective,
intentions . After Shank stated that the supervisors should have noth-
ing to do with any movement for a labor organization , Attorney Belt
read a portion of the Act and emphasized the need for neutrality on
the part of the supervisors. '
The following day, December 6, was ,one of such intense activity
around the building that, as 'respondents ' officials all testified , hardly
any insurance work was done . . Sometime during working hours that
morning, the groups headed by Calkins and Frank Fletcher, according
to Griffin , "consolidated" and determined upon a plan to form an in-
dependent union in opposition to the A, F. of L. They met at the desk
of Evelyn Humel, a clerk in the supply department who had been in the
respondents ' employ since 1923. The record discloses that Humel was
closely connected with all social functions conducted by the respond-
ents for its employees and was an intimate friend of Mrs. Neely; private
secretary to President Rhodes. With the assistance of F. M . Roberts,
an attorney who was consulted over one of the telephones in the supply
department ,•the group , determined upon the phraseology of petitions
to be circulated among the employees . As Roberts had informed,them
that such petitions , should not be typed on company property, Calkins,
Jewett, and Griffin went to the office of Greenwood , which was on the
fourth'floor of the 'building occupied by the respondents , and per-
suaded Miss Henry, his secretary , to type five copies each of the' two
following petitions :
DECEMBER 6, 1940.
We, the undersigned , wish to affix our signatures to this 'petition
for the purpose of expressing a preference , to establish an inde-
pendent labor Union to act as a collective bargaining agency for
improving conditions, and compensation.
DECEMBER 6, 1940.
We, the undersigned , who have previously signed an A. F. of L.
application, upon reconsidering , withdraw our signatures in favor
of an independent' labor Union to act as a collective bargaining
agency for improving working conditions and compensation:.,
'After Miss Henry had , typed the " petitions , a 'copy of each was .taken
by Calkins , Jewett , and Griffin . Calkins testified that he was unable
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 835
to recall who received the other 2 copies of the petitions. These 3 spent
the remainder of the day in circulating the petitions from department
to department and soliciting the employees to sign one or the other of
them. In the course of his solicitation, Calkins told some of the em-
ployees that "the company would take away the Old Age Retirement
Program if the A. F. L. became the bargaining agent" and character-
ized,Sylvester as a "racketeer." He further testified that he probably-
told some of the employees that Sylvester would reap considerable
financial gain from the Union and that, therefore, they should sign a
revocation. By the end of the day, Calkins, Jewett, and Griffin had
secured a total of 188 signatures.
Meanwhile, Wayne Richardson, in the claims department, had se-
cured, three or four signatures of employees of that department after
he himself had signed the petition. He later struck out his signature-
Richardson at that time was a claims examiner. In addition to adjust-
ing claims himself, he reviewed the claims files of other adjusters. The
claims which he reviewed were paid after he certified to their correct-
ness. At, times he was consulted as to the quality of the work of some
of the adjusters. In performing his duties, lie had occasion to give
instructions to and advise adjusters when the files appeared to him to
be incomplete. His name was one of three appearing on the stationery
of the claims 'department; the other two names were those of ad-
mittedly supervisory employees. Richardson had authority to settle
claims without supervision in amounts not exceeding $500. Lynn
Long, who worked in the claims department, testified that Richard-
son assisted Stuckrath, who supervised the adjusters, and that Rich-
ardson's approval of any file would relieve Long of responsibility.
He testified further that Richardson frequently gave him orders. This
testimony was not denied. We find that Richardson's duties allied
him more ,closely with the management than with the employees, and-
that the employees had just, cause to believe that he acted for and on
behalf of the management. Accordingly, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondents are responsible for the activities of
Richardson.6
Sometime during the same day, Sylvester' saw Rhodes and told hint
that they had organized an A. F. of L'. union, that he thought a major-
ity of the employees had authorized the Union to represent them, and
that they would soon present him with a contract. Rhodes listened
to Sylvester without comment. Later, after learning of the circula-
tion of the petitions, Sylvester testified that he'again went to Rhodes
and complained about the circulation of the petitions, which as them
going on, and about rumors that a meeting was to be held' on company i
e International Association of Machinists v. N. L R. B., 311 U. S 72 ; 73 rJ Heinz
Co. v. N. L. R. B, 311 U. S. 514.
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
property to form another labor organization and asked him not to
permit these activities. Brill was called in. Sylvester testified, with-
out contradiction, that Rhodes and Brill both told him that under the
law the respondents could not interfere with the union activities of
their employees and showed Sylvester the notice which had been sent
'to- the department heads. Concerning the meeting, Brill told Syl-
vester, according to Brill's testimony, "We would-stop it, so far as
the company premises were concerned, but that was as far,as we could
go and that As as far as we would go." Brill denied that Sylvester
mentioned the circulation of the petitions at this conference. Brill
testified that neither he nor other officials of the' respondents knew of
the circulation of the petitions until ' the hearing. However, accord-
ing to Griffin's testimony, some -of' the supervisors "undoubtedly ob-
.served"hire ti'liile lie was,engaged in'ctrdiilating the petitions. Rhodes
was not called as a witness. In view of the extent of the 'activities
and Richardson's participation, we••find, as did 'the Trial Examiner,
that Sylvester mentioned the circulation of the petitions to Brill and
Rhodes. The respondents made no move to stop the circulation of the
petitions; the meeting of the employees to form an independent union
was, however, not held on company property.
