N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 355 N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 355-A NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Week ending January 27, 1940 National Labor Relations Board, Docketed, Feb. 9, 1940, K. CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. XII-C-443. Name of company: Plumbers Woodwork Company Date charge received: May 6, 1939. Date case closed: January 24, 1940. Name of union: Veneer Workers Local Union. Affiliation: AFL. Yes; #1521, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America. Strike. Sections of act involved: 8 (1) (3) (5). Number of workers involved: 70 Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results!: A contract was negotiated on June 10, 1939, copy of which is enclosed herewith The strike was settled. Provisions of the contract settle the 8 (1) and 8-5 allegations. Due to the fact that the alleged 8 (3) matters were over a year old, the Union was willing to waive any claims with respect to 8 (3) to obtai: the contract. Delay in signing of withdrawal form has been due to a dispute as to interpretation of Article I of the contract. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge adjusted by settlement agreement? Yes. Was settlement agreement reduced to writing? Yes. If so, attach copy. Copy of agreement attached. Did regional office participate in securing agreement between parties? Yes. Was company's 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? recognition of or contract with such company union rescinded? 3. Number of workers reinstated. After strike all workers (70). criminatory discharge Amount of back pay, $ workers receiving back pay After d.-Number of 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? Yes. If so, was a written collective bargaining agreement entered into? Yes. If so, attach copy. Copy attached. If collective bargaining agreement not in writing, set forth main terms. 5. Was notice posted? No. If so, attach exact copy. How long posted? Section 8 (2)? Section 8 (3). 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? Yes. If so attach copy. Copy attached. Has union furnished confirmation of compliance? Yes. If so attach copy. Copy of contract attached. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Yes If not, give explanation: N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 355-B JANUARY 23, 1940. Re: Plumbers Woodwork Company, Algoma, Wisconsin, Case No. XII C 443 To John G. Shott, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, Twelfth Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR SIR: This is to request the withdrawal of the charge in the above matter, without prejudice. JAY A. HATHAWAY, #1521 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, (AFL· Request granted: January 24, 1940. JOHN G. SHOTT, Regional Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 356 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN WOOLEN MILL Co. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, TWELFTH REGION Week ending July 1, 1939 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. XII-C-376. Name of company: Prairie du Chien Woolen Mill Co. Date charge received: January 18, 1939. Date case closed: June 26, 1939. Name of union: Textile Workers Organizing Comm. Affiliation: C. I. O. Strike: No. Sections of act involved. 8 (1) and (3). Number of workers involved: six. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results): Field Examiner conferred with parties. Settlement Agreement was reached. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT Was company's recog 1. Was charge adjusted by settlement agreement? Yes. Was settlement agreement reduced to writing? Yes. If so, attach copy. Did regional office participate in securing agreement between parties? Yes. 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? nition of or contract with such company union rescinded? 3. Number of workers reinstated after strike or lockout after discriminatory discharge 4.* Amount of back pay, $300.00. Number of workers receiving back pay 5. 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? No. If so, was a written collective bargaining agreement entered into? If so, attach copy. If collective bargaining agreement not in writing, set forth main terms 5. Was notice posted? Yes. If so, attach exact copy. How long posted? 60 days. Does notice cover Section 7 of Act? Yes. Section 8 (1)? Yes. Section 8 (2)? Section 8 (3)? Yes. Section 8 (5)? No. 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? Yes. Settlement Agreement. If so, attach copy. Has union furnished confirmation of compliance? Yes. Settlement Agreement. If so, attach copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Yes. If not, give explanation: JUNE 22, 1939. Re: Prairie Du Chien Woolen Mill Co., Case No. XII-C-376. DEAR SIR: This is to request the withdrawal of the charge in the above matter, without prejudice. TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, By JOHN BANACHOWICZ. Request granted: June 26, 1939. JOHN G. SHOTT, Regional Director. