Colgate-palmolive-peet Company And International Chemical Workers Union, A. F. Of L., 1202 (1946)

In the Matter of COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, A. F. OF L.

In the Matter of COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, A. F. or L.

Cases Nos. 20-R-1486 and 20-C-1372, respectively.-Decided September 6, 1946 Mr. Wallace E. Royster, for the Board.

Messrs. R. J. Hecht and Bartley C. Crum, of San Francisco, Calif., for the respondent.

Messrs. Matthew O. Tobriner and Jonathan H. Rowell, of San Francisco, Calif., for the A. F. of L.

Gladstein, Anderson, Resner, Sawyer & Edises, by Mr. Bertram Edises, of San Francisco, Calif., for the C. I. 0.

Mr. Milton E. Harris, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND ORDER On March 27, 1946, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices affecting commerce alleged in the complaint, and that there was no sufficient basis for setting aside the result of the election previously held in Case No. 20-R-1486, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed and that the A. F. of L.'s objections to the election be overruled, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto., Thereafter, the A. F. of L. and counsel for the Board each duly filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.

The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial 1 The Intermediate Report was inadvertently dated March 27, 1945.

1202 1203 Examiner, only insofar as they are consistent with our Decision and Order herein.

CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS On July 24, 1945, the respondent and the C. I. O. agreed in writing to extend a closed-shop contract made in 1941 and, in part, requiring C. I. O. membership in good standing as a condition of employment, pending decision by the Regional War Labor Board for the Tenth Region approving or disapproving certain contract changes. This extension agreement was made in compliance with the conditions set forth in the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act, which permits an employer to make a closed-shop contract with a bona fide majority union covering an appropriate unit.

On July 28, 1945, as the first open break between the C. I. 0. and a large group of anti-C. I. O. employees spearheaded by the stewards, a notice was posted on the respondent's three bulletin boards, announcing an open meeting of the 'Employees Welfare Association' at the end of the afternoon shift on July 30 but containing no explanation of the named organization. The purpose of the meeting was for the employees to withdraw from the C. I. O. and to transfer to some other labor organization. The respondent must have learned of the purpose of the proposed meeting, or it would not have agreed to shut down the plant for about 2 hours so that the employees on the night shift could attend.2 On July 30, 1945, the respondent discharged the first group of complainants, consisting of the five stewards and including Luchsinger, at the request of the C. I. O. and on the representation by the C. I. O.

that the stewards were 'suspended from membership' pending determination by the C. I. O. of unspecified 'charges against them' which impaired their good standing. Immediately after the discharges,

C. I. 0. adherents distributed leaflets throughout the plant, warning the employees that they would jeopardize their employment by attending the 'illegal' meeting of the Employees Welfare Association scheduled for later that afternoon or by otherwise violating the C. I. O.'s constitution or membership oath. A -majority of the respondent's employees, including substantially all the complainants, nevertheless attended the meeting, during which time the respondent shut down its operations pursuant to the agreement set forth above. The meeting voted, apparently without dissent, to withdraw from the C. I. O., to form another labor organization and to go on strike at noon of the following day unless the respondent reinstated the five discharged stewards. A telegram was thereupon sent to the respondent, signed by a four-man negotiating commigee appointed at the meeting, stating SThe record shows that complainants Luchsinger and Olsen secured Superintendent Altman's agreement to the shut-down.

in part that a majority of the employees, being 'former' C. I. O.

members, 'have withdrawn' from the C. I. O.

On the morning of July 31, 1945, the negotiating committee went to the respondent's office and interviewed Superintendent Altman and...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here