Ken-Rad Tube and Lamp Corp.

In-the Matter of KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO In the Matter of KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL Cases Nos. 14-C-968 and 14-C-1005, respectively.-Decided Jim e 2, 1945 DECISION AND ORDER - On January 19, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report an- nexed hereto . Thereafter, the U. A. W.-A. F. L. filed exceptions to the In- termediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to notice to all parties, oral argument , requested by the U. A. W.-A. F. L., was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on May 3, 1945. The U. A. W.-A. F. L. and the U. E. were represented by counsel and participated in the oral argu- ment. The respondent and the I. A . M. (lid not appear . The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the entire record , including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and a communication from counsel for the U. A. W.-A. F. L., dated May 7, 1945, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner , except insofar as they are inconsistent with our findings , conclusions , and order hereinafter set forth. 1. On May 16, 1944, the respondent and the U. A. W.-A. F L. executed four separate contracts covering, respectively , employees of its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling ' Green plants, which extended exclu- 62N.L R.B,No 5 21 22 l)ECtblutv'S OF !NATIONAL LABul KI,i,A't'1ONS BOAR„ sive recognition to the U. A. W.-A. F. L. at each plant. The substantive pro- visions of the contracts are identical.' The Board's complaint alleges in substance that the four contracts are invalid and constitute illegal assistance to the U. A. W.-A. F. L inasmuch as the U. A. W.-A. F. L. did not repre- sent a majority of the employees in any of the bargaining units covered- by the contracts as of the date of their execution and thus was not entitled to recognition as exclusive bargaining representative. On June 8, 1944, a field organizer of the U. E. filed a charge alleging that the respondent had, on or about -May 18, 1944, entered into a written agree- ment with the U. A. W.-A. F. L., covering the respondent's employees at its Bowling Green, Rockport, and Huntingburg plants, and thereby encouraged membership in the A. F. L. On August 14, 1944, an employee of the re- spondent's Rockport plant filed a charge containing substantially identical allegations with respect to the Rockport plant. On August 16, 1944, an em- ployee of the respondent's Huntingburg plant filed a similar charge involving the respondent's Huntingburg plant. On September 30, 1944, an employee of the respondent's Bowling Green plant filed a charge alleging that on or about flay 16, 1944, the respondent entered into separate "closed-shop" contracts with the U. A. W.-A. F. L. covering the respondent's employees at its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, not- withstanding the fact that the U. A. W.-A. F. L. did not represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining units covered by such contracts? On October 1, 1944, an employee of the respondent's plant at Tell City filed a charge identical in substance to the above charge.' On October 1, 1944, a field organizer of the U. E. amended the U. E.'s charge of June 8, 1944. The U E 's anlended charge is identical in substance to the September 30 and October 1 charges filed by individual employees of the respondent. On Octo- ber 17. 1944, a Grand Lodge representative. of the I. A. M. filed a charge which also is identical in substance to the amended charge of the U. E. Since the contracts were executed on May 16, 1944, and only the charge a,, to the Rockport plant was filed by an individual employee within the 3-month period as provided by the National Labor Relations Appropriation i A fifth separate contract , made at the same time, covering employees of the respondent 's Owens- boro plants. with substantially identical provisions , is not in issue here since admittedly the U A W - A F L was the certified bargaining representative of the employees at the Owensboro plants In fact, the contracts do not contain closed -shop provisions They provide that employees who have joined and those who they eafter join shall maintain membership in the U A w.-A F. L , and for automatic check-off of dues of members S The charges mentioned above, dated August 12 and 16 , September 30, and October 1, 1944, respectively, do not appear in the record but are in the Board's confidential files In accordance with Board policy and practice , such charges are not made available to the public in order to protect employees who file them against possible reprisals KEN-RAD TUBE AND LADIP CORPORATION 23 Act of 1945,' hereinafter referred to as the "rider,"- the rider is a bar to this proceeding as to the three remaining plants unless there was no cony pliance with its posting requirements. There is no evidence in the record that any notice relative to the Tell City contract was ever posted. William Burlew, manager of the Rockport and Huntingburg plants, testified that, on or about June 1, 1944, notices were posted at the Rockport and Huntingburg plants, and that they remained posted approximately 2 or 3 weeks. Identical notices were posted at the Bowling Green plant on or about May 29, 1944, but these notices were not posted for the 3-month period required by the "rider.)' The notices, posted at the four plants, contained a general announcement of wage increases and retroactive pay as provided in the contracts executed on May 16, 1944, and contained no more than a single reference to the contracts, as follows : "The above wage increases are made pursuant to contract between the Company and the U. A. W.-A. F. L., Local No. 783 pursuant to the joint application of said parties to the National War Labor Board for authority to put said increases into effect and pursuant to the directive of said Board of May 23, 1944, authorizing such increases." The notices contained no mention, as required by the "rider," "as to the location at an accessible place of such agreement where said agreement shall be open for inspection by any inter- ested person." Mimeographed copies of the Bowling Green contract were posted contemporaneously with the notices at the.Bowling Green plant," and approximately 2 or-3 weeks later, printed copies of the Bowling Green contract were distributed, on one morning in June 1944, by the U. A. W - A. F. L. representatives to employees at the Bowling Green plant entrances.' ft also appears that printed copies of the respective contracts were mailed by the U. A. W.