Remington Arms Co., Inc.

In the Matter of REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY , INC. and UNITED ELEC- TRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 2-C-5333.-Decided June 20, 1945 DECISION AND ORDER Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by United Elec- trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, against Remington Arms Company, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut, herein called the respondent , a hearing was held before a Trial Examiner at Bridgeport , Connecticut, between July 25 and July 31, 1944, in which the Board, the respondent, the Union, and The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport , Incorporated, herein called the Inde- pendent, participated by their representatives . The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial error was com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 9, 1944 , the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in violations of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief were there- after filed by the respondent. Oral argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on May 8, 1945. The respondent, the Union, and the Independent were represented and participated in the oral argument. Upon consideration of the entire record , we hereby adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, save as here- inafter modified. 1. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the respondent en- gaged in violations of Section 8 (1) of the Act by vilifying , disparaging, and expressing disapproval of the Union , by interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation , by urging, persuading, and warning its employees to refrain from assisting , becoming members of , or remaining 62 N. L. R. B., No. 81. '611 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD members of the Union, by urging, persuading, and warning its eliiployees to assist, become members of, or remain members of The Bridgeport Rem- ington Employees Union, Incorporated, herein called the Employees Union, and of the Independent, and by threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they joined or assisted the Union or refused to join or assist the Employees Union or the Independent. The record contains uncontradicted testimony indicating that the respondent had engaged in activities in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act; however, the Trial Examiner made no findings as to these-violations. In view of the Union's failure to file any exception, we make no finding that the respond- ent engaged in any unfair labor practice other than that resulting from its violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 2. The respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that H. H. Meyer, John Talbot, and W. J. Murphy were supervisory employees and that, as such, their conduct was attributable to the respondent.' Meyer, Talbot, and Murphy were leaders in the organization and administration of, and were the first officers of the Employees Union, which was the successor organization to the Plan.' The record establishes, as indicated in the margin, that job foremen are supervisory employees whose activities i From 1929 to 1939, Meyer was a tool and gauge maker In 1939, he was made an assistant to Area Supervisor H. P Ryno Area supervisors are in charge of several divisions, each of which are in charge of a foreman In 1940 , Meyers was sent to the Brazilian plant of the respondent as an instructor and, upon his return in the latter part of 1940 , he was made a "general foreman" in the tracer bullet section For a shoit period prior to May 1942, Meyer was a tool procure lent representative of the respondent , and sometime after that date, he was promoted to a position as an area supervisor with appioximately 200 eniployees under his supervision Meyer was active in the Employees Representation Plan, lieremaftei ieferred to as the Plan, and in the Employees Union until April 1938, and as lie testified, "I probably was a member after that, but I took no active part " We find that, since 1939, where lie became an' assistant to Area Supervisor Ryno, Meyer has been a supervisory employee or has been identified with management . Talbot was a press operator until 1938 or 1939 , when he was promoted to a position as tool setter In August or September 1941, he became a job foreman He was active in the Plan, in the Employees Union, and in the Independent until at least the date of the hearing before the Trial Examiner For reasons set forth below, we find that since August or September 1941, when Talbot became a job foreman, he has been a supervisory employee In 1929 or 1930, Murphy became a senior cleik with responsibility for the instruction , direction , and proper performance of the work of from 3 to 6 clerks in the respondent's treasury or accounting department As senior clerk, he was required to report careless or improper work of his subordinates to the office manager According to his testimony, early in 1942 , Murphy "assumed more duties, more responsibilities" but without a change in job designation Thereafter, Murphy assumed the duties of the section manager, in his absence, and , at such times , Murphy was in charge of 50 to 60 employees in the department Since 1942, Murphy has been in charge of 3 employees, each of whom had 2 or 3 clerks under his super- vision In April 1943, Murphy was placed in charge of the salary and wage section of the treasury department with supervisory authority over 30 employees . He resigned from the Employees Union in April 1943 We find that Murphy has been a supervisory employee since becoming a senior clerk in 1929 or 1930 =The Plan was admittedly organized and supported by the respondent The Employees Union changed its name and is now known as the Independent . Meyer was an employee representative under the Plan from 1933 to 1937, inclusive , and was chairman of the Plan ' s Works Council in 1936 and 1937 In 1936 and 1937 , Murphy was an employee representative in the Plan and was a member of the Works Council 's Wage Committee . Talbot was an employee representative under the Plan from 1934 to 1937, inclusive, and was the chairman of the Works Council's Wage Com- mittee in 1936 and 1937. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 613 and conduct are attributable to the respondent' We find that the activities of Murphy in the Plan and in the Employees Union from the time of the inception of the Plan until his resignation from the Employees Union in April 1943, the activities of Talbot in the Employees Union and in the Independent since August or September 1941, when he became a job fore- man, and the activities of Meyer in the Employees Union and in the Independent since he became a supervisory employee in 1939, are attrib- utable to the respondent, because, inter alia, of the supervisory status of the three employees during such periods. However, we find it unnecessary to determine whether Meyer and Talbot occupied supervisory positions during their employment as tool setters or tool and gauge makers, as the case may be, inasmuch as the respondent did nothing to mark the separa- tion between the Plan and the Employees Union and publicly to deprive the successor of the advantage of the respondent's apparently continued favor and support and to disabuse the employees of the impression that the acts of Meyer, Talbot, and Murphy were not regarded with similar favor to that which had been manifested by the respondent when the same three individuals had been active in connection with the administration and functioning of the Plan. In view thereof, we further find that, in forming and administering the affairs of the Employees Union, the employees had just cause to believe that Meyer, Talbot, and Murphy acted in that regard in behalf of and represented the respondent.` 3. The respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that the 1944 contract between the Independent and the respondent failed to meet standards commonly considered to be essential in collective bargaining' agreements. Unlike the Trial Examiner, we accord no significance to the fact that the arbitration clause in the contract or any of its provisions deviated from that commonly established in collective bargaining agree- ments. 'The managerial organization of the production departments descends as follows chief super- visor in charge of several areas, aiea supervisor, shift supervisor, foremen, and job foremen Under the job foremen aie tool setters and production employees Job foremen are listed on the re- spondent's "organizational chart" of supervisory employees They wear an identification badge dis- tinguishing them from ordinary employees. Like production employees, job foremen are hourly iated, receiving from $1 20 to $1 35 per hour, a higher rate of compensation than that of their subordinates However, the method of pay is not controlling here in determining their supervisory status, since a few foremen, admittedly supervisory employees, are paid on an hourly basis Ac- cording to the assistant plant manager, the job foremen are in charge of from 2 to 10 employees Other witnesses, however, estimated the number of employees subordinate to the job foremen to range from 16 to 80 Job foremen assign work, direct the work of their subordinates, ascertain which work is to be done and that it is done properly, and occasionally operate production ma- chines Although they have no power to hire or discharge, they report improper work or conduct on the part of their subordinates to the shift supervisor or foreman, as the case may be, who ordinarily rely upon the recommendations of the job foremen On'the second and third shifts, there are no foremen employed, consequently, the job foremen are directly subordinate to the shift supervisor The testimony of employees indicates that they regard the job foremen as supervisory employees We find that job foremen are supervisory employees. 4 See, for example, N L R B v Link-Belt Co , 311 U. S 584; Westinghouse Electric & Manu- factioing Company v N L R B , 112 F (2d) 657 (C C A 2). 