As Sylvester was leaving the building after work on December 6,
he met Greenwood at the entrance to the latter's office on the fourth
floor of the building. Greenwood testified that he already knew some-
thing of the union activity through Miss Henry, his secretary. Syl-
a-ester's and Greenwood's testimony as to what occurred on that occa-
sion is in substantial accord and to the following effect : The men
'entered Greenwood's private office, where Greenwood said, "What is
this that is -going on?" When Sylvester replied that he was'organiz-
ang a union, Greenwood stated, "I; am sure a lot disappointed in you,
young fellow, for getting-into something like that. You are on the
wroug''track . . . Anybody'that would get tied up with a union
pike that would be nothing but a racketeer; they are out to get the
dough; they are nothing but a bunch of cutthroats." Greenwood in-
sisted upon knowing whether, Sylvester was organizing the Union in
-order to :Hake money out of it. Sylvester acknowledged that it was
'his intention to become its business agent. Thereupon Greenwood
told Sylvester about a financial scheme which Greenwood had at one
time attempted to promote as a union and which had failed. Green-
wood told Sylvester that thereafter he was unable to sell "a dime's
worth of insurance" because he called this money-making plan a
"union." Greenwood continued, "You go ahead and get yourself
into this union and you won't be able to sell any insurance, . . .
I will see to it that,you won't "sell one dollar's worth of insurance,
you will never be able to set your foot .in- the, door of, an in-
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL' FIRE ASSOCIATION 837
surance company." Greenwood added, "You know Shank never for-
gets a name ; look what happened to Adolph Linden, he sent him to
the penitentiary." Greenwood, who was at that time Sylvester' s larg-
est insurance client, also threatened to take his account away from
Sylvester. After further conversation of a similar nature, the men
separated. Sylvester testified that he left in despair, worried about his
economic future.
While Sylvester was at dinner that evening, Greenwood called and
said that it was urgent that he see Sylvester. They met shortly there-
after at Greenwood's office. After giving Sylvester a glass of wine;
Greenwood told him "In the next few hours, you are either going up
the right road or you are going down the wrong road, and you are
going to be looking for a job. I am going to see that you are black-
balled. Shank knows about it [the Union] ; Dent [Hawthorne Dent,
president of General Insurance Company of America] knows about
it; and I think that every insurance man in the Northwest knows what
will happen to you if you are blackballed . . . You are in a posi-
tion where you are either going to be a hero, or you are going down
hill .i . . It will help me inunensely, and it will benefit you im-
mensely, if you will get out of it." Greenwood continued, "You will
not page a chance in the world with any insurance company in this
State or any other State." Greenwood then asked Sylvester as to the
whereabouts of the'Union's "records." After first stating that they
were '`at the A. F. of L. office," Sylvester finally admitted that, they
were at his home. Greenwood testified that he--telephoned Brill and
told him, "I had a man in my' office that had been doing sonic work
that he was not particularly proud of and that he wanted to come out
and make amends and apologize and forget the whole business." He
then stated that Sylvester was in his office,;that they wanted to come
out to Brill's home, and requested Brill to have a fire lit m his fire-
place. Brill consented to the arrangement and acknowledged at the
hearing that lie knew that Greenwood and Sylvester wanted to talk
to him about Sylvester's union activities.
Greenwood then drove Sylvester to the latter's home, where Sylves-'
ter secured most of the signed membership cards and authorization
cards of the Union. At that time , the employees had executed 95 of'
- the former and •18,to 21 of the latter. The 2 men proceeded to Brill's
home where, after Greenwood told Brill that Sylvester was sorry and
wanted to make amends and after Sylvester had apologized for his
activities, Sylvester proceeded to burn the union cards in the fireplace.
This finding is in accordance with Sylvester's testimony . Greenwood testified that
Sylvester telephoned him that evening and asked to see him. However, in an affidavit
pievioasly given to a Board Field Exanunei, Greenwood stated that he had telephoned
Sylvester on this occasion , and we therefore find, as did the Trial Examiner , that Green-
wood telephoned Sylvester. f
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Greenwood testified without contradiction, and we find, that as the
men were leaving, Brill patted Sylvester on the back and said, "That
is all right. Forget it, Howard. We all make mistakes sometime or
other, and if you feel you have made a mistake and if there is any-
thing we can do for you, we certainly want to do it.' We are glad to
help anybody that we can and glad to cooperate to the extent of our,
ability to do so."
Greenwood's testimony shows that since 1933 he had been closely as-
sociated with the officials of the respondents. He had leased all but
3 of the 13 floors of the building to them. As manager of the building,',
he had been charged with the duty of maintaining the building to
their satisfaction. Heihad also remodeled the building to their speci-
fications and had financed that work through a substantial loan from
,them. At the time of the hearing, there was still approximately $423,-
000 due on this loan. Besides his, daily contact with the respondents
as building manager, Greenwood had been able to secure personal
loans from them as his promotional ventures required. - I ,
Following the incident at Brill's home, Sylvester's activities in or-
ganizing the Union ceased, and the Union collapsed. With its only
opponent out of the way, the Association flourished. After some fur-
ther solicitation of the employees to sign the petition for the "inde-
pendent" ,union during the morning of December 9, Calkins, during
lunch time that day, presided over, a meeting of his organizers, includ-
ing Wayne Richardson. It was decided to hold a general meeting of
the employees the following day to'' form an organization to be known as
"Association of Insurance Employees." That evening after work, the
group met again and laid plans for the general meeting. At this time,
Wayne Richardson, whose status'has been considered above, was as-
signed the duty of preparing cards on which the signer requested that
his "name be placed on the roster of the Association of Insurance Em-
ployees."
