The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

In'the Matter of THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Co. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (AFL) Case No. C-2-543.-Decided April.30, X9.3 Mr. Walter E. Taag and Mr. Max W. Johnstone, for the Board. Squrire, Sanders and Dempsey, by Mr. Ralph M. Besse, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the respondent. _ Mr. John G. Roberts, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Independent. Mr. William Patrick Clyne and Mr. W. B. Petty, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Union. Mr. Marvin C. Wahl, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL), herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, Cleveland, Ohio, issued its complaint on February 22,. 1943, against The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the,respondent, alleging' that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein, called the Act. Copies of the complaint together with'notice of hear- ing thereon were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Electric Illuminating Workers Union, herein called the Independent, a labor organization alleged to be dominated by the respondent. 'With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) in or about April 1942, and at all times subsequent thereto, by various acts and conduct has' fostered, dominated, maintained, and contributed support to the Independent;' and - (2) in or about April 1942, and at all times subsequent thereto, by the foregoing acts, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its. employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 49 N. L. R. B., No. 38. 300 - :.THE CLEVELAND ILLUMINATING CO. 301 -On February* 26 and 27, 1943, the respondent, the Union, the Inde- pendent, and the Board entered into a stipulation agreeing upon a statement. of facts to serve as the basis for the Decision and ,Order herein : and expressly, waiving further hearing, the issuance of an -Intermediate Report or proposed findings of fact, or other procedure before the Board. The stipulation provides as follows : It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., hereinafter sometimes called the Respond- 'ent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the, American Federation of Labor, hereinafter sometimes called the Union, Electric Illuminating Workers Union, unaffiliated, hereinafter sometimes called the Independent, Max W. Johnstone, Regional Attor- ney, and Walter E. Taag, Regional Director, Eighth Region, National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter sometimes called the Board, as follows : - 1. The parties hereto hereby waive hearing, before a Trial Examiner of the Board, in this matter, and substitute therefore the following agreed statement of facts, which facts the Board may find with the same force and effect as though received in the record by way of written or oral testimony, and proceed formally therefrom. The parties hereto reserve their rights to file briefs with the Board on the question of the legal effect to be given to the stipulated facts, and hereby request permission to argue on the same matter before the Board. All parties hereto hereby waive the filing of answers to the Complaint issued herein. Upon transfer of this case to the Board, all parties hereto waive all preliminary or intermediate reports and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Board. However, this Stipulation is void and of no force and effect unless all parties-are afforded the opportunity by the Board to file briefs with the Board on the question of the legal effect to be given to the stipulated facts and permitted oral argument before the Board on the same matter, prior to decision by the Board. 2. Upon a charge duly filed by the Union, Walter E. Taag, Regional Director, Eighth Region of the Board, as agent of the Board, acting pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 2, as amended, issued its Complaint and Notice of Hearing on the 22nd day of February, 1943, against the Respondent. Said Complaint and Notice of Hearing are appended hereto, marked,Exhibit A,t and incorporated herein. 3. The Respondent is a corporation organized and existing by virtue .of the laws of the State of Ohio. It was incorporated in 1892, under 1 The Exhibits which are referred to in the Stipulation are not set forth in full herein, but are referred to in our findings of fact, infra, wherever necessary or material. 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the name of The, Cleveland General, Electric Company. Its name was changed to that above indicated in 1894 . , It is controlled by The North American Company. It has -one wholly owned subsidiary ,-The Ceico Company, which owns, sells and services electric meters and acquires title to real estate for use in the Respondent's business., The Respond- ent is engaged principally in thegeneration and distribution of electric energy in Cuyahoga , Geauga, Lake and Ashtabula Counties, and in a small portion of Lorain County, in the State of Ohio. Such territory in which the Respondent is engaged in the production and distribution of electric energy extends along the shore -of Lake Erie approximately 100'miles. The total area in which the Respondent