If we are to attack the validity of the contract on the undoubted showing ›f coercion exercised by the company, we should have to show that the employees had never accepted the contractual relationship. This might be supported by the history of the correspondence between the shop committees and the union district head and the union manager for the year and four months. during which the contract was in force before the crisis arose. From the history which Cowdrill has given us, we can sense that there was continual unrest among a group of employees who had had the gumption apparently before any organization efforts were made from the outside to resist the imposition upon them of a company union, and who had left a company-engineered anti-union meeting to adjourn to another place and sign up in an undesignated C. I. O. affiliation, paying dues at that time. On the other hand, see the quotation from Clark's memorandum of July 26 indicating that the contract was accepted by the employees pretty completely at least until the removal of Miss Ruth Miller as union manager. I think this is probably more in line with the true situation. To sum up: 1. The employees did accept and worked under the terms of the contract from around June 2, 1937, until October 10, 1938. 2. When the employer evidenced his willingness to take the employees back, they went without question to the union and sought to get back by applying to the union. 3. In the light of Perlstein's lack of cooperation with Cowdrill's efforts to find out the status of the 35 complainants, we do not know whether the union has dropped these people from the membership rolls (except for mailing them a publication) or whether they are being temporarily disciplined. 4. If we are not going to attack the validity of the contract, it would seem that we have no right to hold an employer in violation of Section 8 (3) of the law if he insists upon the union taking responsibility under its closed shop contract, and if the union has decided the matter adversely to the complainants. There is evidence recently in the file that Mrs. Bobby White spoke to Cowdrill of the U. M. W. (Morgan and Suver) being interested in the plight of these employees. You will recall that the I. L. G. split off from the C. I. O. in November 1938. Attention: Mr. Witt. From: Garrett. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-Z NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I have read your memo dated September 27, 1939, respecting the Cornbleet case, and agree with it fully. (Written notation:) Mrs. Stern: I would dismiss. J. W. M. S. G. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-AA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Attention: Mrs. B. M. Stern. From: Nathan Witt. Date: 10/10/39. Please note that the Board decided yesterday that a complaint should not be issued. The Board wants you to watch for any appeal in the case, and wants you to bring the matter to the Board if there is any appeal, without sending it through the Review Section. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-AB To: Robert H. Cowdrill, Director, Eleventh Region. From: Nathan Witt, Secretary. Subject: Cornbleet Brothers, XI-C-499. OCTOBER 10, 1939. The Board gave further consideration to the above case yesterday, and decided that you should refuse to issue a complaint. nw;jcb. Subject: Cornbleet Brothers, Case No. XI-C-499. Mr. Cowdrill, who is at present in Madisonville, Kentucky, has been informed of the Board's decision that he should refuse to issue a complaint in the above case, but, before taking this action, the Director intends to communicate with you further with respect to the disposition of the matter. LW EXHIBIT NO. 1630-AD INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION L. W. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NOVEMBER 3, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, Regional Director, 11th Region. Re your memorandum of October 10th. It is needless to say that I am greatly surprised at the Board's decision to refuse to issue a complaint in this matter and I cannot understand why such a conclusion was reached when the facts in this case appear to me to warrant ab early hearing. The I. L. G. W. U. herein involved is accused of the same tactics as those used by several A. F. of L. organizations who have been found guilty of collusion with employers in the matter of depriving employees of the right to choose their own representation. I do not wish to repeat the background of this caseas correspondence between this office and the Board has acquainted you with all of the available evidence-but I do think it is important to stress that the proof of the company dominance of the I. L. G. W. U. was revealed when employees were arbitrarily told that a 10% reduction would be made whether the members agreed to it or not. The complaining employees were then advised by the union that no conference with the company officials would be arranged in an effort to appease the dissatisfaction caused by the reduction. The resulting strike ending with the "wholesale" discharge of a large number of old employees-is a matter that certainly should be publicly heard, and it is my opinion that the record would sufficiently substantiate the charges filed against the company. Another matter which I wish to impress upon the Board is the fact that for many months this office endeavored to prevail upon the union official involved (Perlstein) to consult with us regarding an adjustment of the difliculties, but our requests for such a discussion were completely ignored at all times. Our effort to induce the company to effect a settlement was met with the one response that it could not adjust the matter unless informed to do so by the union. Whether the organization involved in a complaint case is affiliated with the A. F. of L. C. I. O., or neither, we expect cooperation when requested, and if assistance is denied, it is natural to suspect that the organization is guilty of collusion with the employer. Neither an employer or a union should be permitted by the Board to disregard our earnest efforts to effectuate the policies of the Act and, a concealment of facts when a disclosure ordinarily would be anticipated, by itself brands the employer or the union as guilty. It is doubly serious when, as a bonus for ignoring our attempts to settle the case, both union and employer are "white washed" by my refusal to issue a complaint. I sincerely trust that the Board will reconsider its instructions to me on this case and, in order to acquaint the Board with all of the facts involved may I suggest that our files be submitted to the Board for its inspection and final answer? R. H. C. RHC/LW. