N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 343 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 343-A INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Twelfth Region FEBRUARY 3, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: Frederick F. Mett, Acting Director, Twelfth Region. Ar Authorization for issuance of complaint and notice of hearing is hereby requested in the above case. The original Charge was filed on February 25, 1938, by the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1672, through the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. O. It alleged unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) amended Charge was filed on January 5, 1939, by the Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Committee, Local 102, affiliated with the C. I. O., the successor organization to the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, which alleged unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1, 2, and (3). On January 23, 1939, a Second Amended Charge was filed allegg unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1) and (2). If authorized, the Complant will be under Section 8 (1) and (2). THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS The general jurisdictional facts in the matter of the International Harvester Company are thoroughly analyzed in the Board's Decision in Case No. C-41, issued November 12, 1936, involving that company. The Milwaukee Plant, which is the only plant of the company involved in this case, produces the following products: 1. McCormick-Deering tractors, models 10-20, W-30, W-40; 2. Diesel motors for tractor and power unit use; 3. Four sizes of McCormick-Deering cream separators; 4. Stationary gasoline engines, 11⁄2 h. p. and 3 h. p.; 5. McCormick-Deering milking machines. The bulk of all of the aforementioned products is shipped in interstate and foreign commerce. At least 80% of the raw materials used in the manufacture of these products is derived from sources outside of the State of Wisconsin and at least 80% of these products is shipped to points outside of the State of Wisconsin. Employment in the Milwaukee Plant has always been very irregular. Ir 1938, it was more irregular than in any previous year. At the peak, over 6,000 employees were employed at the Milwaukee Plant. The average employment of the plant is a little less than 5,000. The company will stipulate as to all of the jurisdictional facts. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The organizations involved are the Farm Equipment Workers OrganĚ Committee, Local 102, affiliated with the C. I. O., and The Harvester Employees Industrial Union, affiliated with the Federation of Employees Associations of Farm Equipment Manufacturers. The Second Amended Charge, upon which the proceeding will be based, was filed, as has heretofore been stated, by the Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Committee, Local 102, affiliate with tur C. I. O. LABOR RELATIONS HISTORY The International Harvester Company was one of the first companies to organize a works council plan as a labor relations scheme. The Harvester Industrial Council Plan originated in 1919. It became effective in Milwaukee ortly thereafter; after being adopted by a vote of the employees. This plan as set up on an international basis. Works Council Plans were set up in every ant of the company in the United States and Canada and similar plans were t up in the plants of the Internatinoal Harvester Company in Sweden, Germany id France. A fine analysis of the operation of the Works Council Plan in the Fort Wayne orks of the International Harvester Company is contained in the Board's ecision in Case No. C-41 referred to above. The organization and operation the Milwaukee Works Council Plan was similar, if not identical, to that of the ort Wayne Works Council Plan. On April 21, 1937, only nine days after the "magnificent April 12, 1937," the anagement of the Milwaukee Plant, by mail, notified all of the Milwaukee emloyees that the company's connections with the local Works Council Plan had een severed.1 On April 28, 1937, a committee, claiming to represent the employees of the Milwaukee Plant, organized into an alleged independent union known as the Harester Employees Industrial Union, requested recognition as the bargaining gency of the employees of the Milwaukee Plant.2 On May 5, 1937, the company recognized the Harvester Employees Industrial Union as the bargaining agent for its members. This was followed by a vehement rotest on the part of the Farm Equipment Workers Association, the then existing 3. I. O. Union. On May 6, 1937, the C. I. O. Union requested an immediate conference with the management of the Milwaukee Plant for the purpose of registering its protest against this recognition. Three weeks elapsed before the management finally arranged to confer with the committee of the C. I. O. Union. A conference, held on May 27, 1937, resulted in an agreement for the recognition of the C. I. O. Union as the bargaining agent for its members, effective on June 7, 1937. On June 16, 1937, just nine days later, Mr. Leiser, Milwaukee Plant superintendent, sent a letter to all of the Milwaukee Plant employees advising them that the International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Plant, would, in the future, bargain exclusively with the Harvester Employees Industrial Union as the representative of all of these employees. Recognition as exclusive bargaining representative, and exclusive bargaining, were granted to the