While R. L. Glenn's case is similar to those discussed above, it will be consor separately inasmuch as he was not reinstated until late in July, 1939. Geng a shearman employed by the company for over thirteen years. He took th leading part in attempting to get the union under way, and it was he who pass the petitition for the union among the employees on March 31, 1939. On Apr the next work day, he was laid off because of a scarcity of work despite the s that he was the oldest worker in years of service with the company. In the settlement conferences with the management, Mr. Joe L. Silverste refused to reinstate him on the ground that Glenn would "hide out" and weld not do his work. The union officials as well as the Board agent urged his re statement with back pay but Mr. Silverstein categorically refused. Nonetheles the company reinstated Glenn sometime toward the end of July, but when it d so, a bitter denunciation of the union accompanied it. The question of back pay remains to be adjusted. Since it appears to be the plan of the company to lay the men off and in doing so discourage members in the union, the policies of the Act can only be effectuated by making them whole for the wages they lost between April and the time when they were restated. The company stated that during the last week in March and the first week April the price in scrap took a sharp turn downward. In addition the cos operators anticipated a delay in signing of an agreement and as a result did not place any orders for rails. Finally the company states that it was operating & shear at a loss and in April decided to stop cutting up its scrap. This necessitated a reduction in the working force. In answer to the company's contention it should be noted that nothing ha been said about a shut down nor about a change in mode of operation. On the contrary the company seemed to be busy. It should further be noted that the company was already calling some of these men back before the coal strike ea to an end, and has reverted to its old mode of operation since the men were called back. Finally, it should be remembered that foremen Stricker and Moles had asked several of the men if they had joined the union, so it is probable that they k who belonged. They also had told the men that if they joined the union the plant would close down. In the face of this evidence, the company's position seems weak. The remaining cases will be discussed individually. became available he decided to leave Charleston. In the first conference with Louis M. Mann was laid off on April 4 with the other men. When no work the Board's Examiner, Mr. Silverstein informed him that Mann was employe somewhere in Oklahoma and that the company did not wish to reinstate him Thus far we have been unable to get in touch with this employee. Alfred Webb was laid off on April 5, 1939. He had obtained another postio working with a building contractor through the influence of Mr. Silverste When this job came to an end he returned to work for the Mid-West Steel Cor poration where he is now employed. E. M. Webb was laid off on April 4 but has not yet been called back to work The company contends that he was a temporary employee. Webb, however. states that he had worked for the company for a period of almost two years in rather irregular fashion. He had other employment at the present time but be wished to be reinstated to his old job. Refusal to Bargain. ees working On or about April 15 after the union began its negotiations with the company, it had the signed application cards for 19 of the company's employ in the Charleston yards. This 19 includes, of course, the 10 employees who were the company had 37 employees on its pay roll in the two yards. (This does not discriminatorily laid off. Their cases we have discussed above. At that time include employees in the paper house; see below.) Five of these 37 employees were supervisors, who, of course, were not members of the union, nor in a proper unit. with the The union thus had 19 out of 32 employees. This number likewise includes management, the union representative stated that the union did not wish to bargain for any employees who were out on the road on company operations, but at such times as they were actually at work in the yards, the union would bargain for them. No objections to this were raised and the discussion about the terms It was agreed that another meeting should be held of the agreement was begun. the following week. On or about April 17 another meeting was held. The discussion of the clauses f the agreement was continued. In this meeting the company objected to the nelusion of the men in the paper house within the bargaining unit and also raised he question about the inclusion of employees working in the metal house. The Company stated that the persons working in the paper house were not strictly mployees of the company because this work was contracted to a person who ired the people working there. After some discussion the union agreed that emloyees in the paper house should be excluded from the unit and those in the metal house included. After further discussion the meeting came to a close when the company stated that it wished to offer the union a counter-proposal and would offer it at the next meeting. Sometime between April 19 and April 29, another meeting was held in Mr. Joe L. Silverstein's office. At this time the company offered its counter-proposal copy of which is attached and marked "A") and it was discussed. Considerable progress was made, but another meeting was agreed upon. This was not held until June 6 because both the union negotiator and the company representative had to leave Charleston. In the June 6th meeting the only matter of difference was whether or not a long list of working rules should be included in the contract. The company representative wanted them in, the union representative did not. According to the union representative's statement, Mr. Silverstein was so certain that agreement could be reached on that point that he said he would draw up seven copies of an agreement with the working rules in such form that the union representative would accept the agreement and sign it. The meeting ended at this