On,December 10, the general meeting was held after working hours
at a hotel. Approximately 250 to 275 employees attended. According
to Calkins, he selected 8 Bob Martin, a union adherent, to act as chair-
man in order to show that the Association was not "trying to run the
meeting." Martin announced that the purpose of the meeting was to
form an "independent" union but stated that he personally favored
the Union. Calkins testified that in accordance with a plan previously
prepared by Humel to prevent Martin from "double-crossing" the
group favoring an unaffiliated organization, 'Ivan Marble was nomi-
nated as chairman of the Association and was elected to that position
over Martin. An overwhelming, majority of those present voted to
8 This meeting was Calkins ' last activity on behalf of the Association.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL' FIRE ASSOCIATION' 839
form an "independent'? union and instructed Marble to appoint, and
act as chairman of, a committee to drew up a constitution and bylaws.
The cards which Richardson had had prepared were distributed at the
meeting. Thereafter many of the cards were signed • on company
property during working hours and were returned' to Marble while he
was working.at the counter as head cashier. Marble had worked for
Mutual for more than 22 years. In December 1940, he was head cashier
and had charge of servicing all the office equipment. In both capacities
he worked closely with Downing, the assistant treasurer. Marble was
also the purchasing agent for all home office supplies. His salary at
that time was'$200 per month. O'Connell testified that when he was
assistant cashier, Marble gave him orders. Marble denied that he had
directed O'Connell's work. However, George W. Davis, a salesman
and,witness for the Association, testified that Marble gave O'Connell
orders, and we so find. We further find that Marble was a supervisory
employee and that his interests were more closely identified with those
of the respondent than with the other employees.
As directed, Marble appointed a committee to prepare a constitu-
tion and bylaws. Among the constituents of the committee was E. Roy
Glomstad, who had attended the general meeting of December 10 and
had signed a membership card on'December 11. Thereafter, Glomstad
dominated the administration of the Association.
In December 1940, Glomstad was receiving a 'salary of $225 per
month. He shared an office on the twelfth floor with Alexander Scott,
the respondents' assistant secretary. The floor was generally known
as the executive floor. 'The only persons occupying offices there were
Rhodes, Edwards, Brill, and their private secretaries, and Scott and
Glomstad. The office shared by Scott and Glomstad had an inner
connecting door with that occupied by Brill. , Glomstad 'assisted in
the preparation of the respondents' annual statements which were filed
with the. insurance departments of the various States and Provinces
in which the respondents did business. In addition, Glomstad assisted
in the preparation of the premium returns to insurance rating bureaus
located in the various States, and in handling the problems of the
esponderits relating to city taxes. These duties required special train-
ing and knowledge. Glomstad was also an accountant. On occasion
he received special assignments. from Brill, Rhodes, Edwards, and
Scott. Some of the reports prepared by Glomstad were sufficiently
confidential for orders to have been given that the stencil used in their
preparation and all unused copies were to be carefully destroyed.
While Glomstad characterized himself as an "actuarial clerk," he also
testified that he formerly, held a similar position and performed simi-
lar duties with another insurance company where, as auditor and
assistant treasurer, he was considered a "junior officer" of the company.
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He further testified that he was Scott's assistant. We find that Glom-
btad was a confidential assistant 'to the executives of the respondents
and .a junior executive and that he was a representative of the
management.,
As a member of the constitutional committee, Glomstad p^lrticipated
at meetings in drafting the constitution and bylaws of the Association.
On December 19 at a general meeting of the employees, the name of
the Association was selected and the constitution and bylaws were
adopted.'
On. December 26, new Association membership cards, together with
cards authorizing the respondents to deduct $1.50 per member quar-
terly from the salaries of the signers, were printed. Thereafter these
cards were distributed to the employees, executed by them, and returned
to either Marble or Frank Fletcher. Although most of the witnesses
testified that these activities occurred before or after work or during
the noon hour, it is clear from the record that some of the activities
were performed during working hours. ,
Prior to January 14, 1941, the various departments elected their
representatives to the Executive Council, the governing body of. the
Association. Some of these elections were held on the eighth and ninth
floors of the building, not occupied by the respondents and then
vacant, while some were held in the departments themselves on the
respondents' premises. Glomstad became the representative of a -de-
partment composed of some 20 miscellaneous employees including,
among others, Ivan Marble, and the 4 private secretaries to Rhodes,
Brill, J. D. Fletcher, and Vice-President Forbes.
At the first meeting on January 14, the Executive Council decided
to ask the respondents to deduct the Association dues of each member
quarterly. According to the testimony of Loren McDole, a member
of the Association, it was also determined to offer to pay the respond=
ents 3 cents per deduction for this service,, as ,t method of allaying
suspicion of company assistance in allowing the check-off. On Janu-
ary 15, Marble took this request to Downing, who stated that he was
not empowered to grant the request but would obtain the necessary
authority. Downing admittedly did not count the signed Association,
cards which Marble then exhibited to him ; nor did he inquire whether
the Association represented a majority of the employees. Marble testi-
fied that Downing did not -ask whether the Association represented a
O The constitution and bylaws set up a labor organization whose membership was
limited to employees of the respondents in Seattle and whose duties were not "closer
to those of the supervisory (sic) than the duties of the ordinary worker." The business
of the Association was to be performed by its Executive Council, to be composed of
representatives elected from each of 16 departments into which the employees of the
respondents had been divided for purposes, of representation The president of the Asso=
ciation was to be elected by mail vote of all members in good standing . The Executive
Council was to elect the Association 's vice president , secretary , and treasurer from its
own members.