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Prairie du Chien Woolen Mill Co., Respondent, and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, Affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, Complainant. Case No. XII-C-376 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT It is hereby agreed by and between the Prairie du Chien Woolen Mill Co., hereinafter referred to as the Company, and the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, hereinafter referred to as the Union, in the above-mentioned case before the Twelfth Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, as follows: 1. The Company has reinstated to their former positions, or positions substantially equivalent thereto, the following of its employees: Oscar Morel, Jesse Fischer, Keith Key, Tim Caya. Fifth employee had accepted other employment. Sixth employee-unfair labor practice could not be substantiated. The Company has also offered employment to Arthur Benish to his former position or one substantially equivalent thereto; 2. On March 18, 1939, the Company posted copies of the attached notice its bulletin boards in conspicuous places throughout its plant for a period of sixty (60) days. The Company has agreed and hereby agrees to continue effect the principles as set forth in the attached notice; 3. It is agreed that the Company will pay the sum of sixty dollars ($60.00) tổ each of the following of its employees in full settlement of any and all charges filed by the Union against the Company in the above-captioned matter: Oscar Morel, Jesse Fischer, Keith Key, Tim Caya and Arthur Benish. 4. Upon receipt of payment of the sums to the individuals as set forth in Paragraph 3 hereof, the Union hereby releases the Company from any and all cas it has or might have against the Company arising out of or in connection with the employment of any individuals whom they may have or do now claim to repres11 up to the present date. 5. It is further agreed that, in the event any employee, whom the Union does now or may in the future represent, claims a grievance arising out of his employ ment with the Company, such grievance will be presented to the Company and discussed by it with the local Union Committee. 6. Upon the performance by the Company of the terms and provisions contained in Paragraphs 1 to 4 inclusive, hereof, the Union shall immediately transmit to the Regional Director of the Twelfth Regional Office of the National Labor Reistions Board a written request for permission to withdraw the charges in the above-captioned matter. PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FROM THE TWELFTH REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THIS COMPANY WISHES TO ADVISE ITS EMPLOYEES THE FOLLOWING: 1. All employees have the right to join or remain members of the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. O., or any other bona-fide labor organization of their own choosing. 2. No group of employees or employee need fear any discrimination in conneetion with his or her job because of their union membership or activity. 3. Any statements that have been made indicating that this plant will shut down if the employees join or organize a union are false and unfounded. PRAIRIE DU CHIEN WOOLEN MILL Co. Subject: Richland Cooperative Creamery Co., Case No. C- 749. A consent decree, as you know, was entered in this matter on March 27, 1939 We are now anxious to hear from you as to compliance or lack of it with the Board's order, pursuant to your reports of last August, in order to guide the Board in future action regarding possible contempt proceedings. From: F. P. Mett, Regional Attorney. Subject: Richland Cooperative Creamery Co., Case No. XII-C-317, No. C-749 (XII-C-255-Closed 7/28/38). Mr. Gaylord Rice and Mr. Jacobsen of the Teamsters Union at the Richland Center plant, called today and talked to me. They apprised me of the fact that the situation at Richland Center was by no means cleared up, Dank not having been taken back and Lounsbury having been laid off a short time ago. Both Rice and Jacobsen were in a hurry to leave for Fond du Lac and, because of this fact, and because of the further fact that they did not have all of the facts on the situation at Richland Center in their possession, arrangements were made for them to be available on Friday at Richland Center when a representative of our office will go to Richland Center to investigate compliance, etc. From: E. J. Brophy. Subject: Richland Cooperative Creamery Company, Case No. C-749 (XII-C255-Closed), Case No. XII-C-317. 4/21/39. In answer to a request regarding compliance with the Order dated July 30, 1938, field examiner conferred with company and union representatives in Richland Center on Friday, April 21st. Union representatives consisted of Gaylord Rice, William Lounsbury, and John Dank. Following the various cease and desist and affirmative provisions of the Board's Order, the Union representatives conceded that the Cooperative had complied with the exception that they believed union employees had been discriminated against in their employment since the date of the Board's Order. As to what the Cooperative had done to comply with the Board's Order, it was conceded that it had posted the notice for the required period of time as outlined in the Board's Order and had not displayed any interference, restraint, or coercion with the right of the employees to join or remain members of the Union. Furthermore, to the knowledge of the Union representatives, the Cooperative has had no relationship of any connection with the Buttermakers Association since the date of the Board's Order. The Union further conceded that, in their opinion, there was no question but what the cooperative had bargained collectively within the meaning of the Act. They cited their last collective bargaining conference held with the cooperative some time in December in which the cooperative indicated willingness to sign the contract posted by the Union, providing the question of wages would remain the same and the Union would eliminate the closed shop provision as well as the seniority proposal. With those exceptions, the