-A. F. L. to employees of the Tell City, Rockport, and Hun t- ingburg plants on or about June 15, 1944, and that sometime in the latter ' The pertinent language of the 1945 Appropriations Act is as follows No part of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used in any way in connection with a complaint case arising over an agreement , or a renewal thereof, between management and labor which has been in existence for three months or longer without complaint being filed by an employee or employees of such plant ; Provided , That, hereafter, notice of such agreement, or renewal thereof, shall have been posted in the plant affected for said period of three months, said notice containing information as to the location at an accessible place of such agreement wheic said agreement shall be open for inspection by any interested person .. . In a ruling of the Comptroller General of the United States , No. B-47778 , dated March 14, 1945, he stated that "a strictly literal mterpretation ' of the word 'hereafter ' [as used in the 1945 rider] would produce an unjust and absurd result at variance with the primary purpose of the riders [ 1944 and 1945] as a whole ," and ruled that the word "hereafter " is used in the 1945 rider in the same sense as it was used in the 1944 rider and thus relates back to July 1, 1943, the effective date of the 1944 rider Consequently , the posting requirements of the 1945 rider apply to the four contracts involved in this proceeding , notwithstanding the fact that they were executed prior to the effective date of the 1945 rider, since they were executed after July 1, 1943. ' A number of witnesses testified without contradiction that the notices with respect to the Bowling Green plant were posted from 2.8 weeks However, there was no evidence that auy of the notices were posted for more than 8 weeks "The copies of the contracts remained posted for the same length of time as the notices 4 Several employees of the respondent' s Bowling Gicen plant credibly testified that they never received any copy of this contract 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD part of June, the respondent began distribution of printed pamphlets con- taining copies of the contracts at all four plants to new employees as they were employed by the respondent . However, it does not affirmatively appear that all employees at the respondent 's four plants received a copy of any such contracts or had knowledge of their existence. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the notices do not constitute com- pliance with the posting requirement in that the notices were inadequate as to content and were not posted for a 3-month period . Thus the notices did not afford constructive notice of the contracts as required by the rider. We also find that the distribution of copies of the contract did not give the em- ployees actual notice of the contract since we are constrained to infer that not every employee, including both old and newly hired ,'received copies of the contract during any 3-month period prior to the filing of any charge in this proceeding , particularly in view of the gap in the interim between June 15 and the time when the respondent began distribution of copies of the contract to newly hired employees. 2. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent assisted the U. A. W.-A. F. L. by execution of the four exclusive recognition contracts with the U.A.W.-A.F.L. on May 16, 1944 , covering the respondent's Tell City. Rockport, Huntingburg , and Bowling Green plants because the U. A. W.-A. F. L. did not represent a majority of the employees at each of these plants at the time of execution of the contracts . The evidence pre- sented by the Board , set forth in the Intermediate Report, established a prima facie case that the U. A. W.-A. F. L. did not represent a majority of the respondent 's employees at each of the four plants involved at the time of the execution of the contracts . It then became incumbent upon the re- spondent or the U. A. W.-A. F. L. to come forward with evidence in refuta- tion , or, to establish its majority status. This . they failed to do . The respond- ent and the U. A. W.-A. F. L. admit that no proof of the U. A. W.-A. F. L.'s majority status at any of the four plants was ever submitted to the respond- ent e Rather, the U. A. W.-A. F. L. contends , as its witnesses testified. that because of a rapid turn -over of the respondent's employees, the U A. W.- A. F. L. had accumulated a large number of representation cards of employ- ees who had terminated their employment with the respondent and that, upon inauguration of a check-off of dues under the contracts in July or August 1944, it destroyed the cards of those persons whose employment with the respondent had terminated , and accordingly it was unable to sub- mit to the Board at the hearing any proof of its majority status as of May 16, 1944. We find the testimony as to the alleged destruction of the cards to be unworthy of credit. In May 1944, at a time when , according to the 8Indeed , among other things , the U A. W -A F L made a weak showing as to representation at the hearing in the representation case in connection with the Tell City plant, and the U E subse- quently won the election in that plant It is significant that the conhacts as to the three remaining plants, as well as that covering the Tell City plant, were executed at one time as part of a single transaction. KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION 25 U. A. W.-A. F. L., the alleged cards were in existence the respondent de- manded proof of the U. A. WV.-A. F. L.'s claim to majority status, and the U A. W.-A. F. 1, refused to produce any proof thereof. If the U. A. W.- A. F. L. had had the necessary number of cards at that time, we think it likely that they would have been submitted to the respondent or to an irn- partial third party for a check. The U. A. W.-A. F. L.'s refusal to produce proof of its majority status at the time of the execution of the contract con- vinces us, and we find, that the U. A. W.-A. F. L. did not have the necessary number of cards to establish majority status of any of the four plants at the time of the execution of the four contracts. 3. The Trial Examiner recommended in the Intermediate Report that the respondent be required to reimburse its employees for membership clues or fees deducted from their wages on behalf of the U. A W -A. F. L. pursuant to the check-off provisions of the contracts. We shall not require the respond- ent to reimburse the employees for such payments Membership in the U. A. W.-A. F. L. was not imposed by the contracts as a condition of em- ployment, except that the contracts required those who had joined and those who joined in the future to maintain membership for the duration of the contracts, however, such employees joined in the first instance voluntarily; and there is no evidence that the respondent in any other manner coerced inenibersInp in or payment of clues to the U. A. W.-A. F. L." ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent , Ken-Rad Tube and Lamp Corporation , Bowling Green, Kentucky , and Rockport , Huntingburg, and Tell City , Indiana, its officers , agents , successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Recognizing United Automobile Workers of America , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the representative of any of the employees of its Tell City, Rockport , Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants , for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning griev- ances, labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment , unless and until certified as such representative by the Board; (b) Giving effect to its contracts . (dated May 16, 1944, with United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor , covering employees of its Tell City , Rockport , Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants , respectively, or to any modification , extension, sup- plement, or renewal thereof, or any superseding contract which may now he in force : s Cf. Virginia Electric and Power Company v N L R B, 319 U S 533, N L R B v Balti- more Tranvit Co, 140 F. (2d) 51 (C C A 4). 