NORTHWESTERN, MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 841
majority of the employees because "that is something that is generally
known." The record does not show, however, that Downing had any
Quch knowledge at that time.
Under date of January 15, the Association sent Downing a letter
over Glomstad's.signature, reading as follows :
- This will confirm our understanding concerning the collection
of dues for our Association.
We have been authorized to ask the Northwestern Mutual Fire
Association to deduct $1.50 per member, per quarter to cover
dues in this Association. For this privilege of deduction we agree
to pay the Northwestern Mutual three cents per membership per
deduction.
It is understood that first dues collection is to be on" January
31st and that thereafter deductions are to be made on the 15th
of the first month in each quarter.
A day or so later Marble told Frank Fletcher that he "had made
arrangements with the management for the authorization of the,pay
roll deduction" and instructed him to turn the signed check-off author-
ization cards over to Downing. Fletcher did so immediately. Shortly
thereafter and prior to January .21, Marble was notified that the
respondentshad granted the Association the check-off privilege on the
terms proposed by the Association.
On January 16, and -again on January 21, the Association, by letter,
requested the respondents to recognize it,as the bargaining agent for
the employees. On January 21, the negotiating committee appeared
at the quarterly meeting of the Board ',of directors and received oral
recognition as the bargaining agent. Brill had previously informed
the board of directors that Downing's check of the Association check-
off cards showed that the Association represented a majority of the
employees. -
On February 26 Glomstad officially became a member of the nego-
tiating committee of the Association. On the same day, following
a preliminary -conference between Brill and the committee, the `latter
presented the respondents with a proposed agreement. On February
28 ,the respondents, signed it virtually without change. The Associa-
tion thereafter resubmitted the same agreement except for a para-
graph, added at Glomstad's suggestion, whereby the respondents
granted the Association the right to use their bulletin boards. The
respondents promptly signed the agreement as resubmitted and, on
March 12, the Association at a-general meeting ratified the agreement
and, by its officers, signed it. This agreement was .still in effect
without amendment or change at the time of the hearing.
Besides recognizing the Association as the sole bargaining agent
for the employees and according it the use of the company bulletin
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
'boards, the agreement granted nothing which the employees had not
previously enjoyed. The respondents agreed to meet with "a bar-
gaining committee" of the Association to discuss and adjust grievances,
but no grievance machinery was set up. The respondents-agreed that
there would be no discrimination against any member of the Asso-
ciation by reason of his Association activities, and the Association
agreed not to solicit memberships or discuss Association matters on
company time or property. The respondents agreed to reemploy any
employee who enlisted or was inducted into the military service. The
respondents further agreed that there would be no reduction in pay
of any employee and that the sick benefits and other benefits then in
effect would not be reduced or eliminated. Also, the respondents
agreed to recognize certain days as holidays. The specified holidays
were the same which the respondents had observed ,for many years.
It was also agreed that the work week should consist of five 8-hour
days and that work in excess of 40 hours should be paid for at the rate
of time and one-half. The Association agreed not to call any strikes
and the employer agreed, not to enter upon any lock-out without first
exhausting every peaceable means of settlement. Finally, the respond-
ents' granted permission to the Association to use their bulletin boards.
The agreement was to remain in force from year to year unless termi-
nated at any time by either party on 60 days' notice. The agreement
contained no provision concerning wages, a circumstance explained
by the Association to have resulted from the fact that the Association
did not wish to be bound for any fixed period of time and that the
respondents orally agreed to review wages semi-annually and to grant
increases on the basis of individual merit, as they had 'done in the
past. ', ''
Toward the end 6f'1941 the Association's rules committee, of which
Glomstad was chairman, proposed certain amendments to the consti-
tution and bylaws providing for the election of a board of trustees
to assist and advise the president of the Association and to perform
such other duties as may be required to .handle properly the affairs
of the Association." These amendments were adopted and Glomstad
became one of the trustees. , '
The grievance committee, on which Glomstad also served, met with
the respondents approximately 12 times from, the date of the execution
of the contract 'to the time of the hearing. Seldom, if ever, did the
whole grievance committee meet with the management. Most of the
grievances were handled by either ,one or two members of the commit-
tee. - Glomstad testified that he himself handled a large percentage of
these grievances "confidentially" with the management and reported
back to the committee. He explained that these grievances were so
handled because they pertained to',wages which the respondents main-
'N'0'RTH'ArESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 843
tained were a confidential matter. Glomstad was 'elected president
of the Association for 1942.
The record contains other evidence of assistance and support to the
Association : The respondents permitted the Association to keep its
petty cash in their stife at night. During the daytime disbursements'
from the petty cash fund were made by the respondents' cashier at the
counter. Furthermore, in August 1941, Brill inquired of the Associa-
tion whether it desired to manage the Coca-Cola vending machine
which had been placed in the lunchroom on the top floor, explaining
that the respondents did not want the profits from the machine. The
Association thereupon took over the vending machine and received the
profits therefrom until the Coca-Cola Company removed the machine
early in 1942. The profit derived from this source amounted to
about $50. 1 -
B. Conclusions
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The sudden discovery by the respondents on December 4, 1940, that
the Union had- called a meeting that evening for the purposes of
organizing their employees produced an immediate and drastic reaction.
The governing staff, at a special meeting, determined to send two well-
known supervisory employees to maintain surveillance over the meeting.
