Springfield Machine & Foundry Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 974 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of SPRINGFIELD MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., INC. and,
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
(C. I. O.)
Case No. C-0,514.-Decided April 7, 1943
Jurisdiction : marine steam engine and heavy. machinery manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, 'and Coercion: inquiry concerning disposal of union's
cards; granting permission for posting of notices of mass meeting; ,payment of
employee for time spent taking and transcribing notes of mass meeting of
employees ; payment of employees for time spent investigating independent
type of unions and facilitating such investigation.
Company-Dominated Union: facilitating investigation of an independent organ-
ization at a neighboring plant; referring employees to counsel whose advice
concerning the organization of an unaffiliated union was adopted; permitting
solicitation on company time and property ; payment of wages for time spent in
organizing unaffiliated union.
Remedial Orders: cease and desist unfair labor practices; dominated organiza-
tion, disestablished.
Mr. Robert E. Greene, for the Board.
Mr. Edwin H. Lyman, Jr., of Springfield, Mass., for the respondent.
Mr. Leonard C. Lewin, of Springfield, Mass., for the United.
Mr. Eward B. Cooley and Mr. Harold Kaufman, of Springfield,
Mass., for the Independent.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on September 26, 1942, by United Elec-
trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, (C. I. 0.), herein called
the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston,Massa-
chusetts), issued its complaint, dated December 9, 1942, against Spring-
field Machine & Foundry Co., Inc., West Springfield, Massachusetts,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
48 N. L It. B., No. 114.
974
SPRINGFIELD MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., INC. 975
of the-National Labor Relations Act, 49, Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the respondent, the United, and Springfield Machine &
Foundry Independent Union, herein, called the Independent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance : (1) that from on or about August 15, 1942, the respondent
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Independent and contributed support to it; (2) that on or,about
September 5, 1942, the respondent asked certain of its employees what
they had done with the United's application cards which had been
signed by the employees, and suggested that a portion of the cards
be given to the Independent's organizers; and (3) that by the afore-
said acts, the respondent, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The respondent filed an answer dated December 29, 1942,' admitting
the jurisdictional allegations and certain other specific allegations of
the. complaint, but denying that the respondent had engaged in the
alleged,unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 28, 1942, at
Springfield, Massachusetts, before William F. Guffey, Jr., the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. 'The Board,
the respondent, and the Independent were represented by counsel, the
United by a representative, and all participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to-be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
The Board has reviewed' the rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial-Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report dated
January -23, 1943, copies of which were duly served upon the parties.
He found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting'commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He accordingly recommended that
the respondent cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of
the Act. On February 4, 1943, the Independent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report. None of the parties 'requested oral argu-
ment before the Board. '
The Board has considered the Independent's exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and finds them to have no merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
'Counsel for the respondent was granted leave at the hearing to
, file an answer on orbefore December 31, 1942.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Springfield Machine & Foundry Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation,
has since May 1942 operated a plant at West Springfield, Massachu-
setts, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of marine-steam engines and other heavy machinery. The material
used by the respondent consists principally of rough, partly finished
and finished castings, steel billets, and bars. During the period from
May 1 to November 1, 1942, the respondent used more than $250,000
worth of such materials, of which more than 90 percent was shipped
to the respondent's plant from points outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. During the same period,•the respondent sold finished
,products valued in excess of $250,000, all of which were shipped to
points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The respondent
admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Springfield Machine & Foundry Independent Union is an unaffili-
ated labor organization, admitting to membership only employees of
the respondent.
-III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The respondent's two supervisory employees who are implicated in
the findings of 8 (1) and 8 (2) below, namely Lucius Hill, who was
vice president, and Peter F. Landon, who Was assistant plant super-
intendent, as well as Henry Keough, an employee who participated in
the activities leading to the formation of the Independent, had left
the employ of the respondent prior to the date of the hearing and were
not called as witnesses. Accordingly, the findings of fact set forth
below relating to the series of events occurring between August 17 and
September 5, 1942, which finally culminated in the formation of the
Independent, are based upon the uncontradicted and consistent testi-
mony of Board witnesses William V. Joslyn and Anthony Calcidise,
and the Independent's witness, Francis McCarthy, unless otherwise
noted. We credit their testimony, as did the Trial, Examiner, and
find that the events occurred substantially as indicated.