produces and dis- tributes electric energy is approximately 1,700 square miles. The total population residing in such area is approximately 1,340,000. The Respondent serves approximately 132 communities. The area served by the Respondent is highly industrialized , containing steel mills, machine shops , automobile parts and , body - plants, and other heavy industry, and numerous utilities and other instrumentalities of inter- state - commerce. - Many of said industries and instrumentalities of interstate commerce purchase and consume electric energy produced and distributed by the Respondent. The Respondent owns three steam electric generating plants of 640,000 k. w . capacity, name plate rating, - and - an interconnected electric transmission and distribution system. At the end of 1942, the Respondent had 348,966 customers including 951 industrial and commercial customers with 50 k. w . or more of demand and 38,223 such customers with less than '50 k..w.-of demand. In 1942, its revenues from the sale of electric energy amounted to approximately $35,750,000 .00 and its total operating revenue amounted to approximately $37,300,000.00. In 1942, the Respondent used coal in the production of electric energy costing approximately $6,000,- 000.00, - of which approximately 40o%o came from outside the State of Ohio. In 1942, the Respondent purchased , for use in its operations, equipment and supplies produced outside the State of Ohio of a value in excess of $1,000,000.00. The Board may consider the facts set out in 'this paragraph for the purpose of - deciding - whether • or not the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the National, Labor Relations Act, hereinafter sometimes called the Act,, and whether or not its operations affect commerce within the -meaning of Sectioii 2 (7) of the Act. - ' • • , 4. The Union is a. labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The Union chartered a local union of the inter- national organization on December 118, 1942, known • as Local No. B-1336. Certain employees of the Respondent are eligible for mem= bership in said local union, and certain of Respondent's employees-are members of said local union . Said local union has organized pursuant THE • CLEVELAND ILLUMINATIII^"G 00. 303, to the terms and conditions'of• the' constitution of 'the international organization and has elected certain operating officers pursuant to the said constitution. The Union and the local union thereof are both labor 4gani2ations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 5. The Independent is a labor organization established in July, 1942.' It admits to membership certain non-supervisory employees of the Respondent, and certain non-supervisory employees of the Respondent are members of said organization. The Independent has a constitution and by-laws, which was adopted in July 1942, and in August, 1942, electedofficers pursuant to said-constitution and by-laws. The Independent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 6. All parties hereto acknowledge service of the Complaint issued herein on February 22, 1943, the Notice of Hearing, the charge filed herein, and a copy of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 2,, as • amended. ' 7.. This • Stipulation, together with the Complaint, Notice of Hear- ing, charge, and a copy of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 2, as amended, may be filed with the Chief Trial Examiner, of the Board in Washington, D. C., and, together with any subsequent mo- tions which may be filed as contemplated by. Paragraph 1, above, shall constitute the record in the case, before the Board. 8. The charge filed by the Union, and referred to in Paragraphs 2• and 7, above, is appended hereto, marked Exhibit B, and made a part hereof. . I ' • 9. The duties of the Respondent's operating personnel at its Lake Shore, Cleveland, Ohio plant, also known as Lake' Shore A and B plants', inchiding the • duties of the superintendent at said plant, the assistant superintendent, and the chief engineer, and of the several turbine room watch engineers at said plant, are set out in the "Steam Department Job Specifications at the Lake Shore Plant of The Cleve-, land Electric- Illuminating Co.", appended hereto, -marked Exhibit C, and made a part hereof. The superintendent referred to therein is F. C. Fletcher, who has held that position since April 16, •1929. The assistant superintendent referred to therein is Howard Lord, who has held that' position since May 1, 1925. The chief engineer referred to therein is William Sattelmeyer, who-has held that position since Octo- ber '1, 1935. :Among the turbine room- watch engineers referred' to, therein are Rudy-Voinov, who has held that position since September 4, 1935, and'Wallace F. Humphrey, who has held that position since December 1, 1941. From January 15^to January 25, 1942, from ,April 7 to October 25, 1942, and on December 14, 1942, one Dominic Ruggie was a turbine room watch engineer • at • the said plant. At ,all other times pertinent hereto; the said Dominic Ruggie:has been and is now an engineer's helper. '304' DECISIONS OF - NATIONAL -LABOR I RELATIONS BOARD ',10. From a date` in 1942 prior to July 15,' 1942, the International' Brotherhood of Operating Engineers 2 and the Union were