The writer stated that it might be possible to return to Louisville some time during the week of Dec. 17 at which time an effort would be made to finally dispose of this case. Memo. 12/13, 39. To: Mr. Phillips. From: Karl Filter. Re: Enro Shirt Co. Current status of the above case "Being investigated." For further information re this case please see my memo of 12/9. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Note Filter says Union is gathering further evidence and that he asked that Union communicate with Regional Office when this is done. Should Union be followed up on this? INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECEMBER 22, 1939. To: Mr. Phillips. From: Karl W. Filter. Subject: Enro Shirt Company, IX-C-1102. The writer contacted the union on Tuesday, December 19, in relation to the above case. Despite the fact that a letter had been transmitted to Miss Slotkin informing her of my arrival in the city on that date, she failed to come into the office until 1:30 that afternoon. She had received the letter the previous day. A conference was held commencing at 1:30 in the afternoon at the union's beadquarters on Oak Street. Present were Sandra Slotkin, Ida Upton, and the writer. The complainant, Ida Upton, was confronted with the affidavits and other material submitted by the company in relation to the defalcations found in Ida Upton's time cards. She had no direct rebuttal to make in relation to any of the allegations contained therein. She was questioned in relation to the incident whereby she failed to punch out on a particular evening. She admitted that her time card was in the out rack when she went out that night and that she saw it in the out rack She further admitted that she had told no one to punch out for her. She stated that she did not know whether the card had been punched out or not but stated that she merely assumed that as it was in the out rack it had been punched out. She did not look at the card to determine whether it had been punched out or not, though the card was easily available and might have been checked on that point. Such an explanation is obviously weak and not worthy of belief. In relation to the other discrepancy in her records, which consisted of the duplication of the tickets for batches of work which she had done, she had no adequate explanation. She stated that she remembered of one or two alleged mistakes which she had made, but she had no recollection of making so many so-called mistakes as appear on the company's records. She was questioned closely in relation to the prozedure by which the various workers submit tickets for the work which they have done and she admitted that it was quite probable that both the regular form of ticket and the duplicate ticket contained her signature and as a practical matter it would be extremely difficult for the company to fabricate duplications which appear in those records. She only made a blanket allegation that she had intended to do no dishonest acts. She had no adequate explanation to offer for her signing the confession of having defrauded the company and stated that she did so under duress and threat that if she failed to do so she would be subject to criminal prosecution. That answer, of course, is also obviously ridiculous. She further admitted that she very probably made the following statement to Mr. Goldeneoff at the time she was confronted with her errors: "The devil must have gotten into me." That, again, would be a very lame way of saying that she was in error. It certainly shows that she was aware of her own wrongful intent and failed to even lamely exeuse it. Throughout the conference Sandra Slotkin, the organizer for the union insisted upon acting, as she termed it, as attorney for Mrs. Upton. She takes the posi tion that some of these things the company has dug up since Mrs. Upton was discharged. This is no doubt true but inconsequential in so far as reinstatement is concerned in the writer's view. The writer has taken the position that even though this woman had been discharged for union activities by the company and a case could be made out, it would be improbable that the Board would find more than a technical 8 (1) and no doubt refuse to reinstate her because of her dishonest acts. Miss Slotkin is entirely tenacious in her contention that Ida Upton was discharged for union activities and claims that the entire pajama department has been intimidated as a result of that discharge. As a final move in order to dispose of the case of Ida Upton, the writer offered to take Mrs. Upton directly to the plant and confront here with the records which the company has and which bear her signature and allow her to examine them and make any explanation of them that she might see fit. She expressed extreme reluctance to accept that offer and Sandra Slotkin said she would advise her not to do so. Since the conference had reached an impasse and the writer expressed the view that the charge in behalf of Ida Upton should be withdrawn or otherwise would be dismissed, I did agree upon the request of Sandra Slotkin to hold it in abeyance for the time being while she investigated some further facts which she felt might