During May, June, and July, the formation of a union was dis-
cussed by the respondent's employees, but little definite action was
'taken. About August 17, 1942, Joslyn, an employee, sought the aid
SPRINGFIELD MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., INC. 977
of several labor organizations and finally obtained the assistance of
an organizer for the United. On August 22, Joslyn • secured some
of the United's application-for-membership cards and on August 24,
he and four other- employees, including Calcidise and McCarthy, be-
gan distributing the cards. By the evening of August 25, 150 to 160
of the respondent's approximately 300 employees had signed cards
applying for-membership in the United.
On August 26, Keough, at that time a production clerk, after signing
one of the United's cards, suggested to Joslyn that the latter was-not
organizing the employees in a fair manner and that he thought all the
employees ought to be given an opportunity "to hear both sides of the
story, both the A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0." Calcidise, who was present,
suggested that they hold a meeting of the employees at which a repre-
sentative of the A. F. of L. and a representative of the C. I. O. could
`.state their case." When informed of this suggestion, the organizer
for the United agreed to appear at such a meeting. On August 27,
Joslyn, Calcidise, McCarthy, and Keough met with an organizer for
an A. F. of L. local, who likewise consented to participate. It was
,then decided to hold a mass meeting of the, respondent's employees at
a local meeting hall on September 3.
On or about September 1, McCarthy suggested to Joslyn and Calci-
dise that Langdon, the respondent's assistant plant superintendent, be
informed of the plans for the mass meeting. The three employees then
went to Langdon's office and stated that they were trying to organize
the employees. Langdon replied that he would like Vice-President
Hill to hear what the employees had to say. At Langdon's request,
Hill came to the former's office. Upon being informed of the em-
ployees' intention to organize, Hill stated, in substance, that he did -
not care what type of union the employees selected, that he only wanted
'harmony, and that whatever Langdon did was satisfactory to him.
The three employees then asked permission to post a notice in the
plant concerning the September 3 meeting. Langdon granted the
request, and stated, in substance, that whatever the employees wanted
was agreeable to him and that he would be glad to assist the em-
ployees in any way possible in order "to straighten things out."
The mass meeting was held as planned between 7: 30 and 10: 30 p. in.
on September 3. Representatives of the A. F. of L. and the United
addressed the employees and informally' discussed their respective
organizations. There was no discussion of an independent organiza-
tion. At McCarthy's request, Andrew Gaudette, a secretary who
worked in one of the respondent's offices, was present at the meeting
and took shorthand notes for the benefit of the night-shift employees
who were unable to attend the meeting. Counsel for the respondent
stipulated at the hearing that Gaudette was paid by the respondent at
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an overtime rate for the 3 hours he spent at the mass meeting. In addi-
tion, the following morning Gaudette typed his shorthand notes during
working hours and suffered no deduction from. his wages for the time
so spent. The respondent did not explain at the hearing its pay-
ment of overtime to Gaudette for taking the minutes or its,payment to
him of wages for the time he spent in transcribing his notes.
On the morning of September 4, Joslyn, McCarthy, and Calcidise
went to Langdon's office to pick up the typed copies of Gaudette's
notes on the mass meeting. While there, McCarthy mentioned that the
three employees present had heard about the "shop union" at Gilbert
& Barker, a nearby plant, and asked Langdon if he could assist them
in learning more about that organization. Langdon replied that he
could arrange an appointment through Hill. After discussing the
matter with Hill over the telephone, Langdon told the three employees
that he would contact them later, and they returned to work.
According to Joslyn's testimony; on that same day Langdon asked
Calcidise, McCarthy, and Joslyn who had the United's signed appli-
cation cards. Joslyn replied that he had them, whereupon, Langdon
asked : "Don't you think that it would be'a good idea if you divided
them up three ways between McCarthy and Calcidise and yourself?"
Joslyn replied that lie had the cards in "safekeeping" and that he would
"take care of them:" Although Joslyn's testimony on this incident
was not corroborated,2 we credit his testimony as did the Trial Exam-
iner, and find that Langdon made the inquiry.
