N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 358-D INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TWELFTH REGION (Dictated 7/24/39) To: John G. Shott, Regional Director. From: I. Komaroff. Subject: Field Examiners' Report, Rock River Woolen Mills, Case XII-C-469. CHARGES INVOLVED 7/26/39. On June 15, 1939, the Union filed allegations of violation of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5). These charges included: (1) The Company laid off William Maresch and Henry Guelzo in violation of the seniority provisions of the contract, and for the purpose of interfering with the Union, and that the Company, further, "laid off" many other employees in December, 1937, until the present time because of their membership and activity in the TWOĆ; (2) The Company, through its officers and agents, tried to smash the Union majority so as to avert the necessity of bargaining collectively with it; (3) That, in June, 1939, the Company refused to bargain with the Union. DISPOSITION OF CHARGES These charges were resolved by a stipulation providing for continuing the collective bargaining agreement until October 15, 1939. (2) The Union agreeing to reinstate many employees upon payment of all back dues, and the Company agreeing to discharge any employee who fails to pay up dues in accordance with the contract; (3) The parties agreeing to a consent election to be conducted by the Regional Director of the Twelfth Regional Office sometime prior to October 15, 1939. In addition, it was verbally agreed between the Union and the Management, that the two discharge cases would be taken up in accordance with the provisions of the contract. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS The Rock River Woolen Mills is an independent company manufacturing various woolen textiles. Its main line of production is manufacturing upholstery for the automobile industry. A small amount of their production consists of manufacturing uniforms for the U. S. Army and Navy. Over 90 of the Company's products are shipped to places outside of the State of Wisconsin, and the overwhelming percentage of raw materials come from points outside of the State of Wisconsin. There is no challenge on the question of jurisdiction. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Interference, Restraint, and Coercion. The Union indicated a very small amount of evidence indicating that the vice-president and general manager of the Company, prior to the execution of the first contract between the Union and the Company, did exercise some interference and coercion directly against the Union. There is no evidence to indicate any interference on the part of the Management since the execution of the contract. Discriminatory discharges. 1. Henry Guelzo.—In accordance with the contract between the Union and the Company providing for departmental seniority, a seniority list was drawn up and submitted to the Union. Guelzo was employed as a floor man in the Weaving Department. The seniority list approved by the Union shows the floormen classified as follows: Chester Starks. Henry Guelzo. Date of Employment 7-20-33 6-26-34 12-18-34 1- 6-36 At the present time, only Chester Starks and Ernest Schultz work a floormen de to curtailed and rationalized production. The discharge was apparently on the basis of the contract seniority established. 2. William Maresch.-The seniority list approved by the Union for the Maintenance Department shows the following: J. A. Soergel. Otto Albrecht John Scholinskie_ Arthur Maresch. Date of Employment 7- 1-33 7-5-33 7-16-33 7-17-33 7-20-33 1-14-34 Gordon Bushaw. William Maresch 8-9.35 Charles On December 7, 1937, when the plant was temporarily closed down, Maresch was laid off with practically all of the other employees. Since that time, the Company has not employed any new personnel in the Maintenance Department Since that time, J. A. Soergel, first on the maintenance department seniority list, has left his employment and no one was employed to fill that vacancy. Brummond also left his employment as a watchman and Dan Schmidt, a floorman in the Finishing Department, who has greater seniority than Maresch, was transferred to that job. Apparently there is no violation of the contract on this discharge. Both the above discharge cases will, according to the verbal understanding, be handled in accordance with the grievance procedure outlined in the contract. Refusal to Bargain. On June 8th, Mr. A. D. Warren, president of the Company, sent a letter to the Union informing the Union that it was cancelling the agreement as of July 15th because they had received petitions filed by more than 170 employees which read as follows: "We, the undersigned, representing the majority of the employees of the Rock River Woolen Mills, do no longer wish to have the CIÒ, national or local, to bargain for said employees." On the basis of that petition, the Company assumed that the Union no longer represented the former majority of the employees and therefore notified the Union that it was cancelling the agreement with it. This entire question was further complicated by the fact that a group of employees had filed a petition with the State Labor Relations Board requesting a secret ballot election. The field examiner obtained from the Company a list of all the signers of the above-mentioned petition, as well as the payroll for October 18, 1937, June 5, 1939, and November 28, 1938. The field examiner also