have some bearing on Ida Upton's case and the charges of 8 (1) violations by the company. She was advised to communicate with this office when she had secured those additional facts and an examiner would come to Louisville at an early date, thereafter. KWF bw Heldman-Schild, Incorporated: To: The File. From: R. S. Macke. OCTOBER 13, 1938. Subject: Telephone Conversation between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Kroll, IX-R-268; Heldman-Schild, Inc., 400 Pike St., Covington, Ky. Mr. K. There is a committee of seven people in the office and I want to go on record in their presence about the situation over at Heidman. They are reorganizing and a new firm is going to take their place. This new firm has been told by the workers in the plant that they want to continue to do the work in Cincinnati and the people were willing to take a 17% reduction in wages if the firm would continue. These people are telling me that George Suder has run out on them when they needed him the most. They feel that the United Garment Workers are not representing them and want to come into the Amalgamated. They want to decide by a vote what they want. Mr. Heldman has told them they will come back to an open shop and then they will have an opportunity to decide what union they want. In my opinion I believe he is figuring on closing up the shop and is going to sign up with the U. G. W. before they go back to work, and the people will have nothing to say. That is my opinion, but they didn't tell me that this afternoon. Mr. P. Why don't they file a petition to find out. Have you any local down there to file a petition. Mr. K. How many names do you want on it. Mr. P. I should think one would be enough. Mr. K. It would be necessary to file a petition. Mr. P. You want to be careful how you do it. Perhaps you had better come in and talk to me about it. Mr. K. I'll come down and talk to you tomorrow morning and get that petition. Mr. P. O. K. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. NOVEMBER 23, 1938. Subject: Heldman-Schild Inc., IX-R-268. I had a call from Mr. Abt of the Amalgamated yesterday, in which he stated that since the United Garment Workers made its agreement, the company has been reorganized and consequently the Amalgamated sees no bar to an investigation under 9 (c). You did not mention this factor to me in our talk Monday, if it is a factor, and I am wondering what the facts concerning this are. In any event, I shall await your report on the case, which you said Monday you would submit shortly. N. W. NOVEMBER 30, 193s. To: Mrs. Macke. From: Mrs. Iliff. Subject: Re: Heldman-Schild, IX-R-268. In response to the invitation sent to this office by the employees of the above company, I attended their meeting last night which was held on the sixth floor of the Railway Clerks Building. I estimated the attendance at about 125 to 150 people, all of whom were employees of the company with the exception of Mr. Kroll and one or two other men from the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. No one was present from the company, nor did George Suter or Jack Hearst tend Mr. Norbert Godfried presided at the meeting. He was elected chairman by the employee representatives who sponsored the meeting. After opening the meeting he spoke for about a half hour during which he told the employees that he has spent most of his time during the last few weeks organizing for the Amalgamated and that 191 out of the 235 employees of the company have signed application cards. He stated that some of the employees who had signed cards had notified him that they were unavoidably prevented from attending the meeting but that they were strong for the Amalgamated He mentioned also in the course of his talk that Mr. Suter had called a meeting for the same night but I was unable to confirm this although I talked to many of the employees present. Most of Godfried's remarks were concerned with criticism of George Suter and the way he handled the United Garment Workers. He told of an occasion when Suter had promised a man that he would kick another union man out of work to give him a job. He criticized the way Suter bad submitted to the many wage cuts that the employees had been forced to take within the last year, and finally the way Suter had "washed his hands of them" when the going got tough. He stated that the only way to get rid of Suter was to get rid of United Garment Workers, because Suter was in for life by appointment and the employees had no opportunity to choose another rep resentative who would suit them better. Godfried was followed by Albert Kellar, another employee representative, who spoke along much the same lines. He has worked at the plant for 20 years during which time he was a member of the United Garment Workers under Suter. He urged the men to break away from the United and free themselves of the domination of Mr. Suter. He warned them also that the cutters in the plant would urge them to stick with the United but that the reason for this was that the cutters had never taken a cut but had let the other employees suffer at their expense. Following Kellar's talk, various employees spoke from the floor. Some of