Downing and Blogg, the designated supervisors, attended the meeting
and, on December 5, gave a complete report to the respondents, men-
tioning Sylvester as the Union's leader. With this information in
their possession,' the respondents set forth upon a campaign designed
to remove the Union and its leader and to lay the foundation for the
formation of the Association.
The respondents made known their hostility to the Union and to
Sylvester's organizational activities by numerous acts and statements
of their supervisory employees. Thus Crisman, learning of the organ-
izational meeting, told Sylvester that the Union was composed of "a
low-minded bunch" and'asked him whether he was working for the
respondents or the Union. Similarly, Schnoberger remarked to em-
ployee Long that Sylvester was "nothing but a racketeer," who had
organized the Union for his personal gain. Fletcher's telephone con-
versations with Sylvester's wife and brother were calculated to induce
them to persuade Sylvester to abandon his union activities.
That the respondent's higher supervisory staff condoned such conduct
is clearly shown by Brill's statement to Sylvester, concerning Schno-
berger's remarks, that "You can't hold me responsible for what a man
thinks about unions; . . . After all . . . there is a lot of loose talk on
the part of the boys . . . that there is some profit- in it." Moreover,
`844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
although Shank learned of Fletcher's telephone conversations and
privately reprimanded him, neither Sylvester nor the other employees
were advised that the respondents' disapproved of Fletcher's actions.
When it, became apparent that Sylvester, despite the demonstrated
hostility of Crisman, Schnoberger, Brill, and Fletcher, was intent on
pursuing his organizational efforts, the respondents, through Green-
wood, concentrated their efforts on destroying the Union completely.
Greenwood, who was Sylvester's largest insurance client, forced Syl-
vester to destroy the Union's membership cards, to apologize to Brill
for his organizational activities, and to renounce the Union.
Although the record does not show that Greenwood acted pursuant
to the respondents' suggestion or instigation, the respondents, never-
theless, are responsible for his conduct. While it is true that Green-
wood was not an employee of the respondents, business connections
brought him into close association with them and he was financially
obligated to them. The respondents had openly demonstrated, by
surveillance and disparagement, their hostility toward the Union. He
already knew that the Association was in the process of formation. It
was clearly in Greenwood's interest to effectuate the respondents' mani-
fested desires. What is more, the respondents never denounced or
disclaimed responsibility for Greenwood's conduct. Instead, they en-
couraged his efforts and cooperated with him, as shown, when Brill,
knowing the general purpose of Greenwood's and Sylvester's proposed
visit, nevertheless, invited them to his home. They ratified, adopted,
and accepted the benefits of Greenwood's action when Brill sat silently
by as Sylvester apologized for his activities and burned the union cards,
and when he patted Sylvester on the back, saying, "That is all right.
Forget it, Howard, we all make mistakes ..."
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondents, by keeping
'the Union's organizational meeting iunder surveillance, by the disparag-
ing statements, of Crisman, Schnoberger, and Brill, by the activities of,
Fletcher in exerting influence upon Sylvester through the latter's wife
and brother to abandon his union activities, and by the conduct of
Greenwood in coercing Sylvester to destroy the Union's membership
cards and to abandon his union ' activities, have interfered with,
restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We also find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Greenwood is an
"employer" within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, laving
acted in the interest of the respondents, and that by his coercive conduct
with respect to Sylvester, Greenwood has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced the respondents'. employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7,of the Act. -
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION' 845,
2. Domination and interference with the formation and administration.
of the Association
Although the idea of forming the Association as a competitor of'
the Union originated with Frank Fletcher and Calkins , the actual
establishment of the Association was facilitated and aided by the
respondents' demonstrated antagonism toward the Union and its leader
and by their active assistance in soliciting members for the Association.
Its administration was completely dominated and controlled by
representatives of the respondents.
The respondents ' disposition toward the two labor organizations
«as made amply clear to their employees from the outset. While
they maintained surveillance over the meeting of the Union, and
through statements of supervisory employees , demonstrated their
hostility `toward the Union and Sylvester, the Association. was per-
mitted to function unmolested . Association petitions were%prepared
and circulated throughout the respondents' premises during working
hours, although , as Griffin , one of the solicitors testified , such activity
was "undoubtedly observed" by supervisors. Despite Sylvester's ob
jections, Rhodes and Brill made no move to stop these activities.
But the respondents were more than passively acquiescent . Through
their representative, Richardson, they participated actively in ob-
taining employee support for the Asscciation, and through the efforts
of Greenwood and Brill they completely eliminated the Union as a
rival -to the new organization. _
.Employer domination and control persisted in the administration of
the affairs of the Association . Richardson remained active in obtain=
ing employee support. Ivan Marble, _ a supervisory employee , became
the temporary chairman of the Association and the head of its con-
stitutional committee. Roy Glomstad , also a representative of the
respondents, became active in theI Association during - its formative
stages and soon completely dominated the organization as a member
of the Executive Council , Board of Trustees, negotiating committee,
constitutional committee , rules committee , and grievance committee.