attempting to organize the employees of the Respondent., 11. The Respondent distributed to its employees on or about September 20, '1933,. a letter, a copy of which is appended hereto, marked Exhibit D, and made a part hereof. The Respondent distrib-, uted another letter to its employees on or'about May 2,'1934, appended hereto, marked Exhibit E, :and made a part hereof, which letter re ferred to the letter marked Exhibit D. - The Respondent distributed a notice to its employees on or about July 15, 1942, through its house organ, "The Ceico Motor",'a' copy of which notice is'appended hereto, marked Exhibit F, and made a part hereof. ' 12., On or about September 10, 1942, one of the Respondent's em- ployees at its Lake Shore plant was in a group of employees to whom William Sattelmeyer, Respondent's chief engineer at its Lake Shore plant, was speaking. The said Sattelmeyer stated to the employees, that he thought the Independent wag the best pf all the labor organiza- tions which' was attempting to organize the employees. -Sattelmeyer- also stated that the Independent ,was ,the organization to go into inas- much as, if the men joined the, Independent; they could elect whatever, officers they wanted to elect, and dispose of them as they wished with- out outside influence: These r'emarks' of Chief Engineer Sattelmeyer were made, as above indicated, to a group of approximately five em- ployees of the Respondent's'Lake Shore, plant. This incident occurred while the employees were in the plant and on duty. 13. During the summer of 1942, F. C. Fletcher, Respondent's super- intendent at its Lake Shore •plaht,,in a conversation with,William Brondz, one of the Respondent's boiler operators at its Lake Shore plant, told the said Brondz to join the Independent and told the said Brondz that it was the wish of his immediate superiors that he join the Independent and that the Independent was preferred by the Com- pany. This incident occurred, while Brondz was in' the plant and on duty. ' 14: During the month of October, 1942, Howard Lord,, Respondent's assistant superintendent at its Lake Shore plant, inquired of John Tomko, a steam electric maintenance man at the Respondent's Lake- Shore plant, how -the Union was coming along. The said Tomko replied that it was getting along,all right. 'The said Lord then' inquired, "which one ?" The said' Tomko • said, "The Independent." The said Lord theh'replied, "Swell." This incident occurred while Tomko was in the plant and'on duty. ' • 2This organization does not appear to have been, served, with notice of hearing, and Is - - not, a, party to the stipulation. THE CLEVELAND ILLUMINAUNG CO. 305' /15. In June, 1942, Wallace F.. Humphrey, referred to in Paragraph 9, above, told various of the employees working under" him that he thought the Independent was a good union, but that it should be expanded to inctade office workers and persons with limited super- visory authori^Y Shortly thereafter the said Humphrey told The eight turbine `room operators and two engineer's helpers on his crew that the said/Humphrey thought the Independent Union could handle their .-affairs) without : going for outside help. Shortly thereafter William Sattelmeyer, Respondent's chief engineer at its Lake Shore plant, 'in a conversation with Wallace F. Humphrey, told the said Humphrey this was a good thing, and that he thought the employees could handle their own affairs without going to the A: F. of L. or, C. I. O. Immediately after this conversation the said Humphrey told the men on, his shift that .they should go into the Independent Union and-that he would join it himself if he were eligible. The said Humphrey told these. employees that they did not need to worry about any repercussions from the Company inasmuch as he had talked to Chief Engineer . Sattelmeyer. Shortly after the said Humphrey talked to these employees, most of them joined the Independent. These' incidents! occurred - while the employees were in the 'plant and on duty. 16. In August, 1942, Dominic Ruggie, referred to in Paragraph 9, above, was advised by four of the employees who worked under him, that they would join whichever union the said Ruggie joined. There- after the-, said' Ruggie told William Sattelmeyer, Respondent's chief engineer at its Lake Sliore plant, that there was considerable talk about unions, that Ruggie and the men under him were undecided which union to join and that he would like to join whichever union would be the best,for the men. The said Sattelmeyer replied that he did not know and that Ruggie would 'have to make up his own mind. The said Sattelmeyer then added that the Independent was the best union for the men and for the Company and would be the best one to join. There after -the said',Ruggie spoke to the eleven men in his crew and told them the Independent was the best union to join. Within a week there- after ten of the eleven men had joined the Independent. These inci- dents occurred while the employees were in the plant and on duty. / 17. During the summer of 1942, the day after one Leo Crowe, a steam electric maintenance man, attended a meeting of the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers, William Sattelmeyer, Respond- ent's chief engineer at its Lake Shore plant, told the said Leo Crowe