26 DECISIONS OFNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effec- tuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as representa- tive of any of the employees of its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and 13owling Green plants, for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con- cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment, at any and all of the aforesaid plants unless Wand until certified as such representative by the Board; (b) Post at its plants at Bowling Green, Rockport, Huntingburg, and 'f'ell City, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Lopies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Elev- enth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representa- tive, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writing, ithm ten (10) days from the date.of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. I MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that : We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor Organizations, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, or International Association of Machinists, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives- of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other nnttial aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. We hereby further notify all our employees that we no longer recognize the United Automobile Workers of America, A. F. L., as the representative of, any of our employees at our Tell City. Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev- ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION 27 conditions of employment, unless and until certified as such representative by the Board. We also hereby notify all our employees that we no longer will give any effect to our contracts .with United Automobile Workers of America, A. F. L., dated May 16, 1944 covering employees at our Tell City, Rockport. Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, or to any modification , extension, supplement, or renewal thereof, or to any superseding contract which mmiy be now in force. KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION Employer) By (Representative) (Title) Dated This notice must remain posted for 64 days from the date hereof, and must not he altered, defaced, or covered by any other material INTERMEDIATE REPORT Miss Helen F. Humphrey, and Mr. Joseph Lepie, for the Board. Mr. Wilbur K Miller, and Mr Robert S. Wagoner, of Owensboro, Ky., for the respondent. Mr. James Payne, of Evansville, Ind., for United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, CIO. Mr. W. C Riley, of St. Louis, Mo., for International Association of Machinists, AFL. MD'. Morris Weintraub and Mr. Peter G. Noll, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and dlr. McKin- ley Ralston, of Owensboro, Ky., for United Automobile '" orkers of America, AFL STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Work- ers of America, CIO, herein called UE, and a charge duly filed by International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL, herein called IAM, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated November 1, 1944,' against Ken-Rad Tube and Lamp Corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were dull served upon the, respondent, the UE, the IAM, and United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, herein called UAW-AFL. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent, on or about May 16, 1944, entered into separate contracts with the UAW-AFL, recognizing the UAW-AFL as exclusive bargaining agent of employees at its Tell City, Rockport and Huntingburg, Indiana, and Bowling Green, Kentucky, plants, respectively, notwithstanding that the UAW-AFL did not represent a majority of employees in the bargaining units designated by the said contracts, that from May 16, 1944, the respondent urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned its employees to become members of the UAW-AFL and to refrain from joining any other labor organizations ; that, by the foregoing course of conduct, the respondent established 1 On October 24, i944, the Boaid i9sued its order consolidating the two cases 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sponsored, encouraged, supported, maintained and assisted the UAW-AFL at its respective plants as set forth above, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act In their respective duly filed answers, the respondent and the UAW-AFL admitted the execution on May 16, 1944, of separate contracts covering the respective plants set forth above. The respondent admitted that it was "without knowledge" as to wether or not the UAW-AFL represented a majority of employees in the bargaining units-cov- ered by the said contracts, buf otherwise denied all allegations of unfair labor practices The UAW-AFL denied the allegation that it did not represent a majority of employees in the bargaining units coverd by the aforesaid contracts, and the further allegations of respondent assistance Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner, at Owensboro, Kentucky, on November 16, 17, and 18, 1944, and, after continuances granted upon application respectively of the UAW-AFL and the respondent, at Bowling Green, Kentucky, on December 11 and 12, 1944. All parties were represented and participated in the hearing. Full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing upon the issues was afforded all parties At the opening of the hearing, at the close of the Board's case, and upon the conclu- sion of the taking of testimony, the UAW-AFL moved for a dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the proceeding was barred by the National Labor Relations Appro- priations Act of 1945.2 Ruling was reserved on the motion and it is now denied.' At the close of the Board's case and upon conclusion of the taking of testimony, the UAW- AFL further moved for a dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Ruling on the motion was reserved by the under- The pertinent language of the Appropriations Act follows "No part of the funds appropriated in this title shalt be used in any way in connection with a complaint case arising over an agreement , or a renewal thereof , between management and labor which has been in existence for three months or longer without complaint being filed by an employee or employees of such plant Provided , That, hereafter , notice of such agreement, or -renewal thereof, shall have been posted in the plant affected for said period of three months, said notice containing information as to the location at an accessible place of such agreement where said agreement shall be open for inspection by any interested person * * *" The appropriations itder is not a substantive amendment to the Act but impresses a iii station the use of funds The contention of the UAW-AFL that the Board is deprived of jurisdiction in the present mattes because of the application of the appropriations ' rider must therefore fail (See N L R B v 7lianpsoi , Pioducts , Inc, 141 F (2d) 704 (C C A 9) ) Howcvci, the undersigned is furthei convinced that the appropriations ' rider is not applicable to the matter insolved herein, since in the opinion of the undersigned , the proviso of the rider relative to the posting requirements was not complied with There is no evidence that any notice relative to the Tell City contract was ever posted William Stanley Burlew , manager of the Rockport and Huntingburg plants, testified that on or about June 1, 1944, notices were posted at these plants , and that they remained posted approximately two or three weeks There was substantial evidence that an identical notice was posted at the Bowling Green plant on or about May 29, 1944 It is clear , however , that this notice also was not posted for the stipulated three months period The aforesaid notices contained a general announcement of wage increases and retroactive pay as piovided for in the several contracts executed on May 16, 1944, but only in the last paragraph was any specific mention made of the said contracts . The iefeience was in the following language "The above wage increases are made pursuant to contract between the Com- pany and the U A 'N , A F L , Local No 783 * * *" The notice contains no mention , as directed in the proviso of the Appropriations Act, "as to the location at in accessible place of such