In 1942 Glomstad became the, Association 's president. Thus, the re-
spondent supplied the Association with its leadership , and the affairs
of the Association were administered in consonance with ^ the re-
spondents' wishes,
Once the Association 's formation was complete, the respondents
were ready and willing, even anxious, to deal with the organization of
which they openly approved. Before the respondents • hid even
granted the Association recognition , they agreed to a check=off of
each member 's dues, a concession- customarily obtained, if at all
through collective bargaining . The so-called , agreement which, the
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association submitted ' was signed by the respondents almost as soon
as it was received . When the Association withheld its signature, ask-
ing the additional "concession" of permission to use the respondznts'
bulletin boards, the latter promptly agreed'and executed the amended
agreement . Thus, no real negotiations were conducted by the parties
and\no genuine collective bargaining was had. That the Associa-
tion was not even attempting to negotiate concerning terms and con-
ditions of employment ,_ is apparent from the fact that its proposals
merely embodied the respondents ' i existing personnel policies and
applicable statutory provisions as to working conditions . The Asso-
ciation was thus content to rely upon the unilateral decisions of the
respondents and to continue policies which had been in force. More-
over, the respondents perpetuated their domination of the Associ-
ation by according it various forms of financial support.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner , that the respondents , by main-
taining surveillance over and disparaging the Union , by coercing Syl-
vester to destroy the ' membership cards of the Union and to abandon
his activities, by the disparity in treatment of the Union and the
Association , by, the activities of 'their representatives in soliciting
members and in dominating ' and • controlling the administration of
the Association , and by the other ,support and assistance given to it,
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Association and contributed financial and other support to it, and
by such acts and conduct have interfered with, restrained , and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
We also find, as did the Trial Examiner, that , by forcing Sylvester
to destroy the union cards and to abandon his union activities , Green-
wood rendered assistance to the Association , thereby ,dominating and
interfering with the formation and 'administration of the Association
and contributing support to it and interfering with, restraining, and
coercing the respondents ' employees in the exercise of the • rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Discriminatory transfer and discharge of O'Connell
Raymond J. O'Connell had been in the employ of the respondents
since September 14, 1934. For more than 4 years prior to' May 1, 1941,
he had been assistant cashier under Tvan Marble.
During December 1940 , and for some time prior thereto, O'Connell
had been working at the cashier 's counter every other Saturday, when
the respondents maintained only a , skeleton working force in the
office. As O'Connell 's work on those Saturdays was in excess of 40
hours-per week, he . was paid overtime rates. This extra work netted
him between $18 and $20 per month over and above his regular salary.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 847
As' hereinbefore found, the respondents, through Downing and
Blogg,,learned on December 4 that O'Connell was one of the leaders
of the union movement, second only to Sylvester. In January 1941,
with the establishment of the Association and after Sylvester's re-
nunciation of the Union, the latter organization lapsed into inaction.
O'Connell became chairman of the small remaining union faction. At
Sylvester's suggestion, O'Connell joined the Association in January
1941. According to O'Connell's uncontradicted testimony, which we
credit, in February 1941, Marble informed him that Glomstad had
discovered a vacancy among the representatives of the Association for
O'Connell's department, that an election had been held the previous
day when O'Connell was absent from work, and that O'Connell- had
been elected to fill the position. O'Connell declined, stating that he
preferred to maintain a nominal, inactive membership in the
Association.
On May 1, 1941, Downing informed O'Connell that due to a reorgan-
ization of the claims department, the work of Alden Thompson, who
had been the assistant cashier 4 or 5 years prior to the time O'Connell
had been transferred to that position, was eliminated and that, there-
fore, Thompson was to be transferred to O'Connell's position at the
counter. He told O'Connell that he was to report to Schnoberger
in the auditing department. O'Connell objected to the transfer,'
stating that he had had no training in auditing and that he would lose
the extra compensation which he had been receiving for Saturday
afternoons.- Downing suggested that O'Connell inquire of Schno-
berger about the possibility of securing overtime work in the auditing
department. O'Connell thereupon reported to Schnoberger, where
he was assigned to auditing work but was unable to secure, overtime.
Within a short time, O'Connell's former position became vacant
twice and, although O'Connell spoke to both Brill and Rhodes of
his desire to return, he was not offered the position. Brill told O'Con-
nell, according to the 'latter, that he should "try to get along, and
to try and take an interest in the .work, and maybe I would like it."
Rhodes merely referred O'Connell to Brill. -
In June 1941 O'Connell spoke to Vaughan Baker, then president of
the Association, and to the Association representative from his de-
partment about the loss of his overtime pay. Baker said that he would
talk to Brill about it. On the same day, Brill called O'Connell to his
office and told him that he had not realized that O'Connell was losing
financially by the transfer and that he had worked out a plan whereby
O'Connell could work every Saturday afternoon at the counter and
thereby earn the same amount -of overtime he had'earned previously.
That arrangement was agreed upon and continued until April 30, 1942.
The only explanation offered by the respondents for their transfer
848 DEOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
of O'Connell to the auditing department' was that "such shift was
made entirely in the expectation and hope that he could fill the new
position in a more efficient manner than he had, filled the old posi-
tion.:.." 10 -However, the respondents offered no evidence. in sup-
port of their contention that he had, been inefficient as assistant cashier.
Moreover, following O'Connell's complaint to, Baker,, Brill permitted
him to work again on Saturday afternoons as assistant cashier-an
unlikely concession' if O'Connell were, in fact considered- "inefficient."
In view of O'Connell's activities in behalf of the Union and of his.
refusal to take an active part in the affairs of the Association and in
the absence, of a satisfactory explanation by the respondents. for trans-
ferring him from his position as assistant cashier and refusing to, return
him to that position, we find that the respondents triinsferred and
demoted O'Connell and refused thereafter to reinstate him to his former
position because of his activities for and in behalf of the Union.