point. On June 13, the union representative received a letter from the company (copy of which is attached and marked "B") stating that they did not believe that the union represented a majority so they would not sign the agreement until an election was held to determine the question. In the settlement conferences which took place in July the company stated that it would be willing to consent to an election or agree to a card check as of that date. The four employees who were among those discriminatorily discharged and who had not yet been returned to work and two other employees who had been sent out on the road as foremen, should not be included among the eligibles in the event an election or a card check were held. The union refused to agree to this but stated that it would agree to a check of their membership cards against the company's pay roll as of the date of the opening of negotiations. The company refused this proposal. In October a conference was held in the Regional Director's office in Cincinnati. Mr. Silverstein expressed a doubt as to whether the union represented a majority of the company's employees at the time the bargaining conferences were begun. The union again offered to submit its membership cards to a board representative for a check with the pay roll to prove its majority. Mr. Silverstein asked for ten days' time to think this proposal over. He later wrote to the Regional Director stating that he could not accede to this request. The union's cards have been inspected by the Board's agent and from all indications are in good shape. This would indicate that the union represented a majority when the negotiations began. The company in its counter-proposal agreed to recognize the union as the exclusive bargaining agency and did not question its majority until June 13 when it wished to exclude six of the union's members from the eligibles on the ground that they were no longer working for the company or eligible. It then asked for an election. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith and indicates that the company at no time intended to bargain with the union. During the negotiations between the union and the management and later between the union, management and the Board, the coercion and interference mentioned above continued in undisguised fashion. It is little wonder that the company then said it would consent to an election. When only 32 or 33 at the most are eligible, the elimination of six eligibles, along with the constant intimidation, certainly would have defeated the union had it consented to an election. As a matter of fact, the union has continued to solicit membership and represents a majority of the employees at the present time, but does not wish to hold an election under the present conditions. At the present time four of the individuals who were members of the union when the negotiations were opened, are not working for the company. Two of them, Dewey Clay and Starling Smith, have been discharged for cause and the two others, Louis Mann and E. M. Webb (see supra) have never been reinstated. This, however, does not alter the fact that in April when the negotiations bera the union and the company began, the union represented a majority # company's employees and did so during the entire period of the negotiat The acts of the management would indicate that they had no intention of signing an agreement with the union and that they were not bargaining in faith from the very outset. There was thus a violation of Section 85 22 back as April 15 when the negotiations began, at which time the union ciar had a majority. COMMENTS The employees in this scrap yard are for the most part uninformed and a illiterate men. They found it necessary to join a union for their own prote and have managed to keep it alive despite the constant anti-union pressure f management. Yet the remarks of their employer has great meaning to the a if they continue will very shortly cause them to give up their organization The unions in Charleston feel that this case would have an influence it p suading the men in small plants that they are protected by the Wagner A There is quite some gossip in and around the Charleston area that because of final result in the Dunbar Glass case our Act is not particularly protective in the type of plant. Finally it should be emphasized that the company apparently had no intert of signing an agreement with the union nor of complying with the Act. events already recited will bear this out. Its whole attitude is epitomized: its action in posting a so-called compliance notice. In October in the Regional Director's office when compliance notice. was disease. it was suggested among other things that the company should post a complia A copy of the Board's ordinary compliance notice was presented to t He very enthusiastically stated he was ea (A copy of the one finally posted is attached and mar representative for examination. to post such a notice. "C"). The change is apparent. EFFORTS TO SECURE COMPLIANCE obtain compliance but was unsuccessful. Finally a conference was arranged The field examiner held several conferences in the field in July in an effort t the Regional Director's office, but no agreement could be reached. Through the company simply did all it could to delay matters. Compliance the question. was out f plaint is issued and the company is made to realize that we intend to go thro There is, however, a possibility that a settlement can be reached if a cor with the matter. CALENDAR OF IMPORTANT EVENTS March 31: Glenn circulates petition for union. April 3: Glenn laid off. April 3: Employees sign union cards at office of union. April 15: Negotiations with union begun. April-May: Negotiations continue. June 12: Company notifies union it does not believe that it represents a majority Asks for an election. MW:PGP:mr Regional Director, N and that the Legal Division. I am (not) of the opinion that if a complaint is issued, the The file in the above case and this memorandum have been reviewed by the evidence will support the conclusion of law that respondent has engaged in un'a allegations of the complaint will be supported by the evidence labor practices. It is estimated that the hearing will take 4 days. Regional Attorney Nth Region N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AW NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NINTH REGION Week ending June 8, 1940 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. IX-C-423. Name of company: Appalachian Electric Power Co. Date charge received: 9/21/37. Date case closed: 6/7/40. Name of union: Local Union 1505, Utilities Division, United Electrical & adio Workers of America. Affiliation CIO. Strike Sections of act involved 8 (1) (2) (3). Number of workers involved 70. Deiled report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results). Eight en returned to work; union does not wish to proceed on alleged 8 (2) violation; harge withdrawn. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT Was company's 1. Was charge (or petition) adjusted by settlement agreement? Yes. Was ettlement agreement reduced to writing? No. If so, Attach Copy. Did egional office participate in securing agreement between parties? Yes. 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? See supra. ecognition of or contract with such company union rescinded? See supra. 3. Number of workers reinstated after strike or lockout; after discriminatory Hischarge 8. Amount of back pay, $ None. Number of workers receiving back Day None. 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. 5. Was notice posted? No. If so, Attach Exact Copy. How long posted? Does notice cover Section 7 of the Act? Section 8 (1)? Section 8 (3)? Section 8 (5)? Section 8 (2)? -. 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? See supra. copy. Has union furnished confirmation of compliance? Yes. copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Yes. If not, give explanation: N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 391-AX INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION JULY 27, 1939. To: Mr. Phillips. From: Wagner. Subject: Mid-West Steel Co., IX-C-942. Action report. I attempted to arrange a conference in Cincinnati for next Wednesday with Mr. Joe L. Silverstein of this company. He told me he was leaving for New York and would be gone for 10 days so he couldn't come in. I don't know quite what to do with these matters, but I have a feeling that this sort of thing frequently is an excuse to delay matters. I feel certain that there have been violations in this case and they have continued since we began to hold conferences. Further delay would be to the company's interest. At the same time one wants to meet every reasonable request. What do you suggest? N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AY INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION MARCH 6, 1940. To: Philip G. Phillips, Director. From: Nathan Witt, Secretary. Subject: Midwest Steel Corp., IX-C-942. The Board today authorized issuance of complaint under 8 (1) and 8 (3), but not under 8 (5). The refusal to authorize under 8 (5) is due to the difficult 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2-79 majority question, which you have already recognized. The Board also feels that in view of the union's present increased majority, it will be in a better position secure recognition after the C case has been handled. The Board authorized the back-pay allegation with respect to the rise instated men because of the gross violations involved. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 391-AZ [Copy] NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, NINTH REGION Case No. IX-C-951. CLOSED CASE REPORT Name of company: Ohio Apex Company, Inc. Date charge received: 4/25/39. Date case closed: 11/30/39. Name of union: Local #12125, Dist. #50. Affiliation: CIO. Strike. Sections of act involved: 8 (1) (3) (5). Number of workers involved: Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results). C pany offered two men reemployment, one of which refused; one man has obta substantially equivalent employment elsewhere; company and union agai remaining two men not entitled to reemployment; company has agreed to rects" nize union; charge withdrawn. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge (or petition) adjusted by settlement agreement? Yes. W settlement agreement reduced to writing? No. If so, Attach copy. L regional office participate in securing agreement between parties? Yes. 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? nition of or contract with such company union rescinded? Was company's recog 3. Number of workers reinstated after strike or lockout; after discriminat discharge 2. Amount of back pay, $. Number of workers receiving bas pay 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? Yes. If * was a written collective bargaining agreement entered into? No. If so, AtCopy. If collective bargaining agreement not in writing, set forth main ters Company will recognize union for its members only. 5. Was notice posted? No. If so, Attach exact copy. How long posted? Does notice cover section 7 of Act? Section 8 (1)? Section 8 (3)? -. Section 8 (5)? -. Section 8 (2)? 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? See supra. If so, attact copy. Has union furnished confirmation of compliance? Yes. If so, Attact copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Yes If not, give explanation: To: Mr. Phillips. From: Wagner. Subject: Ohio Apex Co., Nitro, W. Va., IX-C-951. Action Report. JULY 27. All arrangements have been made for a conference in your office on Wednesdat. Aug. 2 at 10 a. m. I had hoped we would be able to hold it tomorrow, but Jacobsen refused to meet Folio unless Mr. Ray was present, and he couldn't get away until Wednesda I am confident Jacobsen will make some concessions. In this case our probe will be the union. Folio thinks he should get a contract but at present he does represent a majority. I don't think he lost his majority because of unfair s practices. Furthermore, he wants several men reinstated with back pay. The cases are not too strong. I think Jacobsen would give Folio a contract for his members, reinstate the employee whom he refused to take back after the strike because he had stopped taking treatments for syphilis, compensate partially some of the others, one whom is back at work. |