agreement where said agreement shall be open for inspection by any interested person " There was substantial evidence that mmieogiaphed copies of the Bowling Green contract were posted contemporaneously with the notice at the Bowling Green plant, and that , later, ininted copies of the said contract were dish bitted by UAW -AFL representatives to employees at the plant entrances It also appears that pirated copies of the respective contracts were mailed by the UAW-AFL to employees of the other plants The undersigned is convinced that the foicgoing does not iepresent the re(itined compliance with the proviso of the ridei to the Apjnopiiation Act of 1944. KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION 29 signed and it is disposed of in the body of this Report. Upon conclusion of the taking of testimony, the parties were advised that they might argue orally before , and file briefs with , the undersigned The parties waived oral argument and a brief was there- after filed with the undersigned by counsel for the Board and the UAW-AFL. Upon the entire record in the case , and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Ken-Rad Tube and Lamp Corporation, is a Delaware corporation, maintaining its principal place of business including two plants, at Owensboro, Ken- tucky. During a representative six months period, the respondent received at its Owensboro plants raw materials valued at approximately $100,000, of which appeoxi- mately 90 percent was transported to its Owensboro plants in interstate commerce from States other than the State of Kentucky During the same period, respondent caused to be manufactured at its Owensboro plants products valued at in excess of $200,000, of which approximately 90 percent was transported from its Owensboro plants in interstate commerce to States other than the State of Kentucky. In addition to its Owensboro plants, respondent operates plants at Tell City, Indiana ; Rockport, Indiana, Huntingburg, Indiana; and Bowling Green, Kentucky; where it is engaged in the manufacture of radio tubes and radio tube parts. At its Tell City plant, respondent is engaged in the manufacture of glass tubes and assembled tube mounts under exclusive contracts with an agency of the United States Government. During a representative six months period, respondent shipped from its Owensboro plants for use at its Tell City plant, raw materials valued at in excess of $50,000 During the same period respondent shipped from its Tell City plant to its Owensboro plant finished products valued at approximately $50,000. At its Rockport plant respondent is engaged in the manufacture of radio tube parts During a representative six months period, respondent shipped from its Owensboro plants for use at its Rockport plant raw materials valued at in excess of $20,000 During the same period respondent shipped from its Rockport plant to its Owensboro plant finished products valued at approximately $20,000. At its Huntingburg plant respondent is engaged in the manufacture of radio tube parts. During a representative six months period, respondent shipped from its Owens- boro plant for use at its Huntingburg plant, raw materials valued at in excess of $40,000. During the same period respondent shipped from its Huntingburg plant to its Owensboro plants, finished products valued at approximately $40,000 At its Bowling Green plant respondent is engaged in the manufacture of radio tubes During a representative'six months period, respondent shipped from its Owensboro plants, for use at its Bowling Green plant, raw materials valued at in excess of $50,000. During the same period respondent shipped from its Bowling Green plant to its Owens- boro plants finished products valued at approximately $50,000 Respondent is at present manufacturing materials used directly in the war effort. Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act 4 II_THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical , Radio, and Machine Workers of America , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , International Association of Machinists; and 4 Based on a stipulation entered into by counsel for the respondent and for the Board. • / 30 11KCtSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Automobile Workers of America, respectively, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of h '- t e re III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background On September 2, 1942, the UAW-AFL was certified by the Board as bargaining representative for production and maintenance employees of respondent's Owensboro plants, and on September 10, 1943, for the departmental maintenance employees of the said plants.' It appears that, from the date of its initial certification, the UAW-AFL attempted to negotiate a contract with respondent but efforts to reach an agreement failed and the dispute was on November 21, 1942, certified to the National War Labor Board. On July 22, 1943, the NWLB issued a directive order in the matter but it was not complied with. Following the said non-compliance and on March 22, 1944, a strike vote, conducted by the Board, was taken among employees of the Owensboro plants, pursuant to the Smith-Connally Act,' with the result that a, majority of employees voted to strike. On April 14, 1944, pursuant to Presidential order, the United States Government seized possession of the Owensboro plants and on April 18, 1944, extended the seizure to all of respondent's plants involved in this proceeding. On May 16, 1944, the respondent and the UAW-AFL reached an accord on a modi- fication of the NWLB's directive order. It was agreed that the back pay provided in the NWLB's directive order should be denied employees whose employment had been terminated, except those in the armed forces, and that the length of time employees could be carried on respondent's pay roll at learner's rates should be extended beyond that provided in the directive order. It was further agreed that provisions of the con- tract entered into between respondent and the UAW-AFL covering employees of the Owensboro plants, should be extended to employees of its plants at Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green. On May 23, 1944, the NWLB approved the modifi- cation of its directive order agreed upon by the parties and authorized the extension of wage and vacation provisions of its directive order to the Tell City, Rockport, Hunt- ingburg, and Bowling Green plants. On May 25, 1944, the Government relinquished possession of respondent's plants. On May 16, 1944, the respondent and the UAW-AFL executed separate contracts covering, respectively, employees of the Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowl- ing Green plants. The substantive provisions of the contracts were identical. A separate contract covering employees of the Owensboro plants, with identical substantive pro- visions, is not in issue since admittedly the UAW-AFL was the duly certified bargain- ing representative of employees of the Owensboro plants. The Board alleges, however, that the respective contracts covering employees at the Tell City, Rockport, Hunting- burg, and Bowling Green plants, are invalid and constitute illegal assistance of the UAW-AFL, inasmuch as the UAW-AFL did not represent a majority of employees in the bargaining units covered by the contracts as of the date the contracts were entered into. B. The UAIF-AFL's majority status as of May 16, 1944 1. Tell City Operations were started at respondent's Tell City, Indiana, plant on or about June 1942. On March 2, 1944, the UE filed with the Board a petition for certification as bargaining representative of Tell City employees. It had requested in writing respond- 8 42 N. L R. B. 1235; 50 N. L R B. 1010; 43 N L It