The amended complaint alleges that on, April 30, 1942,, OiComaell
was discharged by the respondents because of testimony he gave at
the hearing on, April 29, 1942, thereby violating Section 8 (4). of the
Act. In their amended answer, the,respondents alleged that O'Connell
was discharged because he communicated "private records" of the re-
spondents "to outside, parties."
O'Connell testified as a witness 'for the Board on the morning of
April 29, 1942. During cross-examination by, the respondents,, he was.
asked;, "Didn't you, during the last few weeks furnish a list of em-
ployees to Mr. Hughes?" 11 O'Comnell answered. that he had not. On
cross-examination by the Association, he was asked, "But you had
nothing whatever•to do with it [the sending of notices for an A. F. of L.
meeting, to, be held April. 24, 1942];?" O'Connell's answer was "No."
O'Connell was excused from the stand soon thereafter.-
Immediately, after the noon recess that day, O'Connellreturned to
the stand at his own request and' testified; that some, of the testimony,-
that he had given was not true ; that he had in fact submitted a list of
employees to an A. F. of L. organizer, one William Lamberton, but
not to Hughes; that he had obtained some of those names from. a tran-
scription file in the mailing room Ylnring a Saturday, afternoon when
his work was slack; and that, thereafter, he had secured the addresses,
of the employees from the Seattle city directory at the public library,
with the assistance of another employee. He stated that he had testi-
fied falsely because he had anted to protect the, employee who had
assisted him and because he had become confused.
Following his testimony on April, 29, O'Connell returned to the
office and completed the day's work. On the morning of April 30,
10 Paragraph XIII of the respondents' answer.
u Charles C. Hughes was an A. F. of L. organizer.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 849,
according to O'Connell 's testimony , the following occurred : He was
called to Brill's office , where Brill said to him, "You changed your
testimony yesterday ?" O'Connell agreed that he had and explained-
that he must have become confused . O'Connell told Brill that he -felt
that he had done the right thing, by correcting his testimony of his
own free will. Brill then said , "In view of this, you don 't expect to
be "retained in the employ of the company ?" When O'Connell de-
murred, Brill said , ". . . you are ' dismissed immediately . I will not
tolerate an untruthful employee in my office. " Brill did not deny
such testimony and we find, as did, the Trial Examiner, that the events
occurred as testified to by O'Connell.
On May 1 O'Connell returned to the respondents ' office to, complete
his work and was again sent to see Brill . At this time , according to
O'Connell's uncontradicted testimony, which we credit, as did the Trial
Examiner, Brill refused to give O'Connell any separation pay for the
reason that he had been discharged for cause and then said , "In the
matter of what I said to you yesterday , in order that there may be no
misunderstanding , I want you to know that we are not dismissing you
'because you told a lie in the court ; but the reason is because you gave
information in our records to others ; and it is not , because you told a
lie." O'Connell answered , "Mr. Brill , this is different than you told
me yesterday . Yesterday you said it was because I said a lie." Brill
then denied making the statement on the previous day. Brill ended
the conversation by stating , "I want you to know that I am not vin-
dictive in this matter, and we are not out to blackball ` you."'
Brill testified that he discharged O'Connell for "making a disclosure
of company records." Irving F. Sherman, the employee who assisted-
O'Connell in his work at the public library, testified that he had been
for 15 years an employee of the mailing department , where O'Connell
had obtained the list, that he had never been advised that the list was
"private," that he frequently obtained requests for the list from de-
partment heads and employees , and-that the files in which the list was
kept were accessible and unlocked and "'any employee there-could use
it." Brill was asked on direct examination , "Is there anything secret
about this list of employees . . . ? " He answered', "Well, it is cer-
tainly information that we do not want to be broadcast' or circul 'ate'd."
He was then asked; "Are there special instructions given to mailing
clerks to treat those as confidential matter?" Brill replied that the
list was for a "very specific purpose . . . and we have never, so
far, issued a list of the employees to any outside source."
It thus appears doubtful that the mailing list was considered by
the respondents as "confidential ." Our observation in this respect
finds support in the fact that the reason which Brill first assigned for
discharging O'Connell was that he had lied on the witness stand and
504086-43-vol. 46-54
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not that he had obtained access to company records. However, assum-
ing the confidential nature of the transcription list, the unexplained
inconsistency of the respondents' reasons for discharging. O'Connell
negatives the claim that he was discharged for either of such reasons.
By O'Connell's testimony, the respondents learned that he was taking
an active part in the Union's attempt to revive interest among their
employees.
We find that the respondents discharged O'Connell because he gave
testimony under the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act and discriminating
against him as to the hire and tenure of his employment, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ents described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the respondents have dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association and have
contributed financial and other support to it. In order to effectuate the
policies of the Act and to free the employees of the respondents from
such domination and interference and the effects thereof, which con-
stitute a continuing obstacle to the ,exercise by their employees of -the
rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondents to
withdraw all recognition from the Association as, the representative
of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents
concerning grievances, labor disputes, Sages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other conditions of work and completely to dis-
establish it as such representative. We shall also order the respond-
ents to cease and desist from giving effect, to their contract with the
Association and to any extension, renewal,- or modification thereof.
Nothing in our order, however, shall be taken to -require the respond-
ents to vary those wage, hour, seniority, and other substantive features
of their relations, with the employees themselves which the respond-
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 851
eats established in performance of their contract with the Association
as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded.