At about 9 a. m. on the following day, Langdon called Joslyn, Calci-
dise, and McCarthy to his office, told them they had a 10 o'clock ap-
pointment at the Gilbert & Barker plant, and suggested that they go
home and change their clothes before keeping the appointment. The
three employees, without punching out their time cards, left immedi-
ately. They kept their appointment and were introduced to a former
president of the "shop union" who explained the plan to them and ad-
vised them that he did not think it would be a good plan for the
respondent's employees. Joslyn and Calcidise testified that at the con-
clusion of the interview the three employees decided they were not
interested in the type of organization in operation at the Gilbert &
Barker plant. `
After leaving the afore-mentioned plant, the three employees stopped
to have lunch. Before eating, McCarthy, according to his own admis-
2 Calcidise testified that McCarthy was the first to suggest that the United' s cards be
divided three ways He later retracted this testimony and testified that Edward B Cooley,
the Independent ' s attorney , made the suggestion Still later he again testified that Mc-
Carthy made the suggestion and that he could not remember whether or not Cooley men-
tioned it . As the Trial,Examiner found, Calcidise 's testimony on this•pomt is too confused
to support a finding that either McCaithy or Cooley made the suggestion . McCarthy did
not testify on the subject of dividing the United's cards.
a..
SPRINGFIELD MACHINE & ,FOUNDRY CO., INC .. 979
Sion, telephoned Edward B. Cooley, who later became the Independ-
ent's attorney, and made an appointment to meet him that afternoon.'
McCarthy admitted that he did not disclose this call to Joslyn or Calci-
dise.
After lunch, the three employees returned to Langdon's office, without,
having changed back into their working clothes. They arrived at the
plant about 1 -p. in. and informed Langdon that they did not like the
plan at the Gilbert & Barker plant. As they were about to leave Lang-
don's office, Langdon called them back and stated : "I have the address
of a lawyer here on a slip of paper. Would you care -to see him?"
Langdon mentioned Cooley's name, suggesting that he might be able
to help the employees in their plans and gave the slip of paper to
Keough. When the three employees stated that they would like to talk
to Cooley, Langdon told, Keough to make an appointment with him.,
After Keough had talked on the telephone for a few minutes, he told:
the employees that they had an appointment with Cooley at 1: 30 that
afternoon. According to Calcidise's undisputed testimony, which we
credit, as did the Trial Examiner, there had been no thought, insofar
as he and Joslyn were concerned, of seeing Cooley until Langdon sug-
gested it. As the men were leaving to keep their appointment with
Cooley, some question was raised as to whether or not they should
punch out their time cards. Langdon said that they did, not need to
ring out and added : "You go down there, take your time, and if you
are not back in time to ring out, Mr. Keough will take care of your
cards for you and ring them out."
The three employees met with Cooley in his office. McCarthy testi-
fied that after he had introduced the three employees, he told Conley
where they worked and stated that they were in Cooley's office for the
purpose of getting "a full picture of a union, all phases," and that the
group discussed all types of labor organizations , including an inde-
pendent union elsewhere in Springfield, which Cooley had organized.
According to Joslyn's testimony, Cooley said that it did not matter
what organization the employees had, that it was the leadership which
would decide whether it was a good union, and that Cooley immediately
began talking about an independent union, making reference to another
independent` 'union he had organized. Joslyn testified further that
Cooley was the first to mention the independent union and suggested
that by organizing such a union Joslyn, Calcidise, and McCarthy "could
maybe better" themselves. Calcidise testified that they talked briefly
about the A. F. of L. and the C. 1. 0. and that the discussion then turned
suddenly to an independent union. Upon all the evidence we find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that Cooley made only brief reference to the
'McCarthy admitted that he had previously " discussed lawyers and different things,"
including Cooley, with Keough.
521247-43-vol 48-63
080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0., and that Cooley then suggested the forma-,
tion of an unaffiliated union. It is undisputed, that during their talk
with Cooley, the three employees decided to form an independent labor
organization, agreed upon its name, and were informed by Cooley that
he would provide application cards.
Counsel for the respondent -stipulated at the hearing that Joslyn,
Calcidise, and McCarthy were paid for 91/z hours work on September 5,
part,of which time they spent at the Gilbert & Barker plant investi-
gating the unaffiliated labor organization in operation there, and part
of which time they spent at Cooley's office as above described. From
all the evidence it is clear that Joslyn, McCarthy, and Calcidise spent
not more than 2 hours working in the plant that day; that the remain-
ing 7 hours of the normal 9-hour day were spent in activities which
culminated in the organization of the Independent; and that they
were paid for all the time so spent including overtime pay for the last
half hour of the day.