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-AE To: Robert H. Cowdrill, Director, Eleventh Region. Subject: Cornbleet Brothers, XI-C-499. NOVEMBER 20, 1939. On November 18, the Board considered your memorandum of November 3. The Board wants you to refuse to issue a complaint, as directed in my memorandum of October 10. The Board will give further consideration to the matter if an appeal is taken. Such an appeal will serve to bring your files before the Board, as suggested in your memorandum of November 3. For your information, the Board has decided, after the case is finally disposed of, to write President Dubinsky of the I. L. G. W. U. concerning your difficulties in securing the cooperation of Mr. Perlstein in connection with your investigation. nw: jcb. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-AF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Attention: Mrs. B. M. Stern. From: Nathan Witt. Date: 11/20/39. Please note that the Board has decided to write Mr. Dubinsky after the appeal has been decided. Will you please make a note to bring this matter to my attention when the time for filing appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed or when the case is decided after the appeal. Attention: Mr. Witt. From: AN Collins. Date: 12/2/39. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-AG NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Some time ago Miss Frankfurter told me to be on the lookout for a request for review in the Cornbleet Bros. case (XI-C-499). She did not give any special reason and I am therefore bringing it to your attention in the event there might be something special on it. Mr. Cowdrill's letter dismissing the complaint is dated 11/24/39 so the request for review would therefore be timely. (Written notation:) See my memo to Cowdrill, 11/20; pink to B M S, 11/20. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-AH INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: Mrs. Beatrice Stern, Assistant Secretary. JANUARY 20, 1940. From: Thomas I. Emerson, Associate General Counsel. Charges filed-January 19, 1939, alleging 8 (1), (2), and (3) Authorization for issuance of complaint received-April 26, 1939* Refusal to issue complaint-November 24, 1939 Request for review received-December 2, 1939 *Request for authorization. THE INVESTIGATION A. THE COMPANY The Company is engaged in the manufacture and retail sale of women's garments. It has its principal plant at Henderson, Kentucky, a branch plant a McLeansboro, Illinois, a business office at St. Louis, Missouri and retail shops in 15 different states. The instant case concerns only the Henderson plant. number of production workers employed there has varied between about 3* and 450. B. THE ISSUES 8(1) and (2).-On May 26, 1937, the Company undertook to instigate the formation of an inside union. Specifically, on that day, it announced a 10 per cent wage "bonus", directed the plant instructors to circulate among the employees a petition for an inside union and caused two speeches to be made in the pat one during working hours by an instructor urging the creation of an inside unior. and the other after working hours by the local school superintendent disparaz ing outside unions, during the latter of which the employees were locked in the plant. That evening about 200 employees met at a public park to consider the matter of organization and resolved to form an outside-preferably a C. I, O.-union On the next day, May 27, the plant was closed indefinitely, with the admonition that it might be moved to McLeansboro, Illinois. The Company contends that the shut-down was due to slack business. The charges alleges that it was a lockout. The evidence disclosed by the investigation indicates that it was a lock-out resulting from the demonstration of opposition to the Company's plans for an inside union. Apparently immediately following the shut-down, Richard Cornbleet, the partner managing the Henderson plant, went to St. Louis, Missouri for the purpose of contacting Perlstein, District Director for the I. L. G. W. U. There he negoti ated with Perlstein for an 18 months' I. L. G. W. U. closed-shop contract, renewable at the sole option of the Company, covering both the Henderson and Mc Leansboro plants. Although the evidence is somewhat conflicting. it appears to establish that the contract was executed on May 29 in St. Louis. Cornbleet returned to Henderson on June 1, taking Perlstein, a Ruth Miller and two I. L. G. W. U. organizers with him. During Cornbleet's absence from Henderson, the plant instructors had continued, without any apparent success, to promote an inside union by signing up individual employees; a public meeting had been held, presided over by a member of the police department, at which some of the local businessmen spoke against the C. I. O.; and arrangements had been made, admittedly at Cornbleet's behest, for a meeting of those employees favorably disposed toward an inside union, to be held in Henderson at the Soaper Hotel on June 1, the date of his return. During the same period, a group of the employees who met on May 26 to protest the inside-union movement had communicated with Poland, a C. I. O. subDistrict Director and U. A. W. A. representative, located in Evansville, Indiana: had with the assistance of Poland instituted an intensive membership drive; and, by June 1, had secured C. I. O. application cards' together with $2.00 charter 1 That plant is operated under a lease from the city, providing for a tax free factory site and building at nominal rent and power and water without cost. The contract was renewed in 1939, during the pendency of this case, for a period of 5 years. Apparently there was some belief that outside organizers were about to come into the plant. 