Cooperative informed the Union representatives at that time that it would sign a contract. However, the Union declined that proposal of the Cooperative inasmuch as they were insistent upon negotiating a closed shop agreement. The Union representatives stated that the Cooperative had at various times since the date of the Board's order discriminated against Union employees and favored non-Union employees. This discrimination included such things as giving more work to non-Union employees, the laying off of Union employees for a day or half a day when work was slack at particular intervals, however, the Union representatives did concede that it might be very difficult to prov discrimination in those respects. The field examiner raised the question of compliance with the Board's 0:5– following the Regional Office's activity in effecting an adjustment on the charges filed by the Union (case No. XII-C-317). At that time, the Union charged the Cooperative had discriminated against the Union in closing down its Day & Room, thereby laying off the six Union employees who were in that departm At that time, it was their contention, that the Cooperative, by closing the Dr. Room, had actually sacrificed some profit which it would have made had it ev tinued its operation. An investigation at that time indicated that the price powdered skim milk was at an unusually low level and that the manufact powdered skimmed milk would not result in a profit. In view of the fact that manufacture would not result in a profit, the Cooperative elected to sell its xə ta milk to casein plants and other large firms for the equivalent price which it pa f to the farmer for its whole milk. While going into the case at that time concerning the action of closing down the Drying Room, the Regional Office, nevertheless, was successful in getting the Cooperative to spread the remaining employment available to the regular enployees. In this connection, following the Drying Room being closed down, the Cooperative continued to employ three temporary non-Union employ working elsewhere in the plant. The workers in the Drying Room could have easily performed the tasks of those individuals, and considering their greater seniority and their ability to handle those positions, the Cooperative laid off t→ temporary non-Union employees as well as one or two other Union employe** having less seniority, and spread the work available among the employees throug – out its plant who had greatest seniority. As to compliance with the informal settlement worked out by the Rega Office, the Union stated that, in general, it had been carried out since Novemb of 1938. They cited an exception to this, namely, the case of Bill Lounsbury whom they charged was laid off despite his having greater seniority than ot: er Union and Non-Union employees. Lounsbury claims that he has two grievances against the Cooperative. Fist, of all, he believes that the Cooperative, through its manager, Bowen, was successi .. in his being blacklisted or prevented from obtaining a better position with tun Platteville Produce Company which offer he had obtained through the Douthitt Corporation of 221 North LaSalle Street, Chicago. Secondly, that Bowen ba recently laid him off, maintaining in his place a Union employee in the Dryng Room (which now operates on a considerably reduced scale requiring only o e full-time employee), disregarding Lounsberry's greater seniority, experience and ability at practically any job throughout the plant. Lounsbury was formerly foreman of the Drying Room. He believes that the controversy between the Co-operative and the Union is, in reality, a dispute between himself and Bower as the respective leaders. Lounsbury claims that shortly after the stipulation was entered into in July of 1938 and, before the Board's Order officially was published, the Co-operative closed down its Drying Room, reducing the employ of the employees in the Drying Room to one day per week. This situation continued until the months of Oct Par and November of 1938 when, upon the intervention of the Regional Office, të Co-operative was persuaded to regulate the employment available to its regular employees and to those oldest in the point of seniority. At that time and December 1, 1938, Lounsbury claims that he worked steadily as a helper in Intake Department. Following that, the Co-operative resumed operations in t` Drying Room which were continued until March 1, 1939. Due to the price powdered skim milk taking another drop the operations in the Drying Room were discontinued again on March 1st with the exception of the manufacture of nowdered buttermilk which requires the services of one regular employee. Man afs turing both powdered buttermilk and skim milk requires the services of from five to six regular employees. From March 1st until March 20th Lounsbury with Fick did some painting work in the plant, the position of the Drying Room being filled during the period by I. O. Simonsen (Union employee). After the painting work had been finished, Lounsbury was told by Bowen that the Co-operative would undoubtedly resume the manufacture of powdered skim milk and that bota he and Fick would be re-employed the following Tuesday or Wednesday. La bury claims that he has not been recalled to work or has he heard from Bowen site that time. However, on March 22nd or 23rd, Fick (Union member) was recalled to work as a helper in the Intake Department where he is now employed. bury claims that he has greater seniority than either Fick or Simonsen as well as several other non-Union employees in the plant. He believes that his layoff is |