obtained a list of Union membership. In addition to the above-mentioned dispute, the Union further claimed the Company was violating the agreement by failing to discharge certain employees who had lost their good standing in the Union. In order to forestall a State Labor Relations Board election and in order to give us sufficient time to arrive at a determination with respect to the matter or representation, as well as in order to dispose of the charges in this case, the proposed stipulation was subn.itted to the parties and finally accepted. This automatically resulted in a dismissal by the State Board of the petition before it, and continued the agreement for 90 days. CALENDAR OF IMPORTANT EVENTS Prior to October, 1937: Alleged 8(1) interference. October 5, 1937: Agreement between Company and Union signed. April 11, 1938: Addendum to agreement, cutting wages 15% excepting those of 50c per hour or less. June 29, 1938: Addendum extending agreement until July 15, 1939. December 5, 1937: Alleged discriminatory discharge of William A. Maresch. November 9, 1937: Henry Guelzo injured-never returned to work. February 1939: Petition requesting Company to cease bargaining with the CIO circulated by some employees. June 8, 1939: Letter from A. D. Warren, Company president, to the Union cancelling agreement on July 15, 1939. IK:VM N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 358-E NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, TWELFTH REGION Case No. XII-C-469. Week ending July 29, 1939 CLOSED CASE REPORT Name of company: Rock River Woolen Mills. Date charge received: June 15, 1939. Date case closed: July 28, 1939. Name of union: Textile Workers Union of American Affiliation CIO. Strike No. Sections of act involved 8 (1) (3) (5). Number of workers involved, 350. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results): Field Examiner held conferences with Union representatives which conferences resulted in a stipulation settling the case, copy of which is attached. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge adjusted by settlement agreement? Yes. Was settlement agreement reduced to writing? Yes. If so, ATTACH COPY. (copy attached) Did regional office participate in securing agreement between parties? Yes. 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? Was company's recognition of or contract with such company union rescinded? 3. Number of workers reinstated (after strike or lockout. (after discriminatory discharge. (None-see below.) Amount of back pay $ none. Number of workers receiving back pay. None. 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? Yes. If so, was a written collective bargaining agreement entered into? Existing agreement extended for 90 days. 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 of stipulation). Has union furnished confirmation of compliance? Yes. If so, ATTACH COPY. (Copy of stipulation and Withdrawal attached.) 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Yes. If not, give explanation: From: Frances Wheeler. Subject: Sheboygan Chair Co., XII-C-476. Field examiner conferred with Rudolph Faupl. Obtained information that McNeill had filed a petition with the State Board for an election to determine the representatives of the company employees. Petition was filed September 22d, and the hearing was scheduled for September 28th. Field examiner and Faupl had a conference in Sheboygan with Harry McNeill and Carl Brassch. Their attorney, Humpke, joined us later. Field examiner proposed that the stipulation enclosed in the files be entered into on the basis of the agreement reached at the last conference. The company immediately objected to signing a stipulation on the grounds that the company was admitting that it was guilty of unfair labor practice. 1 The Union and the Company informally agreed to take up the two alleged discriminatory discharges in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining contract in existence between the Company and the Union. McNeill informed the field examiner that he had filed a petition with the State Board on last Friday, September 22d. He gave as his reason for filing this petition the fact that he still was not satisfied, and had never been satisfied, that the union represented a majority of the employees. He said that it had not occurred to him to file a petition during our last conference, and it was not until he received my wire on September 21st that "he had decided that he would settle this, once and for all by availing himself of the State Board's services. He admitted that he had reached an agreement to bargain with Bahr for a contract, but denied that this meant that he was granting the union exclusive bargaining rights. He admitted that he had bargained with Bahr for the past two years and claimed that it was with the idea of reaching a contract for the employees. He said that he went as far as to come to a discussion of wages to be included in a contract and that the only reason that agreement had not beer reached on such point was because of Bahr's lack of knowledge of the wage scales paid in Sheboygan. He said that another snag in the bargaining reistions had been a proposal for spreading work. McNeill said that he had never agreed to exclusive bargaining rights for the union and said that he was talking to Bahr for only those employees he might represent. He said that he never felt that he had the right to question Bahr's majority and that