3 According to one of the complainants, forelady Shirley explained that Cornbleet bad gone to get the union he wanted the employees to have and that it would be so much like the inside union already started that they wouldn't know the difference. The Company formerly operated a plant in St. Louis, under contract with the I. L. G. W. U. The I. L. G. W. U. was at that time, and until November 1939, affiliated with the C. 1.0 Some of the respondent's witnesses claim that the contract was signed after a meeting at the Soaper Hotel on June 1, hereinafter discussed, but the contract is dated May 29 and the Evansville Press quotes Richard Cornbleet as saying that he had signed it in St Louis on May 29, da The respondent's responsibility for this meeting is not clearly established although there is some indication that Cornbleet arranged for it. Said application cards did not designate a particular C. I. O. union. Nor was it known then which of the C. I. O. unions, if any, would issue a charter. assessments from about 280 of the then approximately 400 employees and had also elected officers. The June 1 meeting was held at the Soaper Hotel, as arranged by the Company. Some 200 employees assembled outside the Hotel in protest. Only about 54 employees, of whom about 20 were supervisory employees, attended the meeting. Apparently, some of the 20 were from the McLeansboro plant. Cornbleet appeared with the I. L. G. W. U. representatives brought from St. Louis. He introduced Perlstein and then withdrew to the corridor outside the meeting room. Perlstein spoke about the I. L. G. W. U. I. L. G. W. U. application cards were distributed and were signed by about 25 of the 54 employees present. Officers were elected, in accordance with the expressed preferences of forelady Shirley. Finally, Perlstein advised that an I. L. G. W. U. contract-which in fact was already extant-would be executed within a few days. On the next day, June 2, the plant reopened. Ruth Miller was installed as Union Manager by Perlstein. All who applied for work on June 2 were reemployed upon the signing of a blank paper. It was later explained that by so signing the employees had applied for I. L. G. W. U. membership. Initiation fees were immediately thereafter deducted from the weekly wages, although the contract contained no check-off provision. Among those who returned to work on June 2 and thereby became affiliated with the I. L. G. W. U. were the 280 employees who had just previously made application for membership in the C. I. O. They thereafter acquiesced in the I. L. G. W. U. contract, having been informed by Poland shortly after June 2 that he could do nothing more for them. Poland also asserted, during the investigation, that he had refunded the charter assessments collected from the C. I. O. applicants and filed away their application cards in his Evansville office. About February 1938, Perlstein replaced Ruth Miller as Union Manager with a Miss Zappone from St. Louis. There is some evidence to the effect that Perlstein became dissatisfied with Miller because of her inability to collect dues and because she had been "doing too much for the girls." Allegedly, numerous grievances thereafter arose out of the Company's failure to comply with certain provisions of the contract, some of which, for example, pertained to wage cuts and other economies made by Brooks, an efficiency expert, brought into the plant by the Company during the summer of 1938. Such grievances were reported to Zappone as well as to Perlstein, but no adjustment resulted. On October 10, 1938, the Company announced the immediate discontinuance of the above-mentioned 10 per cent "bonus," granted on May 26, 1937. That announcement aroused agitation among the employees for a meeting of the local I. L. G. W. U. Executive Board to consider possible union action against the proposed wage reduction. Authorization for the meeting was denied by Zappone, however, as was permission to use the union hall for such purpose. When the plant opened the following morning, about 200 of the then approximately 350 employees refused to work. The management met with the union committee but refused to restore the "bonus," whereupon a picket line was formed. On October 12 the plant was closed. The strike continued until October 23. In the interim the Mayor and the local Board of Trade had been attempting to settle the strike, the Company having threatened to move the plant to McLeansboro. On October 22, the Mayor advised the strike committee that the Company would reopen the plant providing the picketing ceased. The picketing ended on October 22, and on October 31 the plant was opened. On November 1, the Company exercised its option to continue the I. L. G. W. U. contract until December 31, 1939. 8 (3). Upon the termination of the October 11 strike, all the employees were asked to and did sign a pledge of allegiance to the I. L. G. W. U., acknowledging that the strike was illegal under the union's contract. All signing the pledge, with the exception of 38 persons who had served on the picket line, were sent by the union to report for work and were reemployed on October 31. Most of the mentioned 38 were not sent to the plant but they reported nonetheless and were refused reemployment. Two additional employees who refused to sign the pledge also reported for work and were likewise refused reemployment. Of those 40 persons, 35, including the latter two, are named in the complaint. Apparently all 40 are considered by the I. L. G. W. U. as having been suspended The Company's lease with the city, mentioned in footnote 1, supra, was due to expire in October 1939. As of August 1939, arrangements appear to have been made for its renewal, on condition that the McLeansboro plant be moved to Henderson. |