Harvester Employees Industrial Union after a certified public accountant had checked its membership cards against the Milwaukee Plant payroll and had certified to the company its majority status. At all time thereafter, the company refused to recognize the C. I. O. as bargaining representative even for its members only. Shortly after June 16, 1937, the company began "negotiating" with the representatives of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union for the purpose of arriving at a contract. On November 1, 1937, a contract between the International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Plant, and the Harvester Employees Industrial Union was signed.3 On January 3, 1938, when it became apparent that there were to be many layoffs due to curtailed production schedule, an addendum to the agreement was arrived at dealing with the question of seniority rights. In September, 1938, after the plant had been shut down for approximately six weeks, the plant resumed employment and steadily increased production. The Harvester Employees Industrial Union requested that the company exempt their union officers and representatives from seniority requirements. The company granted this privilege. This has proved to be an extremely valuable concession. At the present time, the contract, plus the addendum of January 3, 1938, and this unwritten exemption of Harvester Employees Industrial Union officers from seniority requirements, constitutes the working agreement between the company and the Harvester Employees Industrial Union. On November 1, 1938, the contract between the Harvester Employees Industrial Union and the International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Plant, was renewed. This renewal took place despite the fact that the company knew that there were charges filed against it alleging that it had dominated and interfered with the formation of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union. 1 See letters from Mr. Leiser, plant superintendent, and Mr. McAllister, company president, dated April 21, 1937, copies of which are attached hereto. A detailed account of the formation of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union, as well as the Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. O., is contained in paragraph "Company Dominated Unions." (infra). See copy attached. 4 See addendum to union agreement dated January 3, 1938, copy of which is attached hereto. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Interference, Restraint and Coercion. We have accumulated a large number of signed and witnessed affidavits w allege that many foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory empire intimidated and coerced their employees from joining the Farm Equipment W ers Association and its successor organizations, The Amalgamated Associati Iron, Steel and Tin Workers, and the Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Comittee. The material contained in these affidavits is summarized below: 1. Efforts were made to discredit the legitimate union leaders as being than unappreciative and radical. In some cases, employees were advised not to the C. I. O. because "John Lewis is a Jew and the whole C. I. O. is communiste 2. When various foremen were handing out the bonuses for the year 1937, Vadvised their employees that this bonus was given to them because the cons had made money because there was no "labor trouble" and that if they had to s trouble in 1938, they would get a larger bonus. 3. Certain foremen who were friendly to their employees advised them that would be foolish for them to maintain their membership and activity C. I. O. 4. Some employees allege that their foremen used certain "Stooges" to spv -them. Proof in our possession is, as yet, entirely subjective. 5. Some employees were advised and warned that if the C. I. O. came d' the plant, they would have lower pay and that they would have strikes a labor trouble. 6. Some foremen appealed to the loyalty of the employees with the statetuent "The company has always been good to you, why do you want to join t C. I. O.?" 7. One employee was advised to "go back to Belgium where you work hours a day for 25¢ an hour." 8. One foreman advised one of his employees that he was under considerat for promotion to the position of assistant foreman, but that he could not e this promotion because he was a member of the C. I. O. 9. There is considerable evidence indicating a serious effort to prevent activity of the C. I. O. members on company time and property; thong, members, stewards, and officers of the Harvester Employees Industrial Us were allowed to carry on their activity without interference and, in some with active cooperation. . 10. One employee revealed that his foreman attempted to "frame him by sonally soliciting most of the employees in his department and asking the t this employee was bothering them. On another occasion, this same empi was accused by his foreman of being a paid organizer active on company and property. It is interesting to note that a short time after this accusa' Anthony LaPorte, at that time an employee representative of the Works and now vice president of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union, appra this employee during working hours, put his arm around his shoulder an i "You know, Mandy, you have a wife and kids to support. Better lat We are going to start a union of our own in a short time. Lay off of M. Jeg a his gang. I started with Miller myself and even collected about $10.00 a is a racket. I was up in Bill