B 1010 (Cases Nos R-4034 and R-5109) 0 57 Stat. 163 KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION 31 ent's recognition and had been refused until such time as it was certified by the Board. A hearing was held on the UE's petition at Tell City on May 10,1944. The UAW-AFL was represented at this hearing. The respondent, though duly served with notice, did not enter an appearance. In support of its representational claims, the UE filed 219 des- ignations, of which 195 bore signatures of employees whose names appeared on the respondent's pay roll of March 4, 1944, the said pay roll containing a total of 340 employees The UAW-AFL in support of its claims of interest in the proceeding, submitted 46 membership applications, 30 of which bore signatures of persons on the March 4 pay roll From the foregoing it is clear that it was with full knowledge of the UE's represen- tational claims and the representation proceedings pending before the Board, that the respondent and the UAW-AFL on May 16, 1944, executed the contract, previously referred to, covering Tell City employees. In a brief filed with the Board subsequent to the representation hearing, the UAW-AFL asserted that the May 16 contract con- stituted a bar to further proceedings on the UE's petition The Board in its Decision and Direction of Election," dated May 29, 1944, stated : In view of the fact that the agreement in question was executed with full knowl- edge of the C. I O.'s claim to represent the employees of the Tell City plant as set forth in these proceedings, we find that the agreement is not a bar to a present determination of representatives 8 The UAW-AFL further asserted before the Board that a bargaining unit confined to employees of the Tell City plant was inappropriate. The Board rejected this conten- tion also and ordered an election. In the election held on June 26, 1944, 287 of the 358 employees casting valid ballots voted for the UE, 68 for the UAW, and 3 for neither The UE was accordingly certified as bargaining representative of Tell City employees,' and since the date of its certification, respondent appears to have dealt with it as exclusive representative of these employees, although apparently it has not formally set aside or nullified its contract with the UAW-AFL. In the present proceeding, the UAW-AFL offered no proof of majority representa- tion of Tell City employees as of May 16, 1944, the date of the execution of its contract with the respondent, its position being that the Tell City plant was not in issue inasmuch as the UE was now the duly recognized bargaining representative of employees at that plant. The undersigned is unable to agree with the UAW-AFL's position in this respect The execution of the Tell City contract of May 16 is not properly viewed in isolation but as a part of a single transaction covering all of respondent's assembly plants If the UAW-AFL did not in fact represent a majority of employees at the Tell City plant as of May 16, its entire position relative to its majority at each of the assembly plants is rendered vulnerable. ' On the basis of evidence submitted of its interest in the representation proceeding initiated by the UE's petition and the vote registered by Tell City employees in the election of June 26, the inference that the UAW-AFL did not represent a majority of Tell City employees as of May 16, 1944, is clearly established. The respondent in its answer to the Board's complaint admitted that it had no knowledge whether or not the UAW-AFL represented a majority of employees at any of its plants outside Owens- boro at the time it entered into agreements with the UAW-AFL covering these plants, and it is clear from the testimony and entire record of this proceeding, that the respond- ent required and was furnished with no proof of UAW-AFL representation of em- " 56 N. L. R B. 1050 (Case No 14-R-921). 9 56 N. L. R. B 1050 (Case No 14-R-921) Case No. 14-R-923. 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees at the Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants. On the other hand, the respondent refused the UE recognition as representative of its Tell City employees until it had been certified by the Board. The disparity in treatment accorded these rival labor organizations is obvious, nor is it satisfactorily explained by the posi- tion of the UAW-AFL, apparently supported by respondent, that employees of the Owensboro and the four assembly plants constitute a single appropriate unit As previously stated, the Board rejected this contention in its Decision and Direction of Election in the matter of the Tell City plant 10 Nevertheless, the respondent contin- ued to recognize the UAW-AFL as bargaining representative of Tell City employees and to give effect to the May 16 contract throughout the election period and until the UE had been certified by the Board. Shortly prior to the June 26 election; pursuant to the terms of its contract with the UAW-AFL and over the protests of employees affiliated with the UE, it prepared and erected at its Tell City plant, a bulletin board bearing the UAW-AFL lettering, and permitted UAW-AFL representatives to enter the plant and assist in the erection of the said bulletin board, though non-employees were generally excluded from the plant. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the UAW-AFL did not represent a majority of employees of the Tell City plant as of May 16, 1944. 2. Rockport Operations were started at the Rockport plant on or about April 10, 1944. On May 27, 1944, the UE requested recognition as bargaining representative of Rockport em- ployees, and on May 31 filed a petition for certification with the Board" During June 1944, employees of the Rockport plant affiliated with the UE circulated petitions among the employees which stated, inter also, that the signers thereto had never requested the UAW-AFL to represent them These petitions were signed by 53 em- ployees. The number of employees on respondent's pay roll at the Rockport plant as of May 16, was 72; on November 18, 1944, this number had increased to 103 It appears likely, therefore, that as of the date of the circulation of the petitions, 53 was a majority of employees. Admittedly, clue to a rapid turnover in personnel at all of respondent's plants, these petitions are not pcr se decisive as to the actual status of UAW-AFL's representation among Rockport employees, if any, as of May 16, but in view of the entire circuin- stances and, particularly, of the UAW-AFL's apparent inability to furnish any evidence whatever. of representation as of May 16,m do raise a strong inference that the UAW- AFL did not represent a majority as of May 16 or thereafter. This inference is strengthened by an almost total lack of evidence of organizational activity by the 10 The following is an excei lit from the Board Decision and Direction of Election ( see footnote 7t supra) - "The record discloses that notwithstanding an integrated Company oiganieation covering all plants of the Company including the Tell City plant , the latter plant is under the supervision of a separate manager and has numerous facilities for the production and shipment of articles, independent, of the similar facilities existing at the other plants of the Company Jn addition thereto, it appears that while the A F L has been ceitified as the baig,uning iepresentative for sunilai employees at the Owensboro plants, there is no history of collective baigaining upon an ovei-.ill company b.nis Undei the circumstances and in view of the geographical separation of the Tell City plant and the infre- quency of transfers of employees between plants, we are of the opinion that a unit confined to the employees of the Tell City plant