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent illegally supported the Employees Union and the Independent, among other ways, by pay- ment to representatives of the Employees Union and of the Independent of their regular wage for time spent in attendance at conferences with management which were concerned with negotiations as to wage, welfare, and safety matters affecting employees generally. We find that the re- spondent did not thereby illegally support the Employees Union or the Independent since such payments fall within the proviso contained in Section 8 (2) of the Act.' 5. The respondent also excepts to the Trial Examiner's recommenda- tion that the respondent reimburse its employees for dues deducted by the respondent from their wages pursuant to the check-off provision in the Independent's contract. The contract does not provide for a closed shop, or otherwise require membership in the Independent as a condition of employment; it provides that the respondent will check off dues for the Independent upon specific authorization in writing by a member. Although, under certain circumstances, we have ordered that employees be reim- bursed for dues similarly checked off pursuant to the terms of a contract not providing for a closed shop, we are not persuaded that such circum- stances exist in the instant proceeding as to require an order of reim- bursement. The record reveals that more than 2,000 employees were not members of the Independent and not all members have signed dues- deduction authorizations. Moreover, so far as appears, the respondent discharged no employee or threatened to discharge any employee because of non-membership in the Independent or because of outside union activ- ity. In view thereof, we shall not order that the respondent reimburse its employees for the dues deducted by the respondent from their wages for the benefit of the Independent.' 6. The circumstances surrounding the organization of the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent, as well as other evidence that the respondent accorded each organization assistance and support and manifested control successively over them, as more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, clearly demonstrate that the respondent has, by varying methods and over a long period of time, dominated and interfered. in turn, with the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent's course of conduct in this respect, by virtue of its intensive and extensive charac- e The proviso in Section 8 (2) of the Act reads An employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confei with hint during wwk- mg hours without loss of time or pay ' Cf Virginia Electric and Power Company v N. L R B., 319 U. S. 533, N. L R B. v. Baltimore Transit Co, 140 P. (2d) 51 (C. C- A 4), Matter of Ken Rod Tube and Lamp Corpoiation, 62 N. L. R. B, 21. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 615 ter, discloses a fixed purpose to defeat self-organization and its objects. Thus the respondent, by dominating and interfering with, and by con- tributing support to, the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent, interfered with its employees' right to self-organization, and to form, join, and assist labor organizations, denied its employees the free oppor- tunity to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and substantially deprived its employees of their right to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, except in the channels directed by the respondent. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices hereinafter proscribed and that a danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of 'Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effec- tuate the policies of the Act, we will order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranted in Section 7 of the Act.' 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, Remington Arms Company, Inc, Bridgeport, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or contrib- uting support to, the Employees Representation Plan, also known as the Works Council, The Bridgeport Remington Employees Union, Incorpo- rated, or the Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, and dominating or interfering with the formation or admin- istration of, or contributing support to, any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) Recognizing the Employees Representation Plan, also known as the Works Council, the Bridgeport Remington Employees Union, Incor- porated, or The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, N L R B v Standard Oil Co, 138 F (2d) 885 (C C A 2), enf'g 43 N L R B 12, Bethlehem Steel Co v N L R B., 120 F (2d) 641 (App D C ), enf'g 14 N L. R B 539, Holtville Ice & Cold Storage Co v N L R B , 148 F (2d) 168 (C C A 9), enf'g 51 N. L. R B 596. 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em- ployment; (c) Giving effect to any and all contracts and agreements with The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract or agreement with The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, which may now be in force, (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Work- ers of America, C. I 0., 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 mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds Xvill effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from The Remington Employees Inde- pendent Union of Bridgeport,, Incorporated, and completely disestablish that organization as the representative of any of the respondent's employ- ees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other con- ditions of employment ; (b) Post at its plant at Bridgeport, Connecticut, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director of the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, 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 the 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 Second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respond- ent has taken to comply herewith. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT James C Paradise, Esq, of New York, N. Y., for the Board. C M. Spargo, Esq., of Wilmington, Del., and H. 0 Blumenthal, Esq., of Bridge- port, Conn., for the respondent Samuel E Friedman, Esq, and Erwin E. Friedman, Esq., of Bridgeport, Conn., for the Independent. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. Mr. Henry Johnson, of Bridgeport, Conn, for the Union. 'STATEMENT OF THE CASE 617 Upon an amended charge duly filed on April 22, 1944, by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board by its Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York), issued its complaint dated July 14, 1944, against Remington Arms Company, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices 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 and the amended charge, accompanied by a notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondent, the Union, and the Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, [In- corporated], herein called the Independent, a labor organization alleged in the com- plaint to have been known formerly as the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union, herein called the Employees Union, which is alleged to have been initiated, formed, sponsored and promoted by the Respondent. With respect to the alleged unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the hearing, states in substance that the Respondent: (1) from on or about January 1, 1941, has vilified, disparaged, and expressed disapproval of the Union, has inter- rogated its employees concerning their union affiliations, has urged, persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of or remaining members of the Union, has urged, persuaded, and warned its employees to assist, to become members of or remain members of the Employees Union and the Independent, and has threatened its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they joined or assisted the Union or refused to join or assist the Employees Union and the Inde- pendent; (2) that on or about 1933, it initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted an Employees Representation Plan, also known as the Works Council, herein called the Plan, and on or about May 1937, initiated, formed, sponsored and promoted the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union, now known as the Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, as the successor to and continuation of the Plan; that since that time to the present time it has dominated, contributed support to, and interfered with the administration of the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent; (3) on or about April 8, 1944, it entered into a collective bar- gaining agreement with the Independent that required the deduction by the Respond- ent from the pay of its employees of dues levied by the Independent which agreement is invalid since the Independent did not represent an uncoerced majority in the unit covered by the agreement, and (4) that by reason of the 'above acts it has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent in its answer dated July 24, 1944, filed with the undersigned at the hearing on July 25, 1944, admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and that in 1933 it initiated, formed, sponsored and promoted the Plan; but denied that it had committed any of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, the hearing was held on July 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31, 1944, at Bridgeport, Connecticut, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, James C Batten, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Respondent, and the Independent were represented by counsel, the Union by its representative, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam- ine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all the parties. At the opening of the hearing the Independent by a written petition moved 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to intervene in the proceeding. The undersigned granted the motion insofar as the interests of that organization were affected. Also at the opening of the hearing the undersigned granted the Board's motion to amend the complaint in accordance' with a notice of motion to amend which prior to the hearing had been duly served upon the parties1 After all the evidence was adduced, the undersigned granted, without objection, the Board's motion to conform the pleadings to the proof as to minor de- tails? At the close of the hearing all parties were advised that they might argue orally before the Trial Examiner and that they might file briefs with him. No oral argu- ment was presented; all parties waived this right The Respondent filed a brief with the undersigned Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the *itnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Remington Arms Company, Inc, the Respondent herein, is a Delaware corporation, a subsidiary of E. I Du Pont de Nemours and Company, a Delaware corporation Its principal office is located at Bridgeport, Connecticut. It operates plants at Bridge- port, Connecticut, Ilion, New York, and Findlay, Ohio, all of which it owns; and it operates government-owned plants at Independence, Missouri, and Denver, Colorado The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of small arms ammunition. Principal materials purchased by it for use at its Bridgeport plant are brass, steel, lead and powder. During the past year it purchased materials valued at in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 66 percent was shipped to its Bridgeport plant from points outside the State of Connecticut. During the same period it manufactured products at its Bridgeport plant valued at in excess of $1,000,000, of which approx- mately 90 percent was shipped outside the State of Connecticut. Approximately 95 percent of all the products manufactured by the Respondent during the past year at its Bridgeport plant was for war purposes. Respondent concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce and is subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.' II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the Respondent ' The Employees Representation Plan, also known as Works Council , unaffiliated, was a labor organization which has represented , without membership, employees of the Respondent. The Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union, Incorporated, unaffiliated , was until the formation of its successor, The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, a labor organization admitting to membership only em- ployees of the Respondent. The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, is a I The first sentence of paragraph five of the complaint was amended to read as follows : United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Union, and Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union , Incorporated, now known as the Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated , and hereafter referred to as Employees Union, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2In accordance with this motion the undersigned has throughout this report followed the evidence as it reflects the names of persons and organizations. s The above facts and jurisdiction of the Board were stipulated REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 619 labor organization, without affiliation, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Organizational sequence of events 1. In 1933, the Respondent initiated in its Bridgeport plant the "Employee Repre- sentation Plan of E I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company and Subs,diary Com- panies."' 2. In 1934, the Respondent installed in its Bridgeport plant a revised "Employees' Representation Plan." 3 On May 15, 1937, the Respondent's Manager notified the Chairman of the Plan that the Respondent, in order to comply with the Wagner Act, would withdraw recognition and support from the Plan. , 4 On May 28, 1937, the organization of the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union' was completed by the adoption of a constitution. 5 On July 20, 1937, the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union filed "Articles of Association" with the Secretary of State in Connecticut as a corporation, without capital stock 6. On August 6, 1937, the Respondent recognized the Bridgeport-Remington Em- ployees Union, Incorporated, as the sole collective bargaining agency of its em- ployees in the Bridgeport plant. 7 In August 1943, the Bridgeport Remington Employees Union, Incorporated, filed with the Connecticut Secretary of State an amendment to its Articles of Association, changing the name to The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated. 8. On April 8, 1944, the Respondent and the Independent entered into a collective bargaining agreement, providing for recognition of the Independent as the exclusive representative of all Respondent's wage roll and salary roll employees in the Bridge- port plant R Domination and interference with fornwtion, administration of and contributions to labor organiwations, the Plan, the Employees Union and the Independent' 1 Origin of the Plan, its structure and admen.stration` Sometime in 1933' the original Plan, then known as the "Employees Representation Plan of E I DuPont de Nemours and Company and Subsidiary Companies," spon- sored by DuPont, was launched by the Respondent in the Bridgeport plant. The Plan was initiated by the Respondent submitting the Plan to the employees who voted to accept the suggested organization 4 The Respondent , Remington Arms Company , Inc , is a subsidiary of the Dupont Company 5 This organization operated as a voluntary association until July 20 , 1937 , when it became a non-stock corporation O The findings of fact in this section unless otherwise indicated are undisputed 7 The Respondent admits in its answer that in 1933 , it initiated , formed, sponsored and pro- moted the Plan and the revised Plan in 1934, and in its brief concedes that the "Respondent assisted [the Plan] by contributing support," at least until early in May , 1937. However , since the relationship of the Employees Union and the Independent to the Plan is in issue here, the under- signed will briefly review the facts concerning the Plan. 'Although July 5, 1935, was the effective date of the Act, the Respondent ' s activities prioi to that time are relevant to a consideration of its subsequent acts The undersigned finds that the Respondent 's acts prior to July 5, 1935, did not constitute unfait practices See Falk, 308 U. S 453, 460 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Under the provisions of the Plan, it was administered by a Works Council, the term commonly applied to the organization. The Council consisted of representatives elected by the employees and an equal number of representatives appointed by the Respondent, with a chairman and secretary appointed by the Respondent, but without a vote in the Council's proceedings. The Plan provided for a numerical system of representation and the Works Council, in accordance with the authority granted to it in the Plan, divided the plant for voting and representation purposes into divisions with representatives allocated on the basis of the number of employees in the division.' Employee representatives in each division were required to be selected from among the men employed therein and have at least one year of continuous service with the Respondent, but supervisory employees were not qualified to vote or act as employee representatives The elections were conducted in the plant during working hours, the employees being polled on the job by an employee who passed through the voting division with a ballot box. In both the nomination and election of employee repre- sentatives, the ballots were counted by a special election committee appointed by the Chairman of the Works Council, a management selection The Plan further provided that an elected representative, when he leaves the service of the Respondent, "shall immediately and automatically cease to hold office." The core of the Plan was its Works Council It appointed committees from among its members to be composed of an equal number of employee representatives and Respondent-appointed representatives ; the chairman of the Council who was selected by the Respondent, designated the chairman of the committee The Council held bi-monthly meetings and special meetings could be called by the chairman at the request of the Respondent or by one-third of the employee representatives. The Re- spondent furnished a suitable place for the meetings of the Council and its.committees The representatives in attendance at the meetings received their regular pay from the Respondent. While the Works Council might by a two-thirds vote propose amend- ments to the Plan, no amendment could become effective until approved by the Execu- tive Committee or Board of Directors of the DuPont Company and for subsidiary companies, the Board of Directors of such companies. In 1934, the above Plan was replaced by another Plan sponsored by the Respondent, with certain changes. The Works Council consisted of only employee representatives, with a chairman from among its members, but a "suitable secretary selected from the works personnel,"' who shall have no vote; an arbitration clause to become ef- fective only in the event that such action was mdtually agreed upon by the Works Council and the Works Manager, and in that event only for the adjustment of such matters as come within the scope and purpose of the Plan, or for amendment, alter- ation or repeal of the Plan, instead of Respondent-appointed representatives being on the Works Council, the revised Plan provided for management consultants. the core of the revised Plan was in its joint Investigation Committee, i composed of three o The Respondent in the selection of its representatives did not appoint them on the basis of plant divisions , but as general management representatives , although the Plan required that "The dis- tribution of voting divisions of appointed representatives should , as far as practicable, conform to that of the elected representatives ," a permissive requirement only. io The evidence is clear that this refers to the .Respondent's service department and in practice G R Hildreth, head of that department, acted as secretary as late as April 21, 1937 The yearly reorganization meeting of the Works Council regularly voted that G H. Hildreth be reelected secretary for the ensuing year u In practice there were 3 Joint Investigation Committees-Wage Committee, Welfare Committee and Safety Committee Each of these committees reported its findings "Jointly to the Works Council and to the Works Manager for ratification or further consideration " In case of a dis- agreement as to the disposition of any matter , the only remedy was to proceed with arbitration if mutually agreeable. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 621 employee representatives and Respondent-appointed representatives who could equal but not exceed the number of employee representatives, each of these committees elected its own chairman and secretary and formulated its own rules of procedure, the procedure for the consideration or investigation of any matter coming within the scope and purpose of the Plan and its adjustment was subject in the final step to the control of the Works Manager as to whether he would agree to arbitration, otherwise no settlement could be made The Respondent continued to pay all the expenses of the elections, which as before were held on Respondent's time and premises. The Plan, with the more important changes here enumerated, continued in the plant until on or about May 15, 1937 ' From the effective date of the Act, July 5, 1935, to May 15, 1937, shortly after the Supreme Court validated the Act, the Plan functioned in thesame manner as before without any changes The Respondent's admitted formation, domination and support of the Plan are clear Every year elections were held within the plant on the Re- spondent's premises and at its expense , all employees with one year of service or longer were permitted to vote and were eligible for election as employee representa- tives, the status of employee representatives ceased automatically upon transfer to another voting division or on termination of employment; amendment of the Plan was controlled by the Respondent, participation by the employees in the Plan's function- ing was limited to voting in the annual elections for employee representatives ; the Plan made no provision for meetings of the employees and none were ever held under its auspices; the secretary of the Works Council was selected from the Works per- sonnel, in practice the head of the Respondent's Service Department; the joint In- vestigation Committee which handled all "mutual employee-Company" relationships was in practice composed of an equal number of employee representatives and ap- pointed representatives of the Respondent; the arbitration provision of the Plan was only effective when the Works Manager agreed to arbitration; until May 15, 1937, the Respondent paid all Plan expenses, there being no provision for dues or mem- bership in the Plan; the employee representatives were paid for attendance at Works Council and Joint Investigation Committee meetings, as well as when conferring with employees or attending to any matters requiring consideration or investigation coming within the scope and purpose of the Plan 2 The transformation of the Plan into the Employees Union ; its stricture and administration The annual Plan election for the position of employee representatives was held in the early part of April 1937. The election was conducted in the same manner as in preceding years, the voting being held in the plant during working hours, with the Respondent contributing the expenses, including the payment of wages for the time spent by the employee representatives and other employees, in the conduct of the elec- tion. Of the total of 9 employee representatives elected, 6 were reelected and 1 had previously been a representative Frequently hereinafter, reference will be made to certain employee representatives elected in April 1937, who were among the most active in the transformation from the Plan to the Employees Union, some of whom at a later time were instrumental in the metamorphosis of the Employees Union to the Independent. For these reasons their positions with the Plan are herewith set forth . H. H. Meyer an employee representative under the Plan from 1933 to 1937 inclusive, the Plan's Works Council Chairman in 1936 and 1937; Steve Knapick, an employee representative in 1935, 1936, and 1937, and a member of the Safety Com- mittee of the Works Council in 1937, Walter Murphy, an employee representative iii 1936 and 1937, and during these years a member of the Wage Committee of the Works Council; J. H. Talbot, an employee representative from 1934 to 1937 inclusive, 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Chairman of the Works Council Wage Committee in 1936 and 1937, J. C. Mac- Donald, an employee representative from 1933 to 1937 inclusive , and a member of various committees of the Works Council ; Mrs . Anna Bale, an employee representa- tive in 1935, 1936, and 1937 , and a member in 1936 and 1937 of the Welfare Commit- tee; C. W. Platts, an employee representative in 1936 and 1937 , and a member of the Welfare Committee in 1936 and 1937. On April 21, 1937, at a regular meeting of the Works Council for the purpose of organizing the new Council , H. H. Meyer was reelected chairman and G. R Hildreth, manager of Respondent's service department, was reelected secretary . Meyers then appointed the following committees : Wages, Rates - Safety and other & Hours Welfare working conditions John Talbot C. W. Platts S. Knapick J. C. MacDonald Mrs. A. Bale W. Holden W. J. Murphy J. Bottom In closing the meeting Secretary Hildreth was instructed to contact the manage- ment and obtain the names of the consultants to be appointed on the various joint Committees composed of an equal number of employee and Respondent repiesenta- tives. There are no records and documents of the Plan subsequent to May 7, 1937 Murphy, an active employee representative, testified that there were no subsequent meetings of the Plan's Works Council. Sometime in the spring of 1937, James H. Chasmar, then the Respondent's Work Manager, while in the Board's New York Regional Office, was advised by the Region- al Director, after a discussion on the Supreme Court's validation of the Act, that the Plan at the Remington plant had no standing as a legal bargaining agency. Chasmar testified that the Regional Director made no suggestion as to what the Respondent should do to correct the situation nor did he ask for any suggestions Upon Chasmar's return to Bridgeport, after a discussion with the Remington man- agement he called Meyer, chairman of the Plan's Works Council, to his office Chasmar explained to Meyer that the Respondent considered that the Plan was illegal, and that it was withdrawing recognition and support from that organization. On two or three occasions thereafter, Meyer, Talbot, and Murphy went to Chasmar's office to seek his advice on what could be done under the Act. Chasmar refused to take any position or advise them what they should do. Within a week after Chasmar's conference with the Regional Director, according to his testimony, he posted on approximately 125 bulletin boards around the plant a copy of the Act1Y displaying Section 7, but other than this no notice was given or posted on the Bulletin Boards to the employees generally of the withdrawal of the Plan or its disestablishment t3 On or about May 15, 1937, after Chasmar had notified Meyer of abandonment of the Plan, Meyer went to the office of Murphy during working hours and advised him that the Plan under the Supreme Court ruling sustaining the Wagner Act would have to be abandoned . Further, he told Murphy that it would no longer be possible for the Respondent to sponsor an organization and furnish stenographic service, sta- tionery, meeting rooms, or finances. In the course of the discussion, lasting for pos- sibly an hour, Murphy was unable to recall whether they talked about the creation of a new organization. Following this conference Meyer, Murphy, and Talbot talked 12 Although Talbot and Meyer testified they did not see a copy of the Act posted, the undei- signed accepts Chasmar 's testimony upon winch this finding is based 13 According to the testnnon} of 1\Iurphy, thu e was no meeting of the Plan's Works Council at which its dissolution was' discussed no: acie any of the eniployee iepiesent,itives other than Meyer told by the Respondent that the Plan was being discontinued REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 623 about the reorganization of the Plan for several days, spending considerable time away from their work, for which they were paid 14 They finally concluded that they would organize an independent union. Meyers, Murphy, and Talbot left the plant on two occasions, during working how s, to consult an attorney concerning their plans for an organization. They gave to the attorney a copy of the Plan, telling him that they wanted the new organization to continue along the same lines as the Plan, in every respect, so far as legally possible. The constitution of the organization as drawn by the attorney and approved by Meyers,Murphy, and Talbot provided that the name of the organization would be "Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union." It also provided that only employees of the "Bridgeport Works of the Remington Arms Company" shall be eligible for mem- bership; that only upon application, passed upon by the Board of Representatives, will an employee become a member, however without dues or assessments ; that the voting for the election of the Board of Representatives, the governing body, shall be by divisions "as heretofore existed under the Employees' Representation Plan"; that to be eligible for election as a representative an employee must have at least one year of continuous service with the Respondent; that when a representative leaves the service of Respondent he immediately and automatically ceases to hold office; that the nomination and election of representatives would follow along the same lines as the Plan ; that three charter members from each voting division shall elect a representative, who will hold office for 1 year ; that the Board of Representa- tives will elect the officers, that the Board will negotiate and enter into agreements i, ith the Respondent, the agreements subject, not to ratification by the members, but to protest by them within 10 days after the execution of an agreement, providing "a peti- tion signed by one-fourth of the members is presented to the Board protesting the agreement or contract." in which event a majority vote of the members is requ red, "before the agreement shall be binding upon all the members of the Union" , that the Board shall negotiate with the Respondent regarding a procedure "in handling matters of mutual employee-Company interest coming within the scope and purposes of this Union"; and finally that the Board may amend, alter or repeal any parts of the con- stitution by a majority vote of all representatives, provided that the action shall not become effective until ratified by a majority vote of the members ce With the ground work thus laid, Meyer, Murphy, and Talbot uotificd the Plan employee representatives who had been elected in April 1937, to attend a meeting on the evening of May 28, 1937, and bring with them two invited guests No general notice of the meeting was given the employees of the Respondent The meeting com- menced at 5 30 p in and was attended by not to exceed 50 employees, out of a total of approximately 3,000 then employed in the Respondent's plant. All of the Plan's employee representatives were present and their invitees, many of whom were former employee representatives of the Plan George Kelly, an employee representa- tive in 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936, and chairman of the Plan's Works Council in 1936, was elected acting chairman of the meeting At the meeting the constitution was read by Murphy and adopted without change,l" Meyers, Murphy, and Talbot were 14 Murphy testified that he, Meyers, and Talbot being employee iepiesentatives of the Plan wrie permitted to leave the plant in the same manner as theietofoie 15 As hereinafter related, in practice amendments and changes were mad, without submission to the members. 