Marefke's office, and he said that he had hod i trouble with one of his boys and he sent me up to talk with you." LaPorte went on to call the C. I. O. a bunch of communists, hoodlums, and dybal ter All of the above accusations are documented by affidavits. Much of the 2 terial contained in them is denied by the various foremen involved. Howe* most of it will stand up. The company's position on all this is that it has constantly and repeate t instructed its foremen and other supervisory help to be absolutely impartisi a not to intimidate and coerce its employees in any fashion. It admits ta' a considerable amount of this coercion might have taken place during the sprita and perhaps the summer of 1937. However, the company maintains that t coercion was stopped as soon as it was brought to its attention. In answer to this, the union asserts that a certain amount of intimidation a coercion is still going on and that the intimidation and coercion in the past had the effect of helping the independent union achieve a majority which wa followed by a contract, as well as the recent intimidation and coercion, has Miller at that time was organizing the Farm Equipment Workers Association and at the present im is the president of the Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Committee, siliitated with the C i o Foreman of the department. stabilized the Harvester Employees Industrial Union and obstructed the growth of the C. I. O. Company Dominated Unions. The Harvester Industrial Council Plan was started in 1919. It became effective in Milwaukee after being adopted by a vote of the employees and was used as a method of "collective bargaining" in the Milwaukee plant until the Plan was disestablished on April 21, 1937. In 1933, the employees of the tractor works in the City of Chicago organized a secret organization known as the A. B. C. Club. The purpose of this club was to attempt to elect to the Works Council militant and independent employee representatives. The A. B. C. Club succeeded at the tractor works, but they recognized that for full effectiveness they would have to spread their organizato other plants of the International Harvester Company. In the spring of 1936, the leader of the A. B. C. Club approached George Henning, one of the employee representatives at the Milwaukee Plant, in an effort to obtain his cooperation in organizing a club in Milwaukee. Henning refused to have anything to do with the idea. A few months later Frank Miller (present president of the C. I. O. local) was approached. Miller agreed to help organize a unit of the club at Milwaukee. After a few months of relatively successful organizing activity, Miller and the Executive Board Members of the A. B. C. Club decided to approach the more militant employee representatives to attempt to obtain their cooperation. They reviewed the minutes of the Works Council meetings and selected Anthony LaPorte as the councilman that they should approach. When they described their plan to LaPorte, he was very favorably impressed and called a meeting, at his house to which he invited the chairman of the Works Council employee representatives, Charles Urban. Both Anthony LaPorte and Charles Urban were enthusiastic about the idea of and possibilities inherent in the A. B. C. Club. Miller warned them that for the present it would be necessary for them to stay in the background. They agreed to do so. However, LaPorte was carried away with his enthusiasm and began to distribute membership cards and collect dues openly. A short time afterwards, he ceased all activity and became distinctly cold towards the A. B. C. Club idea. Miller approached La Porte who told him that he was on the spot, for the officers of the company who had previously been very friendly and warm towards him were distinctly antagonistic now and that it was perfectly apparent to him that they were going to get him and that after all, he had a wife and kids to look after and he could not endanger his job with the company. A few weeks later he apparently succeeded in removing the suspicion from himself, but suddenly Charles Urban dropped completely out of A. B. C. Club activity. Miller called Urban, and Urban told him that it was apparent to him that the management suspected him of being the organizer of the secret A. B. C. Club and that he was very worried about losing his job. Urban was quite frantic at this prospect. He was already over 50 years of age at the time and felt that he could not get a job elsewhere if he was fired. He pleaded with Miller to appreciate his predicament. On November 12, 1936, the Board issued its Decision disestablishing the Works Council Plan at Fort Wayne. Whether or not this had anything to do with the sudden decision of some of the employee representatives to organize another independent union, even though they had refrained from contact with and work for the A. B. C. Club, is a question. Nevertheless, it appears that the employee representatives now began to discuss the desirability of starting an "independent" union. These discussions took place at the regular meetings of the employee representatives, and they began to lay detailed plans for such an organization. When the officers of the A. B. C. Club, which at this time adopted the name of Farm Equipment Workers Association, discovered these plans of the employee representatives, they approached them requesting that they join the Farm Equipment Workers Association and help organize a united bona fide independent union. However, the employee representatives refused such