We have also found that the respondents have discriminated against
Raymond J. O'Connell with regard to his hire and tenure and the terms
and conditions of his employment because of his union membership
and activities, and because he gave testimony under the Act. After
denying that he was concerned with the sending of notices for a meet-
ing of the Union on April 24, 1942, O'Connell voluntarily corrected
his testimony. His false statement did not relate to any material issue
In the case 12 and was motivated solely by a desire to shield a fellow
employee. O'Connell's conduct was consequently not such as to re-
quire that he be denied the protection which the Act otherwise affords
him. We shall accordingly order the respondents to offer Raymond
J: O'Connell immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially
egnii-alent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and to make him whole for any loss of pay he-may have
suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him by
payment to said O'Connell of a sum of money equal to the amount
which he; lost due-to his transfer plus the amount which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period.13
We have also found that Greenwood, acting in the interest of the
,respondents, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employ-
ees of the respondents and has thereby assisted the Association. We
shall order Greenwood to take certain affirmative action. which we find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. Office Employees Union, Insurance Division, Local 22418, affili-
ated, with the American Federation of Labor, and Association of
Insurance Employees are labor organizations, ' within the meaning
of Section 2 (5)'of the Act.
n For this reason alone , the decision in United States v. Norris , 300 U. S. 564, wherein
it was held that a trial judge was,not in error in refusing to instruct a jury, in a prosecu-
tion for perjury, that if the defendant should be found to have corrected his false state-
ment. previously made, he must be found not guilty, would not be applicable here.
13 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his un-
lawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America; Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L. R B 440 Monies
meceived for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal, or other woik-
relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Com poratson v N. L.
R B., 311'U. S 7.
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIOI^TbS BOARD
2. E. M. Greenwood is an employer, within the meaning of Section.
2 (2) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Association of Insurance Employees, and by, contributing
financial and other support to it, the respondents and E. M. Green-
wood have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4: By discriminating against Raymond J. O'Connell in regard to
the terms and conditions of his employment, thereby discouraging
membership in Office Employees Union, Insurance Division, Local
22418, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. By discriminating against Raymond J., O'Connell because he
gave testimony under the Act, the respondents have engaged- in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents and E. M. Greenwood have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
7. 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 above 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
A. The respondents, Northwestern Mutual Fire Association and
Northwest Casualty Company, Seattle, Washington, their officers,
agents,, successors, and assigns shall:
-1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Asso-
cbition of Insurance Employees or with the formation or administra-.
tion of any other labor organization of their employees and from
contributing financial or other support to said, Association, or to any
other labor organization of their employees;,
(b) Recognizing Association of Insurance Employees as the repre-
sentative of any of their employees for the purposes of dealing, with
the • respondents concerning grievant ces, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work;
(c) Giving effect to their contract of March 12; 1941; with Asso-
ciation of Insurance Employees or to any extension, renewal, modifi-
cation, or supplement thereof, or -to any superseding contract with
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION 853
said Association which may now be in force, provided, however, that
nothing in ' this Order shall be taken to require the respondents to
vary those wage', bonus, seniority, and other substantive features of
their relations with 'the employees themselves which the respondents
established in performance of any such contract;
(d) Discouraging membership in -Office Employees Union, Insur-
ance Division, Local 22418, or in any other labor organization of their
employees by transferring such employees or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to "their hire and tenure 'of employment or any
terms or, conditions of their employment;
(e) Discharging or refusing to reinstate or otherwise discriminating
against any of their employees for-giving testimony under the Act;
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their 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, or to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Association of Insurance Em-
ployees as the representative of any of -their employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondents concerning 'grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates -of pay, hours of employment, or other condi'tions'of work,
and completely disestablish Association of Insurance Employees as
such -representative;
(b) 'Offer to Raymond J. O'Connell immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his -former •or 'substantially equivalent position without prej-
udi'ce to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Raymond J. O'Connell for any`loss'of pay he may
have suffered :by reason,of the respondents' discrimination against him
by payment to him 'of a sum of money equal to the 'amount which he
lost due to his transfer plus the amount which he normally would have
'earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period;
(d) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout their of-
fices at Seattle, Washington, and maintain for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their
employees stating (1) that the respondents will not engage, in the con-
duct from which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1
(a), (b), (c),, (d), (e), and (f) of Section A of this Order; (2) that
the respondents will'take the, affirmative action set forth in paragraphs
2 (a), (b), and (c) of Section A of this Order, and (3) that the respond-
ents' employees are free to become or remain members of Office Em-
C
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees Union, Insurance Division, Local 22418, and that the respond-
ents will not discriminate against any of their employees because of
membership in or activity in behalf of that labor organization;
(e)- Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from, the date of this Order what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
B. E. M. Greenwood,,hi`s agents and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with the formation or administration of Association
of Insurance Employees or with the formation or administration of
any other labor organization' of the employees of the respondents
Northwestern Mutual Fire Association and Northwest Casualty Com-
pany, and from contributing support to said Association or to any
other labor organization of said employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
the employees of the respondents Northwestern Mutual Fire Associa-
tion or, Northwest ,Casualty Company in the exercise of their rights to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-_
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or, protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take' the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Immediately. post on the outside of the main door to his suite
of offices located in the,building at 217 Pine Street, Seattle, Washing-
ton, and maintain for a period of'!at least sixty (60) days from the
date of posting, a notice to the eriiployees of Northwestern Mutual
Fire Association and Northwest Casualty Company stating that he
will not engage-in the conduct from which he is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a)-and (b) of Section B of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writ.
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps he has
taken to.comply herewith. . ,