10 After the adoption of the constitution, 32 persons signed the documents as charter members, 9 of whom were Plan representatives, of the others many were former employee representatives under the Plan and all of these persons were a select group, limited to attend the meeting at the special request of the Plan's employee representativep 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD designated as the "constitution committee" ; a motion was made and carried that the former employee representatives of the Plan and their "helpers"' distribute applications to all other employees, another motion was made and carried that the employee representatives who had been elected in the April, 1937 Plan election, act as the Board of Representatives for the Employees Union.' These employee repre- sentatives, as the Board, 9 in the number, then took charge of the meeting. It elected the following officers - President, Meyers, Vice President, Talbot; and Secretary, Murphy.19 These individuals were the self-appointed committee which organized and planned the Employees Union. That same evening, immediately following the organization, a meeting of the Board of Representatives was held, with Meyers presiding. The minutes of the meeting disclose that Platt as chairman of the Plan's Welfare Committee and Knapik as chairman of its Safety Committee made reports on matters they had received prior to the meeting and as employee representatives of the Plan?° Meyer then an- nounced, without action by the Board, that it was necessary to have more committees than before and he established new membership, financial, audition and entertainment committees. He appointed to the Wage Committee which handled the more im- portant matters such as wages and hours-Talbot, Murphy, and Knapik; and these same persons to the Finance Committee, two of whom, Talbot and Knapik,- had been on the Wage Committee of the Plan appointed on April 21, 1937, by Meyers, then chairman of the Plan. In fact all of the committee selections had been on various joint investigating committees of the Plan Subsequent to these selections the com- mittees were composed, as under the Plan, with an equal dumber of Respondent appointed Representatives, as joint committees.-' The minutes further disclose that certain complaints were referred to the Wage Committee which had previously been considered by the Wage Committee of the Plan. It is obvious that the business of the Plan continued unbroken either as to its personnel or matters under consider- ation. Thus as soon as the Board of Representatives of the Employees Union was established, the methods, procedures, and business of the Plan were continued with- out interruption. After the meeting of May 28, 1937, at which the Employees Union was organized, 17 Helpers refers to employees in the voting divisions who had been selected by the representatives to assist them in carrying on their duties. 18 This procedure was in violation of a section of the constitution just adopted, providing that 3 or more charter members from a voting division shall elect the representatives, who make up the Board of Representatives. 19 It should be noted that the undersigned hereinafter concludes and finds that the relationship of these individuals with the management was such as to lead the employees to the conclusion that in their activities in connection with the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent, they were acting in behalf of the Respondent 20 Meyer, at the- general meeting which started at 5.30 p. in. after his election as President, appointed a Welfare and Safety Committee but Knapik was not a member of the Safety Commit- tee and Platt was not appointed to the Welfare Committee. Under the Plan, Platt was Chair- man of the Welfare Committee and Knapik Chairman of the Safety Committee, so it is a fair inference that they were reporting upon matters received by them as Plan representative. This inference is clear from the reports made by them Platt's report referred to a tennis court for the exclusive use of employees. Platt also reported that the request was now under consideration by the management Knapik reported that "a satisfactory adjustment had been made concerning the men carrying powder cans in the Rim Fire division." The Wage Committee of the Plan was not prepared to make a report and it was decided that its unfinished business would be referred to the new Wage Committee. a Chasmar testified that even during the period after his notification to Meyer that the Plan would have to be discontinued, to May 28, 1937, the date of the organizational meeting of the Employees Union, he continued to adjust matters with the Plan's committees as the representatives of the employees. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 625 its Board of Representatives cofitinued to refer to the Plan and its accomplishments in soliciting the employees to become members of and support the new organization. The following letter prepared by Meyers, Murphy, and Talbot was mimeographed in the plant at the expense of the Respondent and subsequently distributed: May 27, 1937 TO THE EMPLOYEE'S OF THE REMINGTON ARMS CO., Bridgeport Works. In the course of the past four years, the Employee's Representation has been the means of negotiating with the mangement on matters pertaining to our interests. The Council feels that these matters have been in most cases, adjusted to our satisfaction and that some worth while accomplishments have been made -two of the most recent being, the 7°Jo increase in wages and the 40 hour week. However, the National Labor Relations Act, better known as the Wagner Act, recently upheld by the United States Supreme Court, under "Rights of Em- ployees," Sec. 8, reads in part as follows :- "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer (Par. 2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or con- tribute financial or other support to it : Provide [d] that - - - an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay". In the past the company has been paying regular wages to Works Council Representatives for the time spent in Council work, has furnished the material necessary, and stenographic service when required. It is evident that under the Wagner Act an employee organization will have to be self-supporting in order to qualify as a collective bargaining agency. A committee of your present Works Council has been studying this matter thoroughly and has undertaken to evolve a plan of organization which will conform to the law. A copy of this plan is attached and you are asked to study it very carefully. We think that our fellow employees feel it would be a distinct advantage to deal with management through our own internal organization. The interests of - the new plan will be confined to matters affecting only the welfare of employees of the Bridgeport Works. The elected representatives will be familiar with con- ditions in the factory and will have better means with which to deal promptly and intelligently with the management All money collected will be spent to further our own interests. We believe that it will be to your advantage to become a member of this or- ganization and to support it by contributing the very moderate amounts of money necessary for its operation. Works Council ' It is apparent from the letter that the appeal to the employees was based upon the claimed accomplishments of the Plan, an organization "internal" in structure, with "all money collected" being spent to further "our own" interests. The employees could only conclude that the employee representatives of the Plan had planned the Employees Union, and were as representatives of that organization recommending to the employees what purported to be a new organization. The employees generally did not participate in the formation of the Employees Union, or in the election of representatives and officers in the new organization. They were without knowledge that the organization was in control of the Plan's employee representatives elected in April, and it was not until early June that they were notified of the formation of the Employees Union, when the Board of Repre- sentatives distributed to the employees generally the letter above referred to, with 626 Dl.C1SJONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a copy of the constitution and an application of membership. The distribution was made in the plant by the representatives and the plant guards, the latter having been hired on their off time for that purpose Murphy testified that he and three others distributed this material in his division by placing it on the desks in the offices of the Respondent. On July 21, 1937, Meyer, Murphy, and Talbot filed with the Secretary of State for Connecticut, Articles of Association, for a corporation to he known as the Bridge- port-Remington Employees Union, Incorporated This step was not submitted to the Employees Union or the Board of Representatives for consideration or approval. The minutes of the Board make no reference to this action on the part of Meyer, Murphy, and Talbot, the self appointed "con;ttution committee" who transformed the Plan into the Employees Union. On August 3, 1937, Meyer dictated a letter to Works Manager Chasmar's stenogra- pher, during working hours, addressed to Chasmar advising him that the Employees Union be recognized as the sole collective bargaining agency for the Respondent's employees On August 4, Chasmar replied advising the Employees Union that Murphy had agreed to act for the Employees Union and Seckner for the Respondent in checking the records for the purpose of determining the majority, and that the official records of the Union "shall he retained in Mr Murphy's hands, except while the committee is at work, and that the identity of the Union members shall be held strictly confidential " However, shortly after this, the application cards were turned over to Hildreth, Service Manager of the Respondent, for checking against the signatures of the employees, which were recorded in the employment records.