these had obtained work in Amalgamated shops recently or had worked in Amalgamated shops sometime in the past and all of them explained how much better conditions were in those shops than under the United. Other employees took the floor to air various grievances against Mr. Suter. After the floor discussion, Mr. Kroll addressed the meeting. He spoke briefly of Mr. Suter and the United Garment Workers and the methods used by both the representative and the union. He then explained to the employers that if the shop came into the Amalgamated as a body they would be charged no initiation fee but that their dues would be $2.25 a month. The employees thought this was pretty much since they have evidently only been paying a dollar into the United, but Kroll assured them that they would get their money's worth. He told them that the Amalgamated would give them real representation and would handle any grievance for them no matter how petty He told them that the Amalgamated would not allow them to be intimidated by threats of taking the work away to small towns because his union would follow the company wherever they took the work and organize the workers He promised them that if the time came that the company attempted to further cut their wages, he would not "wash his hands of them" but would make every effort to dissuade the company from that policy. He explained to the em ployees that the election had been delayed by Mr. Suter and that a hearing would have to be held before the Board could certify any union. He urged the employees to go back to work pending the Board hearing and to sew the United labels in the garments if it was necessary but told them not to pay dues to the United and to come out strong for the Amalgamated and not stay on the fence. He said that if they were discharged or discriminated against in any way for failing to pay their dues to the United, he would file charges for them with the National Labor Relations Board. He then suggested that a secret vote be taken to determine whether the employees present wished the Amalgamated to represent them. They were to vote "yes" if they wanted the Amalgamated and "no" or "United Garment Workers" if they wanted to continue in the United. Several representatives then passed out white slips of paper and the employees voted. There were 136 votes cast, 135 "yes" and one blank. Of course this election was not conducted in a very orderly way but as a matter of fact no one did vote against the Amalgamated. During Mr. Kroll's speech there was a great deal of applause and the employees present seemed to be very much in favor of changing their union affiliation. Mr. Kroll then told the employees again to return to work and that if Suter came into the shop to let him know and he would come in also. A committee was then appointed by Mr. Godfried to contact the company today and notify them of the vote that was taken and ask them to open the plant and let everyone go back to work. MI: GG MARY ILIFF. To: Mr. Nathan Witt. [Air mail] DECEMBER 2, 1938. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Heldman-Schild, Inc., manufactures boys' and men's clothing. It purchases most of its woolens outside of the State of Kentucky and sells approximately $5% to customers outside of the state. It employs approximately 285 production workers and does about $500,000.00 business annually. Approximately three months ago, Heldman-Schild, Inc., announced they were going to discontinue business. They claimed they were losing money and could no longer operate. It so happens that the attorney for the company is one of my very dear friends and at that time, when the Amalgamated Clothing Workers were in no way in the picture, told me in strictest confidence that the firm expected to open up elsewhere where lower rates could be utilized and with some new capital. He asked me whether there was any chance of running afoul of the National Labor Relations Act and I explained to him that he was running right into its teeth in all probability and that I felt he should not move to escape the union. The United Garment Workers had a contractual relationship with HeldmanSchild, Inc., for approximately thirty years. Their contract is one of those Lebulous documents providing primarily for a closed shop in return for the use of the union label; (I will send you a copy tomorrow. The company has the only one in existence and their attorney promises me that I will have a copy at that time.) Wages, hours and working conditions were never bargained about; in fact, there is no contract covering wage scales. The company paid the union scale without a contract. The present contract does not expire until May, 1939. The shutdown did not excite the workers too greatly, as the firm has in the past always had seasonal shutdowns, but none of as long duration as the present one. Immediately after the shutdown when the firm announced they could no longer pay the wage scale, the United Garment Workers offered to take an 18% cut even though there was no wage contract in existence. The offer of the cut was refused, the company telling the United Garment Workers they would be forced to stay permanently closed as they were