National Labor Relations Bd. v. JAHN & OLLIER ENG. CO.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1941
• Docket Number: No. 7621.,7621.
• Citation: 123 F.2d 589
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

123 F.2d 589 (1941)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING CO.

No. 7621.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

November 26, 1941.

Robert B. Watts, National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C., I. S. Dorfman, N. L. R. B., of Chicago, Ill., and A. Norman Somers, N. L. R. B., of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

David R. Clarke, John Harrington, and Albert J. Smith, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before SPARKS, and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

LINDLEY, District Judge.

Petitioner prays enforcement of its order finding that respondent had violated. Section 8(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., by various antiunion statements and activities of its officials and supervisory employees, by offering to its employees an individual profit-sharing contract and by posting certain notices; and directing that respondent cease and desist from these unfair labor practices and from continuing and enforcing its profit-sharing contract and, affirmatively, that it notify each of its employees that the contract imposed a restraint upon them in the exercise of their rights and that, therefore, respondent would cease and desist from enforcing the same. We are confronted by no question of a company dominated union or of discriminatory charges. The issue is whether the Board's findings in the respect mentioned are supported by substantial evidence.

From 1905 to 1937 the employees were not members of any union; respondent's was an open shop. In 1937 union representatives attempted to organize the plant and within some eighteen months succeeded in enlisting a substantial number of the employees. On August 17, 1937, respondent posted "A Message to Employees — Facts about the Wagner Act." The information contained in the notice was largely of negative character setting forth what the act did not require to be done rather than its affirmative provisions. It advised employees that they were not required to join unions or seek collective bargaining and emphasized rather than benefits employees could hope to acquire through a union, those which would not result from membership in such a body. The Board found that the message was calculated to advise employees that from unionization they might expect neither the protection the act affords nor the advantages of collective bargaining which the act encourages.

In 1938 the respondent's president, Boothby, invited the employees to a number of meetings at which he announced that there had been no change in the policy of the company since the act had gone into effect and would be none in the future; that the company would close its doors before signing a closed shop contract. He contrasted union officials, whom, he said, "don't want you, but want your dues," with respondent's representatives whom he described as "honest business men trying to give the employees a square deal." The Chairman of the Board of Directors warned employees to be wary of "poison peddlers" and of "poison propaganda that was hurting the shop." He said that "the union officials are only in it for what they are getting out of it." Boothby talked to employee Doland, in his office, questioning the latter about his union membership and activity, warning him that he, Boothby, had been advised that Doland was a member of the union and referring to other active union employees as "smart agitators," who were "not kidding anybody." Doland replied that he had "knocked out more than the amount of work" expected of him and Boothby replied that his work was immaterial as long as he was with the company and did not "stick a knife in their back." The president questioned various employees about union affiliations. Superintendent Ross called to his office employee Barrier, and asked about his union affiliations. Barrier answered that he was not a member but might become one. Ross replied "you know you have a family * * * if you go to work in a union shop you will have to prove yourself * * * we let you get away with stuff here."

In addition various employees who were foremen but had no right to employ or discharge employees made similar statements to the workmen. Early in 1938 the foreman of the half-tone department asked an employee to demonstrate his loyalty by keeping the foreman posted on union activities. The employee refused. Another foreman, Albin, having been informed that a workman had been visited by a union organizer, said to him, "don't have any part of those fellows * * * don't leave them get in your life and ruin your life." This foreman testified that he might have told various employees that he disapproved of the union. Another foreman told employee Paul that the company didn't "know whether" it "can trust you, whether you are going to keep on organizing or not" and, on another occasion, that respondent "didn't care whether the union could pull men out of there or not, because * * * they can always farm" its "work out." Foreman Klein testified that he advised the employees that "you know what you got here, and you don't know what you are going to get * * * I don't believe in the union myself * * * I think you should stay with the firm." The same foreman questioned another employee as to union affiliations and, upon his refusal to give information, said "never mind, we know, or we can find out if you are a union man or not."

To this and similar testimony, some of which was sharply controverted, the Board gave credence, resolving all conflicts in favor of the witnesses for the Board and, upon these facts, found that respondent had violated Section 8(1) of the Act by various antiunion statements and activities of its officials and supervisory employees.

But the Board found further evidence of unfair practices in the profit-sharing contract submitted by respondent to its employees. On July 15, 1938, the president called groups of employees to a series of meetings at which he read the prepared contract and requested the employees to sign. All but one signed, that one stating: "I was afraid to stay behind. I didn't want Mr. Boothby to know I was in favor of the union." Copies of the contract were not distributed. The agreement contained a recital of existing working conditions and provided that they were to remain in force for two years. Respondent bound itself to furnish employment under existing conditions and to give the employees a share of the profits under certain specified circumstances. The provisions, the examiner found, were very favorable to the employees, so favorable that little difficulty was experienced in procuring signatures. The employees agreed "to give loyal, skillful, continuous, uninterrupted service satisfactory to said...