that'the employees would be better off to have their own union and that, if-they did,not get into the Independent, the A. F. of L. might get in, and, interfere, with, the- employees' .,freedom of `activity. Shortly thereafter the said Crowe joined the Independent and was asked by the 306 DECISIONS OF ,NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD said • Sattelmeyer, ,how many employees,'had., joined the .Independent. The said Sattelmeyer then pointed, out some men to the said Crowe, telling Crowe that they were good prospects for the Independent and suggesting that Crowe solicit them-to `join the Independent. There- after Crowe did so solicit some of these employees to join the Inde- pendent. These incidents occurred while the employees were in the. plant and on duty. • I 18. In or about the month of October, 1942, F. C. Fletcher, Re- spondent's superintendent at its Lake Shore plant, approached two of the Respondent's boiler operators at its, Lake - Shore -plant, William ,Brondz and Edward C. Christian, telling'the two employees that they were old in seniority and asked them the sentiment 'of the men rela- tive to the Independent. The said Brondz replied' that he was not in favor,of.the Independent. The said Fletcher then said that the In- dependent was the organization that the Company preferred and that it must be developed into a strong 'organization. The said Fletcher also stated that the Independent had elected officers who did not under- stand the duties of operating a union and that a union was a business' and must be.operated by men' who knew it. The said- Fletcher also; toldAhe said Christian'that the older employees should join the Inde pendent. This incident occurred while the employees were in the plant and on duty. . ' , • . - • 19. In the summer of 1942, one Rudy Voinov, referred to in Para- graph 9, above, asked William Sattelmeyer, Respondent's chief engi neer at its Lake Shore plant, what the said Satfelmeyer' thought about the Union's attempting to organize the Respondent's employees. The said Sattelmeyer replied that he thought the men would be better off in the Independent inasmuch as it would -not have as high `dues as the A.,F. •of L .L - Thereafter the said Voinov communicated Sattelmeyer's remarks to the employees under him. These incidents occurred while the employees were in the plant and on duty. • ' ' ' ,20. Rudy' Voinov,•Dominic Ruggie.and Wallace E. Humphrey, all referred to, above; became members of the Union on • or about January 8,.1943. Under the Union's, constitution they are, full -members entitled to all the rights,and privileges of such, membership., ' : 21. • The Union -has among, its membership foremen in 'the Respond- ent's employment. For the past fifty-one years it has been the'Union's policy, and practice to accept into membership line crew foremen and other foremen of,'similar rank in other departments of electric utility companies. The Union 'admits to membership employees of all ranks, under, that of, general foreman: .General. foremen in•the electric utility industry, are defined as foremen who ;have other .foremen of crews'or, groups of workmen under them. All persons eligible ,to'.mernbership in. the, Union, and who become members of^the Union, enjoy all the THE CLEVELAND ILLUMINATING co. 307 x"frights, -privileges and prerogatives of full membership in the Union under the Union's constitution , such as voting in union elections and other contests , attendance at union meetings , the wearing of union insignia; and the solicitation of membership on behalf of the Union. Some of the foremen of the Respondent who are members of the Union have, from time to time, attended meetings of the local union, worn its insignia in the presence of other employees of the Respondent, and solicited employees of the Respondent to become members of the Union. 22. This Stipulation contains the entire agreement among all the parties hereto and there is no other agreement , either oral 'or in writing, which varies, alters, adds to, or detracts from this Stipulation. '23. This Stipulation and the proceedings thereunder and contem- plated thereunder are subject to the approval of the Board. On March 24, 1943, the respondent filed a brief which the Board has considered, and on April 6, 1943, • it presented oral argument to the Board. ' ' ' Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is an Ohio corporation, engaged in the generation and distribution of electric energy in certain counties of Ohio cover- ing an area of approximately 1,700 square miles. The respondent serves approximately 132 communities having a total population of about 1,340,000. The area served by the respondent is highly indus- trialized, containing steel mills, machine shops, automobile parts and 'body plants, and utilities and "other instrumentalities of interstate commerce." Many of said industries and instrumentalities purchase electric, eliergy' produced by the respondent. In 1942 the revenues derived by the respondent from the sale of electric energy and from its other operations amounted to approximately $37,300,000. During that period the respondent used coal in the production of electric energy, costing approximately $6,000,000, of which 40 percent was received from sources outside the State of Ohio. In the same period the re- spondent purchased for use in its operations equipment and supplies produced outside the'State of Ohio in a value-exceeding $1,000,000. IL THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is `a labor organ- ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. Electric Illuminating Workers Union is an unaffiliated labor organ- ization; admitting to'membership employees of the respondent. 