` Murphy testified that he could not recall whether he and Seckner had a pay roll listing the names of the employees or were furnished only' the number of employees then on the pay roll However, in either event, Murphy testified they did not check the names of the employees, who according to the records were members of the Em- ployees Union against the names of the employees appearing on the pay roll They merely counted the names appearing as members, and then the number of employees on the pay roll, determining from these figures that the Employees Union represented a majority on a percentage basis On August 5, 1937, they reported to Chasmer that of 2,979 eligible employees, 1,685 were enrolled as members of the Employees Union -' On August 6, Chasmer recognized the Employees Union as the sole collective bar- gaining representative of the employees, and on that date posted on the bulletin boards the following notice : Bridgeport, Conn August 6, 1937 NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES The Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union has requested this Company to recognize it as the sole collective bargaining agency for the employees of this plant, and has submitted evidence satisfactory to the Company demonstrating sz On August 18, Hildreth in a memo to Chasmar stated that "We have completed the verifica- tion of signatures in the [Employees Union's] application cards as compared with the signatures on our employment records " Thus, in spite of Chasmar's desii e to keep confidential the names of the employees who signed applications, at least from minor management representatives, arrange ments were later made to place in the custody of the Service Department the records of the Em- ployees Union Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Chasmar's position in his lettei of August 4, was made in good faith zs The constitution of the Employees Union provided, "There shall be no dues or assessments Each member shall be free to contribute as much as he chooses." Reference to "Members" in the report referred to the number of employees who bad signed application cards under the conditions heretofore described Later when the Board of Representatives detei mined that each male member should contribute 50 cents, each female 25 cents at stated periods, the receipts from contributions on this basis represented a minority of the employees REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 627 that a substantial majority of the employees at this plant have in fact authorized that organization to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining with the Company's management The Company has, therefore, notified the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union that that organization is recognized by the Company as the sole collective bargaining agency in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act (Wag- ner Act), for the employees at this plant RIEMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC J H. CHASMAR, Works Manager Although recognition was given, under these questionable circumstances, at a time hen the Respondent knew that the C. I. 0. and A. F. L were conducting an active membership campaign in the plant, the Employees Union, up to March 1944, when it became the Independent, and the C. I 0. again became active in the plant, made no effort to secure a written agreement with the Respondent, but continued the practice of adjusting employer-employee relations on the basis of the issuance of minutes of joint committees, showing the names of the employee and the management repre- sentatives, with the settlement arrived at, a procedure initiated by the Respondent under the Plan. In the latter part of June 1937, the Employees Union, in order to combat the efforts of the Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, International Union (C I 0.), which had for several weeks been attempting to organize the Respondent's employees, distributed to the employees generally a leaflet admitting that the Employees Union "was sponsored and formed by the employees you elected in the last election [April] to serve you as your representatives on the [Plan's] Works Council" and that "The purpose of this Union is to continue to represent the employees of the Remington-Arms as a bar- gaining agency and to promote satisfactory labor relations by and between the em- ployees and the management " The leaflet in part reads as follows The Bridgeport-Remington Employees' Union is governed by employees of the Remington-Arms Company, not by said labor agitators whose only interest in Unionism is the amount of money which may be obtained from you through clues of $1 00 per month, plus "Special Assessments." The men in back of The Bridgeport-Remington Employees' Union are serving without pay, and their interest is fostered in trying to maintain the best working conditions possible in the Bridgeport plant, without resorting to the calling of strikes at the whim of a labor agitator, simply to prove that he is earning his money as a "benefactor of mankind." The Bridgeport-Remington Employees' Union, not being required to con- tribute toward the salaries of high paid Union Executives and the mainte- nance of National Headquarters, will be able to operate successfully without charging dues. Expenses will be maintained through employee contributions, awards, and numerous other activities. Review the accomplishments. of the representatives who are now soliciting your membership! These consist of two general increases during the past year as well as at least twenty increases involving single departments, two weeks vaca- tion with pay, a Disability Wage Plan whereby our people are paid full wages during periods of illness up to three months THINK IT OVER! Keep your independence, let us be governed by employees we know and respect, not by the paid agitators whose only stock in trade is the term "Rats," which 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" has been applied to the men who are unselfishly serving you. Sign your application card for membership in a Union of Remington Employees, controlled, dominated and supported by Remington Employees. It is clear that the appeal made herein, referring to "paid labor agitators," is the customary propaganda indulged in by "internal" organizations, such as here involved, usually the outgrowth of Plans completely under the domination of employers In addition, this appeal credited the Employees Union, then in process of organizing, with 2 general increases, vacations with pay, and a Disability Wage Plan, all of which prior to formation of the Employees Union had been given the employees, through the Respondent's sponsored Plan. Although the financial and other support given by the Respondent to the Plan purportedly was withdrawn on or about May 15, 1937, at the time Chasmar so advised Meyer, then chairman of the Plan, the support continued to a substantial degree during the formation of the Employees Union and thereafter. The Respondent permitted Meyers, Murphy, and Talbot, without loss of pay, between May 15 and May 28, to confer daily in the plant concerning plans for the organization of the Employees Union, and to leave the plant for extended periods on two occasions to consult with an attorney ; it permitted the mimeographing at Respondent's expense of the appeal to employees to join the Employees Union; it permitted the distribution in the plant in some instances during working hours, of application cards for membership in the Employees Union ; it permitted elections for representatives to be conducted in the plant, in some voting divisions during working hours, in the same manner as under the Plah; and it permitted the payment to representatives of their regular wages, when handling any business of the Employees Union, attending joint committee conferences; which in many instances were not concerned with the settlement of greivances, but with negotiations involving general discussions of the settlement of wage, welfare and safety matters affecting employees generally. The only support not extended to the Employees Union, formerly given to the Plan, was the direct contribution of financial aid 24 The Employees Union, except for its incorporation in July 1937, proceeded under the same constitution, procedure, and practice established in May, 1937, by the employee representatives elected under the Plan in April 1937. 3. The metamorphosis of the Employees Union to the Independent ; its structure and administration The Independent as appears from the record, even before its formal organization, was inevitable for the reason that some-employee representatives who transformed the Plan into the Employees Union effectively laid the ground work upon which the structure of the Independent was to be built. Knapik an employee representative under the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent and President of the Employees Union and the Independent from 1938 to June 1944, testified that on May 1, 1943, the Board of Representatives of the Employ- ees Union started the publication of a paper with the following heading 24 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Meyer, Murphy, Talbot and Knapik, all officers or representatives in the Plan and the Employees Union, and Plotkin, Thornton, Caldwell, Albert and Stephen Jansko and Winthal, Board witnesses. The Respondent's assertion that these incidents did not occur, at least with its knowledge and consent, is rejected The support given, the activities of the representatives in the distribution of literature, the solicitation of members in the plant, the collection of "contributions," and the yearly elections in the plant for the nomination and election of representatives , were so extensive and widespread that it is a fair inference to charge the Respondent with knowledge of these facts. Certainly it knew that no deductions were made from the pay of any of the representatives, who often made contact and attended meetings with Respondent' s representatives on general matters affecting employer-employee relations REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. . 