Cating Rope Works, Inc., 1100 (1938)

In the Matter of MATING ROPE WORKS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, C. I. O.

Case No. 'C-2.96.-Decided January 21, 1938 • Rope Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coercion.: anti-union statements ; sponsorship of internal organization ; initiating and fostering company-dominated organization of employees ; expressed opposition to labor organization ; engendering fear of loss of employment for union membership and activity-Collective Bargaining: refusal to negotiate with representatives ; refusal to recognize representatives as bargaining agency representing employeesCompany-Dominated Unions: sponsorship, domination, and interference with formation and administration ; support of ; organization and domination by supervisory employees ; soliciting and encouraging membership during working hours; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Individual Contracts of Employment: with labor organization assisted and fostered by unfair labor practices, not representing free choice of employees, void ; respondent ordered to cease and desist giving effect thereto-Discrimination: discharge; charges of, as to one employee, dismissed-Strt7ees-Reinstatement Ordered: upon application for reinstatement of employees who struck because of unfair labor practices.

Mr.' John T. McCann and Mr. Lester Levin, for the Board.

Fitzpatrick • Bell, by Mr. Bernard H. Fitzpatrick and Mr. William J. Bell, of New York City, for the respondent.

Mr. Sidney L. Cahn, of New York City, for the Union.

Miss Anne E. Freeling, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION

AND

ORDER

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Upon charges duly filed by Textile Workers Organizing Committee,

3. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , by Elinore Morehouse Herrick, Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City ), issued its complaint, dated July 20, 1937 , against Cating Rope Works, Inc.,' Maspeth, Long Island, New York, 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), (2), (3), and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor 1 Incorrectly designated as Cating Rope works in the charges.

   1100

   DECISIONS AND ORDERS 110E Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint.

   and an accompanying notice of a hearing to be held in New, York City on July 29, 1937, were duly served upon the respondent and theUnion.

   On July 26, 1937, the.respondent filed an answer to the complaint,.

   in which, in substance, it alleged that the Act was unconstitutional and denied most of the allegations of the complaint, admitting, however, those concerning its incorporation and business. ' Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in New York City on July 29, 30, 31, August 2 and 3, 1937, before James C. Paradise, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and' cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all the parties.

   At the close of the Board's case, the attorney for the Board moved to conform the, pleadings to,the proof adduced at,the hearing. This.

   motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. At the opening and close of the hearing, and at various times during the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied these motions, reserving decision, however, on the question whether Ruth Hildebrandt was discharged for union activities During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has' reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.

   On August 30, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an IntermediateReport finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce in violation of the Act as alleged in the complaint, but recommending that so much of the complaint as relates to the discharge of Ruth Hildebrandt be dismissed. On September 17, 1937, the respondent filed exceptions to the IntermediateReport and requested an opportunity to argue the exceptions beforethe Board. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on October 5, 1937, in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of such oral argument. Only counsel for 'the respondent participated. Counsel for the Union filed a brief.

   Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Cating Rope Works, Inc., is a New York corporation having its principal office and place of business in Maspeth, New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution, of rope and rope products for agricultural, maritime, and industrial use. William B. Cating and his son, William C. Cating, are the president and vice-president, respectively. The respondent employs approximately 58 employees, exclusive of clerical employees, and has a total annual pay roll of about $26,000. It advertises by means of circulars which it mails to its customers throughout the country. The respondent's principal customers are located in Louisiana, Alabama,

   Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Florida, and include, in addition, the United States War Department and Coast Guard Service.

   The respondent purchases all of its necessary raw- materials from outside 'the United States. These materials, which include manila and sisal hemps, are purchased from the Philippine -Islands, Java,

   Mexico, and East Africa, and are brought to the plant by steamer and truck. Approximately 50 per cent of the respondent's' finished products are shipped outside the State of New York by truck, railroad, and steamer. In 1936 the respondent purchased 2,297,938 pounds of various raw materials, having a value of $159,527.54, all of which was imported from outside the United States. The respondent's gross sales for the year 1936 amounted to 1,471,670 pounds, having a value ,of $192,961.88, of which $95,526.22 worth was shipped to points outside of New York.

   The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce.

   2. THE UNION Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to membership all production and maintenance employees of the respondent, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees.

   3. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of organization of the respondent's employees On or about June 4, 1937, several of the respondent's employees, including Joseph Carini and Ruth Hildebrandt, began to talk to the other employees about the advisability of joining a union. On June 11, these employees went to an office of the Committee for Industrial Organization, signed tentative application cards for membership in the Union, and requested that the Union send an organizer to the respondent's plant. Meetings were held at a hall in Maspeth on the evenings of June 17 and 18 which were addressed by Union organizers. By the close, of the, second meeting, 52 employees of the respondent had become members of the Union. A Shop Committee'was elected at the second meeting, of which Carini was made chairman.

2. Interference, restraint, and coercion On or about June 17, 1937, William C. Cating discussed with Kenneth Crossman, superintendent of the plant, the organization activities of his employees, and instructed Crossman to keep him informed about these activities. To this end Crossman, in turn, enlisted the services of Thompson Schuler, a supervisory employee. Later on the same day, but still during working hours, there was a conference in the respondent's office, attended by both of the Catings, Crossman, Schuler, two of the Lay brothers, all three of whom are supervisory employees, and several 'loyal' employees, at which the union question was discussed. Thereafter those present at the conference went among the employees, as they had been instructed by the Catings to do, repeating the arguments advanced at the conference as to the advantages of a company union, chief among which were the elimination of dues and assessments and the assurance that no one who joined such a union would be discharged. Following closely upon this missionary work, a meeting of all the employees was held in the plant that afternoon, which was addressed by William C.

   Cating. The meeting subsequently moved outside the plant, where it was addressed by a Union organizer, who came in response to a telephone call from one of the employees. In addition to Schuler and the Lay brothers, a stenographer was present at the outside meeting, who took notes of the proceedings, and refused to leave even after Carini accused her of being a 'boss's stooge.' She had been sent to the meeting by the respondent at the request of Schuler and an employee named Gordon Williams. Schuler urged the formation of a company union. However, when those present finally took' a vote, a decided majority indicated their preference for the Union.

   Schuler, meanwhile, had been attempting to dissuade Carini from continuing his activities on behalf of the Union, but was unsuccessful. Schuler then became a member of the Union. He was elected to the Shop Committee despite the protestations of several employees that he was a foreman, a charge which lie denied. He reported to the respondent what took place at the Union meetings. The respondent was thus able to maintain surveillance over union activities.

   The respondent had stated to the 'loyal' employees, and to the assembled workers at the June 17 meeting, and stated again at another meeting of all its workers held on June 21, that one of its reasons for refusing to recognize any C. I. O. union was...