531GI7-Ir-voI 49-21 I 308 i DECISIONS OF ,NATIONAL, ILAB,OR RELATION BOARD k III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 0 A. Domination and interference with the formation and administration, of the Independent The parties stipulated, and we find, the following facts concerning assistance and support accorded the Independent by the respondent : In June 1942, Wallace F. Humphrey, a turbine room watch engi- neer, told various employees who worked under his supervision that he -thought the Independent which ' had just begun to organize, was `a "good union,", adding that it ought to be expanded to include,office 'workers and persons with limited supervisory authority. He ,.also told his subordinate employees that the Independent was able to• han- dle its affairs without going for "outside help." Thereafter, William Sattelmeyer, the respondent's chief engineer at its Lake Shore plant (where all the acts discussed herein occurred), told Humphrey that he believed the employees of the respondent could handle their own affairs "without going to the A. F. of L. or C. I. 0." Immediately following this conversation Humphrey, told his men that they should join the Independent and that if he were eligible he would likewise join. He further told them not, to worry about "'repercussions" from the respondent inasmuch as he had, talked, to Sattelmeyer. There- after the majority of the employees to whom Humphrey had spoken joined the Independent. On July.15, 1942, the respondent's president prepared a message to the employees which was distributed through, "The Ceico Motor," a house,organ. - The message read in part as follows : I am informed that there is a_ movement to organize our employees. - • , * * * Various employees of the Company have told their supervisors they are disturbed by the 'situation, and have asked for some explanation from the Company. * * * * * ... Our attitude toward unionization is the same today as it was nine, years ago when (September 20, 1933) we stated in a letter mailed to' all employees : "... ,the Company recognizes as fundamental . • .. the right of its employees to organize' and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and, it proposes not only to refrain from, interfering with that right,, but ,to protect the employees of the Company in its exercise". Later during the summer .of 1942, F. C. ,Fletcher, superintendent of the plant, told employee William Brondz, while,the latter was at i THE' G'LEVE'LA1^TD-PL'LLT\IINATING Co. 309 work, to join the Independent, that it was the wish of B"rondz's su- periors that he_join,'and that the Independent was the organization preferred by the respondent. During the same period Chief Engi- neer Sattelmeyer told employee Leo Crowe that the, employees would be "better off to have their own union" and that if they did not join the Independent, the Union might get into the plant and interfere with the employees' freedom of action. Thereupon Crowe joined the Independent. Sattelmeyer then inquired of him how many em- ployees belonged to the Independent and pointed out certain employ- ees as "good prospects" for the Independent, suggesting that Crowe, solicit them. Rudy Voinov, a turbine room watch engineer,. at about this period, asked Sattelmeyer what he thought about the Union's attempt to organize the respondent's employees. Sattelmeyer ex- pressed his preference for the Independent and Voinov communicated Sattehneyer's comments to the employees under his supervision. In August 1942," several employees told Dominic Ruggie', a turbine room watch engineer and their supervisor, that they would join which- ever union he joined. Ruggie thereupon told Sattelmeyer that` there was a considerable amount of discussion concerning'imions and that Ruggie and his men were undecided which' organization' to' join. Sattelmeyer first replied that he held no opinion,on the question and that Ruggie would have to decide for himself, but then added that 'he,believed the Independent was the "best" union'for the men and for the respondent. . Ruggie thereupon told his men that the Independent was the "best,", and'within a week, -10. or 11 employees who worked ,under him joined the Independent. . . . . On September 10,,.1942; Sattelmeyer told a group of 'employees during working hours that he thought the Independent was better than any of the other labor organizations which were attempting to organize the respondent's employees, and that if they joined the Inde- pendent "they could elect whatever officers they wanted'to elect, and "dispose of them as they wished without outside influence." In October 1942, Superintendent Fletcher asked employees Brondz and Edward Christian' what the sentiment of the men was regarding the Independent. Brondz replied- that he personally was not in favor of it. Fletcher then stated that the Independent was the organization ^ hich the respondent preferred and that "it must be developed into a strong organization." Fletcher told 'Christian that the older em- ployees should join the Independent. During" the same month Howard Lord, assistant, superintendent of the respondent, expressed his approval of the Independent to one of the employees. Humphrey, Voin6v, and Ruggie, whose activities are discussed above,`joined the Union 'on January 8; 1943. These men It. re turbine room watch engineers, each having 11 employees cinder his s11-p-0-IT ision. 