if Bahr had had any sense, he would have gotten certified by either the State or National Boards. He admitted that he has told Bahr that be did not care whether he represented 90 or 5 employees, that he was not going to sign a contract, however. He said he thought he told Bahr that at the last meeting in July. The subject matter of the conference was extremely repetitious of previous conferences on the nature of collective bargaining. It is obvious that the company desires to use any method to delay negotiations. They again stated that this was a very poor time for Bahr to be talking about a contract because of the unsettled business conditions. They had been giving him this reason, however, for several years. They said that they would not have gone to the trouble of filing a petition with the State Board if they had been convinced that Bahr had a majority, and if they were willing to grant him exclusive bargaining rights. They insisted that they wanted "an expression of sentiment." McNeill said that he knew that the National Board would not cooperate in this undertaking. He said that he expected no cooperation from us in this proceeding with the State Board. The field examiner informed McNeill that the union had agreed to drop the discharge cases as a condition of settlement of the question of collective bargaining McNeill made vehement charges of blackmailing. He told the field examiner that he had written the Smith Committee and informed them that we were using some nebulous discriminatory discharge charges as a weapon to force him to sign an agreement. He apparently felt that this information would have great significance on the discussion at hand. Status of the Case.-As soon as the State Board has made some determination on the petition, another conference should be arranged with the company to attempt settlement on the basis of the stipulation included in the file. FW:MB N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 359-B NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TWELFTH REGION Case No. XII-C-476. CLOSED CASE REPORT Name of Company: Sheboygan Chair Co. Date charge received: July 20, 1939. Date case closed: December 29, 1939. Name of union: Local #133B. Affiliation: AFL. Strike: No. Sections of act involved: 8 (1) (3) (5). Number of workers involved: 100. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results). Field examiner conferred with the parties. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the 8 (3) allegation. Company agreed to a consent election to be held March 15, 1940, and agreed to send a notice to each employee two weeks before the election. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge adjusted by settlement agreement? No. agreement reduced to writing? If so, Attach Copy. Yes. Was settlement Did regional office Was company's ; after dis participate in securing agreement between parties? 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? recognition of or contract with such company union rescinded? 3. Number of workers reinstated after strike or lockout criminatory discharge: Insufficient evidence to substantiate allegation. Amount of back pay, $Number of workers receiving back pay 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? 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. * * An agreement has been entered into for a consent election, and union will be recognized for purposes of collective bargaining if the election is won by them. Yes. Section 8 (5)? 5. Was notice posted? Will be posted two weeks before March 15, 1940. If so, Attach Exact Copy. How long posted? 2 weeks. Does notice cover Section 7 of Act? Yes Section 8 (1)? Yes. Section 8 (2)? Section 8 (3)? 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? Yes. If so, Attach Copy. Has union furnished confirmation of compliance? Yes. If so, Attach Copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Yes. If not, give explanation. Letterhead of SHEBOYGAN CHAIR COMPANY SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN DECEMBER 21, 1939. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 623 North Second Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Att: Mr. E. J. Brophy.) DEAR MR. BROPHY: As per our conversation of yesterday, we are enclosing a copy of a notice of the election, which we will mail out to each of our employees on or about March 1st. Pursuant to a request from the twelfth regional office of the National Labor Relations Board we wish to advise our employees as follows: 1. Our employees have the right to join or remain members of Furniture & Finishers Local Union No. 133B affiliated with the A. F. of L., or any other bonafide labor organization, if they so desire, furthermore; Employees need not fear any discrimination of any nature whatsoever in connection with their employment because of membership or activity in behalf of any bona-fide labor union. 2. The Wagner Labor Act gives the employee the right to join or not to join a labor union, and you should exercise this right without any interference from any source whatsoever. 3. On March 15, 1940, an election will be held by the twelfth regional office of the National Labor Relations Board to determine whether the employees desire to have local Union No. 133B of the A. F. of L. represent them for purposes of collective bargaining. When the election is held, it is our earnest desire that all eligible employees participate and vote SHEYBOGAN CHAIR COMPANY. |