is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining " 11 This petition is held in abeyance pending the disposition of the unfair labor piactwes charges 12 In response to the Board's subpena foi its iecoid of memberships or authorizations at each of the four assembly plants, the UAW-AFL submitted its designations for the Huntingburg and Bowling Giceu plants and these weie checked against the iespondcnt's pay toll of May 16, 1944, foi the two plants, respectively No scuds or other records of inemheiships or authorizations weie suhnutted with iefcience to the Tell City or Rockpoit plants KEN-RAD TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION 33 UAW-AFL among the employees of this plant prior to May 16," the fact that although it is provided in the contract of May 16, there has at no time been a check-off of UAW-AFL dues among employees of the Rockport plant, and no bargaining com- mittee has been constituted by the UAW-AFL for employees of this plant" In view of the foregoing, and the admission of McKinley Ralston, UAW-AFL rep- resentative in charge of organizational activity among respondent's employees, that UAW-AFL cards were never checked against respondent's pay roll to ascertain whether or not the UAW-AFL represented a majority of employees, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the UAW-AFL did not represent a majority of employees of the Rockport plant as of May 16, 1944. 3 Huntingburg Operations were started at the Huntingburg plant-on or about October 4, 1943. The UE began organizational activities among employees of this plant at or shortly after the time it was placed in operation, and on or about November 1943, filed with the Board a charge of unfair labor practices. This charge was later withdrawn but, admittedly, informed William Stanley Burlew, plant manager of the Rockport and Huntingburg plants and a vice president and stockholder of respondent, that the UE was engaging in organizational activities among employees of the Huntingburg plant Burlew testified, houiever, that prior to May 16, 1944, he had no knowledge that the UAW-AFL was attempting to organize Huntingburg employees There is in fact no evidence of organizational activity by the UAW-AFL among Huntingburg employees prior to May 16, except two application for membership caids signed prior to that date. Burlew testified that he first encountered a UAW-AFL representative at Hunt- ingburg "shortly after the army left." As previously stated, the Government relin- quished possession of respondent's plants on May 25, 1944 As of May 16, 1944, there were approximately 323 employees in the Huntingburg unit The UAW-AFL's explanation of its failure or inability to submit more than the two cards showing employee authorizations as prior to May 16, 1944, was the rapid turnover in personnel, according to UAW-AFL representatves, as an employee was severed from respondent's pay roll, his application for membership or other evidence of authorization was destroyed." That there was a rapid turnover of personnel in all of respondent's plants is undisputed. Hoi\ ever, the UAW-AFL's alleged destruction of representation evidence, as stated, requires that the issue he resolved on the basis of such inferences as properly may be drawn from the entire facts and circumstances shown by the record of this proceeding. The almost total lack of evidence of UAW-AFL organizational activity among Huntingburg employees prior to May 16, 1944, respondent's failure to require proof of representational claims although it had knowledge that a rival union was attempting to organize these employees, and Ralston's admission that no check of cards was made 13 Edith Mosby, employee of the Rockport plant, who with others circulated the UE petitions in June 1944 , testified that she had heard of no UAW-AFL meetings or other oig .unzational activity among employees of the Rockport plant, other than a letter iecuved through the maul from the IJAW-AFL on or about June 16, 1944, enclosing a copy of the •Rockpoi t coral act and a UAW-AFL membership application card 14 There was a check -off of dues at the iiuntuigbuig and Bowling CiLen plants , and huganuug committees were eventually set up for emplo}ees of those plants 1i The UA\V-AFL exacted no dues in for to the date on which the wage net cases in ovided for in the several contracts' took effect , and, therefore , according to UAW-AFL witnesses, these was no reason to retain in the files evidence of non-dues paying authorizations aftei the employee had been scsered from the pay roll. 34 DECISIONS OF NrATION A1. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD against respondent's pay roll,"' are circumstances which raise a strong presumption that the UA\V-AFL did not represent a majority of employees as of May 16 or prior thereto. The first specific evidence of more than nominal UAW-AFL activity anioni; Huntingburg employees i s the selection of a bargaining committee for employ ecs of this plant in the latter part of August 1944 It further appears that, although main- tenance of membership and check-off of dues were provided in the May 16 contract, there was no check-off of dues prior to July or August, 1944 On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the UAW-AFL did not represent a majority of employees of the Huntingburg plant as of May 16, 1944. 4. Iowling Green Operations started at the Bowling Green plant on or about July 10, 1943. In early September, 1943, Ralston addressed letters to Walter Beauchamp, then employed at the Bowling Green plant, for the purpose of arranging a meeting with Bowling Green employees. Beauchamp previously had been employed at the Owensboro plant and apparently was an active UAW-AFL member while thus employed. He testified that organizational meetings for Bowling Green employees were held in the fall of 1943, but on a oss-examination admitted that these early meetings were attended only by mem- bers of the UAW-AFL organizing committee and that there were no meetings held for employees generally prior to April 1, 194417 The first UAW-AFL meeting for Bowling Green employees, of which there is specific and convincing evidence, occurred on or about May 25, 1944, 8 subsequent to the execution of the May 16 contract On or about May 2, 1944, organizational letters with application for membership cards attached ii ere mailed by the UAW-AFL to Boca ling Green employees. It further appears that in reply to anti-union pamphlets distributed by a local "Citizen's Commit- tee." the UAW-AFL on a (late prior to May 16 distributed handbills among the employees Ralston testified that the UAW-AFL handled a single grievance for a Bon ling Green employee as early as September, 1943. The foregoing is the only specific evidence of UAW-AFL organizational activity prior to May 16, except application for membership and authorization cards submitted in response to the Board's subpoena A check of these designations against respondent's pay roll of May 16 revealed that of a total of 588 designations, 316 bore signatures of names appearing on the pay roll of that date, whereas only 20 of the 316 designations were elated prior to May 16. As of May 16, there were 844 employees on the Bowling Green pay roll, including a small group of employees not included in the bargaining unit. Previous mention has been made of the rapid turnover of personnel, but it is significant that, whereas a majority of the designations submitted by the UAW-AFL bore signatures corresponding with navies on the May 16 pay roll, only 20 of these designations were dated prior to May 16. Ralston testified that the UAW-AFL had majority representation of Bowling Green employees "possibly two or three weeks" prior to May 16, or "something like that." He admitted that