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL', LABOR •RELATIOSiS BOARD Their duties are clea,rly-supervisory, include the power to recommend promotions, wage increases, andidischarges. It is the Union's practice to accept into membership employees of all ranks under that of general foreman. Some of the respondent's foremen who are members of the Union from time to time have attended meetings of the Union, worn its insignia in the presence of other employees, and solicited employees to become members of the Union. B. Conclusions Despite the respondent's avowal of its neutrality as expressed in the president's notice of July 15, 1942, the highest ranking supervisors of the Lake Shore Plant made known to the employees,.their,1iostility to the Union and, their preference for the Independent. It is clear that the statements admittedly made by Fletcher, Sattelmeyer, and other, supervisory employees, had not only the effect of, but were intended to, assist and support the Independent in its organizational activities. The respondent in its brief concedes that the acts com- mitted by its supervisors constituted unfair labor practices. We,find that by announcing its preference for the Independent and its antagonism toward the Union, by encouraging solicitation of members for the Independent during working hours', and by encourag- ing;the turbine room watch engineers to join the Independent knowing that they would be followed- by the employees under their supervision, the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of therrespondent, set forth in, Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several, States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 3 The parties define general foremen in the eiectrtc utility industry as foremen who have other foremen of crews or groups of workmen under them. THE ' CLEVELAND IL.LUMINA IN'G CO. 311 We have found- that the respondent has dominated and intefered with-the administration of the Independent and contributed support to it. \ Te have also found that certain of the respondent's super- visory employees have joined the Union, attended its meetings, worn- its insignia in the presence of other employees, and solicited, em- ployees to join the Union. In order to free the employees of 'the respondent from all domination and interference and the effects thereof which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from dominating or interfering, through its supervisors or in any other manner, with the formation and administration of the Independent, or of any other labor organi- zation of its employees, from giving assistance to the Independent, the Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing any support to the Independent, the Union, or any other labor organization of its employees. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONs OF LAW IN 1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of Electric Illuminating Workers Union are labor organizations 'within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of Electric Illuminating Workers Union and contributing support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re- spondent, The Cleoeland -Electric Illuminating Co., Cleveland, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering, through its supervisors or in any other manner, with the formation or administration of Electric II- I 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD laminating Workers Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, encouraging membership in or giving assistance to Electric Illuminating Workers Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL), or any other labor organization of its employees, and contributing support to^ Electric Illuminating Workers Union, International Brotherhood of -Electrical Workers- (AFL), or any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with,_restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or, assist labor organizations, to• - bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section, 7, of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: J a) Withhold all recognition from the Electric Illuminating' Work- ers Union as the representative of any'of its employees' for the pur- poses of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and completely disestablish Electric Illuminating Workers Union as such representative; (b) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout its Lake, Shore Plant and maintain for a .period of -at least sixty (60) days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease, and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) hereof, and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) hereof; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. 4