offers of unity and went ahead with their plans to organize an "independent" union. There is no logical explanation for their refusal to line up with the Farm Equipment Workers Association, except their desire to form an organization which they could dominate and which would carry the "prestige" of being "O. K. with the company." During this entire period, the employee representatives met in the doctor's office in the company's office building. The employee representatives went ahead with their plans for setting up a separate organization despite all efforts of the Farm Equipment Workers Association to achieve unity. The leaders of the Farm Equipment Workers Association realized that ther would not be able to compete with the employee representatives, who, they krew would have (and did have) the cooperation and help of the company, as an Lpendent union. They, therefore, decided to affiliate with the C. I. O. and w--chartered by the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers North America. On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court decision sustained the constitutional of the National Labor Relations Act. About this time, the employee represent tives had membership cards and organizing leaflets printed and distributed in departments throughout the Milwaukee Plant. On or about April 14, 1937, them called a meeting at the South Side Armory in Milwaukee. This meeting was announced by leaflets distributed throughout the Plant on company time and :: the presence and with the full knowledge of the foremen. The meeting, from the beginning, was completely under the control of the employee representatives. George Henning, an employee representative, acte" as chairman and the prestige of the employee representatives, as well as the experience and ability in handling meetings, made it easy for them to control t Membership cards thereafter continued to be distributed throughout the platt In many cases the cards were actually placed right at the machine of the worke and later collected by the distributors. The employee representatives whe formed the backbone of this new organization were still officially employee repre sentatives of the Harvester Industrial Council Plan. In some cases, the company safety meetings were used to organize the union. Many foremen expressed themselves in favor of the independent union and against the C. I. O. It became apparent to the workers that the employee representatives were being given the free run of the plant to organize a union, t that the C. I. O. was distinctly not in favor with the foremen and management On April 17, 1937, another meeting was held at the Eagles Club at Milwaukee. This meeting also was completely under the direction of the employee represen tatives. Officers were nominated from the floor and elected. They were: George Henning, president; Anthony LaPorte, vice president; William Weber, treasurer; and Harvey Peterson, secretary. The first three mentioned were emploves representatives in the Works Council. Harvey Peterson was one of the organizers of the so-called independent union at the Harnischfeger Corporation↑ The labor representatives elected were: Paul Luebke, Charles Urban, Joseph Phillips, John Klecha, Louis Wetzel and Peter Lipscomb. All of these, with the exception of Peter Lipscomb, were employee representatives of the Works Council. Peter Lipscomb, was an inspector on the night shift and in charge of safety work for the night shift. It is he who used the safety meeting apparat is for the organization of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union. Thus, by April 21st, when the International Harvester Company, in a letter to all employees, disestablished the Harvester Industrial Council Plan, the Harvester Employees Industrial Union was well under way, and ready to take its place. On April 28, 1937, a committee representing the Harvester Employees Industrial Union saw the plant superintendent, Mr. Leiser, and requested permissior to represent the employees of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union despite the fact that the company knew that another organization was in existence in the plant and that perhaps they too had a claim to the representation of the workers. On May 5, 1937, a notice was posted by the company advising the employees that the company had recognized the Harvester Employees Industrial Union as the bargaining representative for its workers. The C. I. O. immediately protested this recognition and demands an immediate conference with the company. The company finally met with the C. I. O. three weeks later on May 27, 1937. On June 7, 1937, the International Harvester Company granted the C. I. O., i. e., the Farm Equipment Workers Association, bargaining rights for membership. However, for over a month, in the crucial organizing stage, the H. E. I. U. had the advantage of company recognition in its organizing campaign. On June 16, 1937, just nine days later, the company wrote a letter to all employees informing them that the Harvester Employee Industrial Union had submitted satisfactory evidence that its membership included a majority of the employees at the Milwaukee Plant and that, therefore, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, the company recognized the Harvester Employees Industrial Union of Milwaukee as the sole collective bargaining agency for all of the 7 On November 8, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board found the Harnischfeger independent union to be company dominated and ordered its disestablishment. |