no check of cards was made against respondent's pay roll to determine the UAW-AFL's representation status and that his information as to a majority was based 10 Ralstons entire testimony concei wing the UAW- AFL's alleged majority representations, as of the date of the contracts, was confused and unconvincing Questioned on cross -examination , "Do you, as a matter of fact, have fifty-one percent of the employees of the Huntingburg plant" he answered, "I don't know " 17 Beauchamp , late, testified that he was transferred from the Bowling Green plant back to Owens- hmo on September 12, 1943, and was not again ietu,ned to Bowling Green until on or about May 1, 1944 18 There may have been meetings of groups of employees prim to that (late , but evidence of such p„or meet ings is exceedingly Hague and tenuous KEN-RAl TUltli N I) LAMP L I:1'UkAT1ON 5 on information which he got from key employees of the various departments as to the total number of employees in the bargaining unit. Board witnesses Samuel Childress, Roy Manning, and Lawrence E Clarkl° testified to the effect that at a UAW-AFL meeting of June 8, 1944, Ralston stated that the UAW-AFL now represented a majority of employees. Childress testified that at pre- vious meetings Ralston had stated that the UANNr-AFL wanted to help the employees but "couldn't help . . until they had a majority in the plant ," and that at the June 8 meeting Ralston stated that the UAW-AFL now had a majority and that he was afraid to say so sooner because he was not sure Ralston denied the testimony of these witnesses and testified that what he actually said was that due to rapid turnover in personnel it was essential to continue to recruit new members in order to preserve the UAW-AFL's majority. Ralston's testimony was uncorroborated although numerous witnesses for the UAW-AFL testified concerning the June 8 meeting In view of the generally vague and unsatisfactory character of Ralston's testimony, and its lack of corroboration, the undersigned accepts the version of his June 8 statements given by the Board's witnesses . Childress further testified, without contradiction, that during the continuance of the hearing in this proceeding, Marvin Burnett, chairman of the UAW-AFL bargaining committee at the Bowling Green plant, in questioning him concerning the posting of the Bowling Green contract,20 stated that the, contract was posted on May 29, and "that the reason that they hadn't posted it sooner, they didn't have the majority." This undisputed testimony is credited It appears that the first check-off of dues at the Bowling Green plant occurred in my or later. George F. Callahan, plant manager of the Bowling Green plant, testified that he first learned of respondent's contract with the UAW-AFL in the middle or latter, part of May 1944. He did not participate in the negotiations leading to the execution of the said contract. On June 29, 1944, Warren*C. Riley, JAM representative, requested recognition as bargaining representative of machinists employed at the Bowling Green plant. On July 8, respondent replied, refusing recognition unless the IAM were certified by the Board and citing its contract with the UAW-AFL. In view of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the only reasonable inference that can be based thereon is that the UAW-AFL did not represent a majority of employees at the Bowling Green plant as of May 16, 1944, an inference not satisfactorily explained or met by evidence adduced by i espondent or the UAW-AFL. C Concluding findutgs The May 16 contracts were executed at a time when the United States Government was in possession of respondent's plants It further appears that the UAW-AFL was emphatic and insistent in its demands that contracts be executed to cover each of the assembly plants , and that a modification of the NWLB's directive order, favoring the respondent in certain respects , was agreed upon as part of the transaction which resulted in the execution of the several contracts. It does not appear that respondent, at the time these contracts were executed, was motivated by any desire to favor the UAW-AFL. Its action is more reasonably explained in terms of expediency, self- interest, and a desire to extricate itself from a difficult position . Nevertheless, its action in recognizing the UAW-AFL as bargaining representative of each of its assembly plants and execution of contracts covering these plants was a most potent form of assistance to the said labor organization and interference with the right of employees 19 Childress, Manning , and CIai k a ei e imnibei s of the UAW-AFL, 11 dining a shop stew.u d °0 See footnote 3, supra 36 1DGCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under the Act to freedom of choice in the selection of bargaining representatives, unless the UAW-AFL was in fact the majority representative of employees in the several units, respectively The undersigned has found that the UA\VV-AFL was not in fact the majority representative of the said employees. It is significant that at the Tell City plant, the only one of the assembly plants where a bargaining election has been held, the employees have voted overwhelmingly in favor of a riial labor organization. From the entire testimony and record, it appears that as of the date of the execution of the May 16 contract;, both the UAW-AFT. and the respondent took-the position that the UAW-AFL, because of its certification as bargaining representative of employees of the Owensboro plants, the original and by far the largest of all respondent's opera- tions," entitled it to an extension of the Owensboro contract to cover the four assembly plants This would explain the failure of the respondent to demand proof of the UAW- AFL's majority at the four assembly plants, respectively, and the UAW-AFL's failure to establish a majority in the respective plants before seeking recognition and contracts covering their. While the assembly plants in fact represented an expansion of respond- ent's business and an effort to escape the manpower shortage existent at Owensboro, there was a sufficient amount of transfers of employees from the Owensboro to the assembly plants and shifting of departmental functions, that the UAW-AFL may very well have believed that its interests as bargaining representative of Owensboro em- ployees required that it extend its jurisdiction and contractual relationships with respondent to cover the assembly plants It is true that by the execut on of separate contracts for each of the assembly plants, respondent and the UAW-AFL appear to have recognized that bargaining units confined respectively to each of the plants were appropriate, but assuming arquendo that in the first instance they acted in entire good faith, in view of their know ledge that representation proceedings involving the Tell City plant were pending before the Board, caution should have dictated that they delay the execution of contracts covering the assembly plants until such time as the Board had disposed of the representation issue raised by the UF_'s petition. As previously stated, the Board, in the aforesaid representation proceeding Ras pre- sented with and considered the UAW-AFL's contention that a bargaining unit confined to the Tell City plant was inappropriate, and rejected it." There is nothing in the record of this proceeding that persuades the undersigned that the Board's determination of an appropriate unit confined to employees of the Tell City plant, should he disturbed. Since there is no essential difference in the relationship existing between the Owens- boro and the Rockport, Huntinghurg, and Bowling Green plants, and that existing between the Owensboro and Tell City plants, it appears and the undersigned finds that the Board's determination of an appropriate unit confined to employees of the Tell City plant applies also to each of the remainder of respondent's assembly plants. Following the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in the matter of the Tell City plant,-' issued on May 29, 1944, the respondent took no action to set aside the contracts which it had on May 16 executed with the UAW-AFL, but continued to give effect to the contract covering the Tell City plant until certification of the UE pursuant to the election of June 26, 1944, and to the contracts covering Rockport, Huntinghurg. and Bowling Green plants to this date. The undersigned has referred to benefits and special privileges accruing to the UAW-AFL by virtue of these contracts ; these include the erection and exclusive use of bulletin boards, the admission of its representatives to the various plants whereas representatives of rival labor organizations are excluded, the distribution of its contracts to newly hired employees by foremen of the respective -t As of May 16, 1944, the Owensboro plants employed in excess of 3,000 persons. 