losing money. The workers grew dissatisfied, the Amalgamated appeared on the scene. Confidentially, I know that at the time the Amalgamated appeared there was an effort made on their behalf to sign a contract with the company and organ za from the top down, although this is impossible, of course, to prove. I have be so told by both the company and the Amalgamated. If it were done, there would have been no company domination, as the Amalgamated is easily the outstand ing union in these parts. The Amalgamated spent much time in the shop showing the company how it could change its methods of operations to make money, and as a matter of fact, they did persuade the company. The company, however, in sisted on being protected from "labor trouble" before reopening. They notes theless purchased a complete stock of material for the spring season and have their orders all laid out. They are at present starting their cutting operations and within two weeks the plant should be going at full blast. At present the Amalgamated has the plant very well organized. 191 workers have signed up cards for the organization. They also cailed a meeting very recently of the employees, and asked the United Garment Workers' representa tives to attend, which offer was refused. They conducted a secret ballot among the 136 present and the vote was alleged to have been 135 out of the 136 in faver of the Amalgamated. This meeting was on November 21. The same day the officials of the Amal gamated approached the company for a signed contract showing them their cards and announcing the results of the meeting in order to obtain it. The company took the matter under consideration. On November 22 the United Gaument Workers notified the company that if they signed with the Amalgamated they would sue them for breach of contract. The company then refused to sign with the Amalgamated, claiming it needed protection and was desirous of knowing with whom to bargain by means of a National Labor Relations Board certification There is no question but that the Amalgamated has sufficient evidence to obtain certification at present, if certification be proper under the circumstances The company, because of their previous commitments, decided to resume op erations without any contract until the Board advised them what to do. I live been informed by both the Amalgamated and by the company, in confidence, that it then dissolved and became the Heldman-Schild-Lasser Company. They cael told me that the entire scheme was worked out in order to give the comp.Ly maximum protection against the United Garment Workers. However, the com pany will not sign with the Amalgamated until and unless the Board deems i proper. The company will claim that the new incorporation was for the pur roses of paying lesser taxes and in order to get new capital." Lasser did add a few dollars in cash for some stock, but it is more or less fictitions. It is also true that the common and preferred stock have been altered in rights and proportionate amounts, the holders of the stock are a bit different: for example: where a son owned 20%, he now owns 30%, with his father owning proportionately less, or where a wife, instead of a husband, has a part of the new stock. An interesting commentary on the whole thing is that Abt told you on November 22 that a new corporation had been formed, whereas it was only incorporated on December 1 and announced in the trade rapers today. Heldman-Sebild Lasser has the same customers, the same personnel, the same managers, the same trade names as Heldman-Schild, and it is the same; except, perhaps, to such clear thinkers as Ed Warren, who realize that the corporate fiction cannot be disre garded because it is no fiction. I don't know how much we really could prove about the two corporations. The company could give apparent reasons for the change, although I feel a little ereses examination would develop all that is needed to knock the matter out. I keeply feel that the case should not be any different from one where there is no charge in corporate structure. If we establish a principle that by a mambo-jumbo change in corporate organization a contract could be disregarded, it would fly back in our face to hit us in situations far more urgent than this. I still feel, however, that a hearing would not be amiss. For one thing a hearing would and should stop any attempt by either union to do more organizing from the top down The Board can have an easy out in any event. It probody would not render any decision until so close to May that the answer is there will be no contract in existence at the time the election is held or the certification made. Should we wait until the contract expires before permitting a hearing or should we not, in situations such as the one under discussion, anticipate the expiration of the contract and have a bargaining agency ready to serve at that time? Besides, the case is really New England Transportation in all its glory The United Garment Workers are far more interested in label sales in return for a closed shop than in a closed shop for working conditions. Is it possible to free ion in a company merely by the device of getting a two years' con |