On September 8, the Independent's cards were delivered at the plant,
and during the next few days McCarthy, Calcidise, and others solicited
signatures in the plant during working hours. Joslyn solicited a few
employees and then withdrew from the Independent's organizing cam-
paign. On September 19, the Independent requested the respondent
to recognize it as the collective bargaining representative of the
respondent's employees. The respondent refused to recognize the
Independent because of the conflicting claims of the United .4
The Act guarantees to employees the right to self-organization, free
from interference by their employer. The facts set forth above clearly
establish that the respondent did not maintain the neutrality required
by the Act. Instead, by the inquiry of Langdon concerning the
United's cards" by permitting the posting of notices in the plant for
the mass meeting, by paying Gaudette for the time spent in taking
and transcribing notes of the mass meeting, by paying the employees
for the time spent at the Gilbert & Barker plant and in conference with
Cooley, by facilitating the investigation of the Gilbert & Barker "shop
union," and by referring the employees to Cooley, the respondent
interfered in the employees' attempts to organize.
Moreover, we think it clear that the Independent must be held to
have resulted from the respondent's interference. It is precisely at
the beginning of organization, and particularly when employees are
undecided as to the type of organization they desire, that "slight sug-
* The Independent appears to be dormant pending the Board's decision in the instant
proceeding. It has adopted no constitution or bylaws , has collected no dues and has
elected only a temporary chairman and a temporary organizing chairman.
5 The respondent's liability for the activities of Langdon is not open to question. Lang-
don worked immediately under Vice-President Hill The respondent at that time had no,
plant superintendent , and, except for Hill , Langdon occupied the highest ranking position
in the respondent 's production department.
SPRINGFIELD MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., INC. 981
gestions", by their employer "have telling effect" upon the empolyees'
choice.'- In the instant case the respondent facilitated the investiga-
tion 'of the "shop union" at a neighboring plant, and when the em-
ployees rejected this type of organization, the respondent gratuitously
directed them to Cooley, whose advice concerning organization of an
unaffiliated union was adopted. Moreover, the payment of wages to
the employees for the time spent in organizing the Independent and
the permissive solicitation in the plant during working hours in behalf
of the Independent constituted valuable support to the Independent.?
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation of the Independent and contributed support to it, and by
such acts and by the other activities set forth above, has interefered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF' THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent, set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative action which we
find will effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent dominated and interfered
with the formation of the Independent and contributed support to it.
The effects and consequences of the respondent 's domination , inter-
ference, and , support 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.
This is true even though the respondent has not formally recognized
the Independent as the collective bargaining representative of any
e International Association of Machinists v. V, L R. B., 311 U. S. 72.
The respondent seeks to minimize the quantum of this support by pointing out that
the United solicited members in the plant during working hours, and that its representa-
fives received pay for the time spent in a conference with the respondent when the United
was seeking recognition As to the solicitation , it is sufficient to say that passive support of
one organization does not legitimatize support of another, and the measure of support is
not the same when one organization is a firmly established going concern and the other
is a struggling oiganization, just forming Payment of the employees for time spent
in conferences with the respondent cannot be compared with payment foi time spent in
organizational activity. See Section 8 (2) of the Act.
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of its employees. Accordingly, we shall order that the respondent
withhold all recognition from and completely disestablish the Inde-
pendent as the representative 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 other conditions of
employment.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Spring-
field Machine & Foundry Independent Union are labor organizations,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation of Spring-
field Machine & Foundry Independent Union and by contributing
support to it, the respondent has engaged-in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)'
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights 'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the,
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (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 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 the
respondent, Springfield Machine & Foundry Co., Inc., West Spring-
field, Massachusetts, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
,(a) Dominating or interfering with the formation of Springfield
Machine,& Foundry Independent Union, or the formation or adminis-
tration of any other labor organization of its employees, or from
contributing support to said labor organizatioii or any other labor
organization'of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
SPRINGFIELD MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., INC. 983
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 fuids
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withhold all recognition from Springfield- Machine & Foundry
Independent Union as the representative of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment, and completely disestablish Springfield
Machine & Foundry Independent Union, as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
in West Springfield, Massachusetts, and maintain for a period of
at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices
to its employees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in
the conduct from which it has been ordered to cease and desist in
paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), of this Order; and (2) that the respondent
will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this
Order ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.