22 See footnote 9, supra 2' See footnote 7, sepia. KEN-RAI) TUBE AND LAMP CORPORATION 37 plants, and a check-off of dues at the Huntingburg and Bowling Green plants, as well as the prestige accruing to the organization by virtue of the wage increases, and vacation and seniority privileges provided by the contracts Each of these benefits and special privileges represents a potent form of company assistance In view of the total situation as set forth in preceding paragraphs of this Report and as revealed by the entire record, the undersigned finds that by its recognition of and execution of contracts with the UAW-AFL on May 16, 1944, covering the Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, respectively, and by benefits and special privileges accruing to the UAW-AFL by virtue of the aforesaid recognition and contracts, the respondent has sponsored and assisted the UAW-AFL as alleged in the Board's complaint and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The undersigned finds that the activities, of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with their operations described in Section I, 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 unfair labor practices, the under- signed will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The undersigned has found that the respondent sponsored and assisted the UAW- AFL by its recognition of the UAW-AFL as bargaining representative of employees at its Tell City,, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, respectively, and by its execution with the UAW-AFL on May 16, 1944, of contracts covering the said plants. The undersigned accordingly will recommend that the respondent withdraw its recognition of the UAW-AFL as bargaining representative of any of its employees at its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, and that it cease and desist from giving effect to each of the said contracts, as well as to any extension, renewal, modification or supplement thereto and any superseding contracts which may now he in force The undersigned will further recommend that the respondent reim- burse its employees in the amount of all membership dues or fees deducted from their wages pursuant to the provisions of the aforesaid contracts Nothing herein shall be taken to require the respondent to vary. those wages, hours, seniority, and other such substantive features of its relations with the employees them- selves Which the respondent has established in the performance of the contracts, or as the said contracts have been extended, renewed, supplemented, or superseded Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I International Association of Machinists and United Automobile Workers of America, each affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and United Electrical. Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated Ns ith the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2. By recognizing United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as exclusive bargaining representative of employees at its Tell City, Huntingburg, and Rockport, Indiana, and Bowling Green, Kentucky, plants, and by the execution on May 16, 1944, of contracts with United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated \s ith the .\mcrican Federation of Labor, covering cm- 38 I) ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees of the aforesaid plants, and by giving effect to the said contracts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed hereby recommends that the respondent, Ken-Rad Tube and Lamp Corporation, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Recognizing United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of'Labor , as the representative of any of the employees of its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, for the purpose of deal- ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (b) Giving effect to its contracts with United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, covering employees of its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg , and Boo ling Green plants, respectively , or to any modifica- tion, extension, supplement or renewal thereof, or any superseding contracts with it; 2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Withdraw all recognition of United Automobile Workers of America , affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor, as representative of any of the employees of its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants , for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of emplo} nnent, or other conditions of employment, at any and all of the afore- said plants. (b) Reimburse the employees of its Huntingburg and Bowling Green plants, and at its Rockport plant if such clues or fees have been deducted, for membership dues or fees deducted from their wages pursuant to the check -off provisions of its contracts with the United Automobile Workers of America , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the total of such dues or fees deducted from his or her wages ; - (c) Post immediately on its bulletin boards , or other regular places where notices are posted, throughout its Tell City, Rockport, Huntingburg, and Bowling Green plants, and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date 'of posting, notices to employees of its said plants stating : ( 1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it has been recommended that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and ( b) of these recommendations , ( 2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and ( b) of these recommenda- tions; ( 3) that its employees are free to become or remain members of any labor organization of their choice , and that the respondent will not discriminate against them because of membership or activities in behalf of the said labor organizations ; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the -Fourteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the (late of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith - It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten ( 10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it w ill comply ww ith the foregoing recommendations , the National Labor KEN-RAD TUBE A\NT) L.\\11' CORPORATION 39 Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26, 1943, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the (late of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon together with the original and- four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board \VILLIAar E. SPENCER Trial Exaw1Uicr Dated January 19, 1945. 0 0