629 R. E. I. U. BULLETIN REMINGTON EMPLOYEES INDEPENDENT UNION At the time of the issuance of this Bulletin , the name of the incorporated organiza- tion then allegedly representing the employees was the Bridgeport-Remington Em- ployees Union, Incorporated. The Bulletin announced the annual nomination and election of representatives under the constitution of the Employees Union, but in a boxed notice on the first page appeared the following IMPORTANT NOTICE NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS FOR "R. E I. U." REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE HELD DURING THE MONTH OF MAY. SEE PAGE 3 On page 3, reference is made to the provisions in the constitution of the Employees Union, for the conduct of elections The Bulletin credited to the Independent the obtaining of several general agreements on employer-employee relations that had been reached with the Respondent through negotiations, although no such agreements existed It also gave credit to the Independent for wage rate increases, an improved vacation plan, and other benefits which originated either under the Plan or the Employees Union. In May 1943, the regular election of employee representatives was held in the plant, under the procedure set up in the constitution of the Employees Union and in the same manner as heretofore described The record is somewhat obscure as to the name of all the representatives re-elected. At the meeting of the 'oard of Represen- tatives subsequent to the election, Knapik was re-elected president Talbot was later appointed on the committee which assisted Knapik in the negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement hereinafter referred to, between the Respondent and the Inde- pendent. Also at this meeting the usual committees-Wage, Welfare and Society- were appointed for the ensuing year running to June, 1944. Sometime in August 1943, the Board of Representatives, of the Employees Union, without a majority vote of its members as required in the constitution, decided to change the name of the Employees Union to "The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated." In that month, Knapik as president of the Em- ployees Union signed and had filed with} the Secretary of State in Connecticut, an amendment to Articles of Association of the Employees Union setting forth this change in name The Board of Representatives elected by the Employees Union in May 1943, including Knapik as president, continued as the Board of Representatives under the new name the Independent. The Independent continued to function the same as formerly, when it was called the Employees Union. Contemporaneously with the change of name, and election of representatives, accord- ing to the testimony of Knapik which the undersigned credits, a constitutional com- mittee was appointed to revise the constitution of the Employees Union. After 2 or 3 630 _DECISIONS OF tyATIONAI, LABOR RELATIONS IiOARI weeks' study, the committee recommended some changes, which at a regular meeting of the Board of Representatives, were adopted without change The Board of Repre- sentatives notified the employees generally of this action, by placing a copy or sum- mary of the proposed constitution and a notice that the constitution would be pre- sented for adoption at a i egular meeting [of the Board of Representatives] on October 21, 1943, Knapik testified and the undersigned finds that when no employees appeared at the meeting and registered any objection to the document, the Board of Represen- tatives gave it final approval, without a majority vote of the employees as required by the constitution of the Employees Union. The Constitution and Bylaws thus adopted by the Board of Representatives is at present operative. It is unnecessary here to detail the provisions of the revised constitution, except to say that it followed the general plan of the Employees Union's constitution which was based upon the Plan. The Independent constitution made no provision for general membership meetings, the members played no role other than to vote in annual elections or to protest the action of the Board of Representatives in entering into agreements, contracts or other matters coming before the Board. Such protest was effective only when a majority of the members signed a petition protesting any action, within 10 days, in which event the Board would further consider the matter and "If no equitable agreement is ultimately arrived at, the matter may be placed before a Board of arbitration as hereinafter provided '1121, the officers were elected not by the members but the employee representatives from among their own number, the president appoints all committees and assistants, and for the first time since the origin of the Plan in 1933, the constitution provided that the members shall be assessed dues to be fixed by the Board of Representatives, thus establishing a means for raising funds, other than through voluntary contributions. The Board of Representa- tives functioned under the terms of this constitution, adopted on October 2, 1943, and with the same representatives and officers in charge, until June 1944.26 It would not serve any useful purpose to review the procedure followed and the operation of the Independent It is enough to say in resume that it had all of the attributes of the Employees Union, with the restrictions customary upon membership control, and sufficient of the Plan's provisions and'procedure retained, to make it typical of company-dominated unions Knapik, president 'of the Employees Union and the Independent, testified that during the years 1942 and 1943, the meetings of the various committees were held mostly during working hours, for which the representatives were paid He further testified that in addition to discussing grievances at these meetings, the committees considered vacations, bonus pay, and bargained with the Respondent concerning matters of gen- eral interest affecting large groups of employees As heretofore stated, the election of May, 1943, for representatives was conducted in the plant in the same manner as elections had been conducted since 1933, under the Plan, with minor refinements However, as far as the employees were concerned, the Independent was to all intents and purposes the same in operation and procedure 4 The agreement of April 8, 1944 Although the Respondent had since 1933 dealt with and recognized the Plan, the zs However the constitution "hereinafter" makes no provision for arbitration 26 Knapik testified that the employee representatives elected by the Employees Union in May, 1943, continued in office when the name was changed to the Independent and the revised constitution and bylaws were adopted, without a new election In fact, the revised constitution made no provision for election of representatives until May 1944. It further provided that the officers presently (Octo- ber 21, 1943 ) holding office shall continue to hold office until the next election [in May 1944]. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 631 Employees Union and the Independent as the representatives of its employees, it was not until April 8, 1944, that a iN ritten agreement was consummated On or about March 15, 1944,' the Independent and the Respondent started collective bargaining negotiations A joint committee , composed of an equal number of repre- sentatives from the Independent and the Respondent, after several meetings agreed upon the terms of an agreement The meetings frequently were held during working hours and Knapik, president of the Independent, testified the joint committee followed about the same procedure in connection with the negotiations as had formerly been followed in the joint wage committee meetings . He further testified that when con- ferences were held during working hours, the employee representatives were given their regular pay. The agreement dated April 8, 1944, recognized the Independent "as the exclusive representative of all Wage Roll and Salary Roll Employees not exempt under the hours provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, with exception of supervisory employees . " The record discloses that the check made by the Respondent of membership in any of the organizations , here involved, was that of August, 1937, the details of which are, herembefore set forth. The evidence is clear and Knapik admits that during the present negotiations no proof in the form of records or otherwise were submitted to the Respondent to indicate that the Independent represented a majority of the employees . In fact, Knapik testified that there was no discussion of the matter in the negotiating conferences, except when the Independent's representatives assured the Respondent's representatives that the organization had as members a majority of the employees. Knapik further admitted that on the basis of the voluntary contributions under the constitution of the Employees Union, less than a majority of the employees were making payments. Although the Independent required the payment of dues, it was not until about the first week in April that the Independent started the collec- tion of dues, and it is plain from the evidence that on April 8, 1944, the Independent did not represent a majority of the employees . The agreement also provided for the deduction of Independent dues by the Respondent in the amount of $1.00 for each four months period of the year, "from the earned wages or salary of such members of the Union as shall individually certify in writing that they authorize " the Respondent to make such deductions, providing however, that the member may cancel such deductions by giving written notice to the Respondent. The contract, an 18-page document , in general incorporates the Respondent's policy with respect to wages, hours and working conditions in effect prior to April 8, 1944. In most respects the agreement is a continuation of its "Industrial Relations Plans and Policies" formulated under the Plan and the Employees Union. The Respondent agrees to continue "all existing privileges heretofore enjoyed by the em- ployees," subject to such rules, regulations, and interpretations as existed prior to the agreement The Respondent, without the approval of the Independent, reserves the right to make modifications in its insurance plan, disability wage plan, pension and retirement plan, vacation plan, continuity of service plan and lay -off notice plan. Under the general provisions of the agreement, the core of the agreement is the "wage committee" of the Independent which must meet weekly with representatives of the Respondent, in substance a continuation of the joint investigating committees. The agreement is to remain in force and effect until terminated by either party, by giving 27 Undoubtedly the organization campaign of the Union , which was in progress at this time, influenced the Respondent and the Independent in their decision to enter into a written agreement In the opinion of the undersigned the recognition of the Employees Union of 1937 under siniilai circumstances, and the present decision to enter into an agreement with the Independent were both predicated upon a desire to exclude an "external" labor organization from the plant and the under- signed so finds. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 30 days' notice in writing, provided, however, that neither party shall serve such notice for at least 11 months after April 8, 1944. The agreement was signed for the Inde- pendent by Knapik, Talbot, Seymour and Prendergast, all of whom were employee representatives under the Plan or the Employee Union. On June 1, 1944, a supple- mental agreement was consummated changing the hours of the regular work-week. The agreement requires that the Independent will maintain a wage, welfare and safety committee, this being in conformity with the practice under the Plan and the Employees Union. The grievance procedure set out in the agreement provides for adjustments by progressive steps from the foreman to the Plant Manager, the latter step only in case the representatives of the Independent and the Respondent cannot reach a satisfactory settlement. If the Plant Manager cannot after meeting with the joint representatives arrive at a settlement there the matter ends without a settlement. While the agreement provides for arbitration such action is limited to differences respecting the "interpretation, intent or meaning of any provision" of the agreement and certainly would not entitle the Independent to take advantage of arbitration in the settlement of differences involving grievances, wages, hours, or working conditions, the fundamentals in any collective bargaining agreement. The articles of the agree- ment, setting forth only in general terms the procedure for determining wages, hours, overtime; and seniority, and settling grievanes, makes no reference to the adjustment of such differences by the use of Article VIII "Arbitration."' Plainly, it does not cover disputes, which are certain to arise under a collective bargaining agreement, such as here involved, where the wage and hour provisions are not clearly set out, leaving such matters to further negotiation. The agreement also provides that the Independent will not take part in any sit-down, stay-in, or slow-down strike, or any other stoppage of work and the Respondent will not lock out any employees, until all the provisions contained in this agreement on reaching an amicable adjustment of any "grievance or controversy" shall have been employed without success Here again, in this clause there is no reference to "arbitra- tion." It clearly refers only to those provisions of the agreement applicable to any "grievance and controversy," not to an "interpretation, intent, or meaning of any provision" of the agreement, when no reference to arbitration is made in any of the substantive provisions. It is true that a collective bargaining agreement arrived at between an employer and a union, undominated, is not open to attack for the reason that its provisions do not meet certain standards. On the other hand, it is axiomatic that an agreement such as here involved is expressive of the Respondent's determination to continue domina- tion, when it so completely fails to meet those standards commonly considered to be essential in bargaining agreements. 5. Relation of employee representatives to the Respondent It has heretofore been shown that Meyers, Talbot, and Murphy were employee representatives under the Plan, conceded by the Respondent to have been formed and dominated by it; that these individuals as a self-appointed committee planned the Employees Union on the basis of the Plan; and that that organization after a change of name and revision of its constitution became the Independent The period of time covered by these organizations is approximately 10 years, during which time the type of organization desired by the Respondent flourished in the plant. The close 28 An arbitration clause such as the one here involved is ineffective The American Arbitration Association in a recent issue of its journal "Arbitration" called attention to the fact that "A good intention to settle all disputes by arbitration is not sufficient. The arbitration clause has to provide for all contingencies and to cover all essentials of arbitration. . . ." Certainly the clause here would not measure up to this standard REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 633 relationship of the employee representatives with the Respondent over such a period of years served to channel the desires of the employees, for improved conditions and the adjustment of grievances, through the representatives of these organizations hereinafter found to be under the control and domination of the Respondent Meyer has worked for the Respondent since 1926 with an interruption of 1/ years in 1927. During the period 1929 to 1939, he was a tool and gauge maker, a highly skilled trade, substantially higher in the wage scale than most of the employees. In 1939, Meyer was made an assistant to area Supervisor' Ryno In 1940 he was sent to the Brazilian plant of the Respondent as an instructor and upon his return in the latter part of 1940, he was made a general foreman in the tracer bullet section For a short period prior to May 1942, he.was a tool procurement representative of the Respondent and after that he was promoted to a position as an area supervisor with approximately 200 employees under his supervision. Meyer was active in the Plan and the Employees Union until April 1938, and he testified "I probably was a member after that, but I took no active part." Talbot was first employed by the Respondent in 1920 and laid off in the latter part of that year until May 1922, when he was rehired He has worked continuously since that time. Talbot, up to 1938 or 1939, was a press operator, when he was promoted to a job as a tool setter, and in August or September he was made a job foreman. During practically this entire period he worked on the night shift As heretofore set forth, Talbot had been an active employee representative, either as a member of committees or as an officer of the Plan and the Employees Union and presently in the Independent. He was one of the organizers of the Employees Union and participated in its re-organization when it became the Independent. Talbot was on the negotiating committee of the Independent and was a signer of the agreement of April 8, 1944. The undersigned is of the opinion that the foregoing facts disclose that Talbot was not only an employee representative, but also a management representative. The Respondent contends that job foremen are not supervisory employees. This contention is rejected for the reason that almost without exception the job foremen are listed on the Respondent's "Organizational Chart" of supervisory employees. Talbot was listed as a job foreman on the charts for June 1, 1942 and November 1, 1943. In the position of job foremen, particularly Talbot, they were in charge of either the second or third shift with complete responsibility for the assignment of work, the instruction of the employees, and control over the tool setter. Talbot testified and the undersigned finds that as a job foreman it was his duty, in case any employees in his group were violating any rules of the Respondent, to report such matters to his superior. The night shift supervisor held the same position, with the same duties, as the day shift supervisor and the day foreman, concededly a supervisory employee, made similar reports to his superior It is clear from the evidence that the job foremen are super- visory employees. According to Talbot the tool setters are under the direction of the job foreman and on the day shift the foreman. The undersigned is of the opinion that the position of tool setter occupied by Talbot, prior to his selection as a job fore- man, set him apart from the machine operators receiving less' pay and who on occasion received instructions from him concerning the proper operations of their machines. It would be most unrealistic to say that the employees would not look upon the tool setter in their group as a representative of. the management, at least to the point of seeking his favor, especially when the tool setter was also an em- ployee representative of years standing and accorded all the special privileges that went with the position under the Plan and the Employees Union. 29 Area supervisors in the Respondent's plant have charge of several divisions, which are each in charge of a foreman. 634 DECISIONS OR NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Murphy started to work for the Respondent in April 1917, in the shipping depart- ment. In 1926 he was transferred to the Treasury or Accounting Department, with the responsibility for the instruction, direction, and proper performance of the work of from 3 to 6 clerks. Murphy's duties required that he report careless or improper work by the clerks in his group to his superior, the office manager. In the early part of 1942, Murphy, in the absence of his superior, would take charge of from 50 to 60 employees When the office manager was present, Murphy, as head of the account- ing section, had charge of 3 employees who in turn had 2 or 3 clerks under then supervision. In April, 1943, Murphy was put in charge of the salary and wage sec- tion of the Treasury Department with supervisory authority over 30 employees. Mur- phy testified that this position was no different than the former one of Senior Clerk, except his responsibilities were greater. It is unnecessary here to set forth the details of Murphy's activities in the Plan, and the Employees Union, from which he resigned in April 1943. The facts above recited, which are undisputed, conclusively show that at least from 1930, Murphy occupied a position with the Respondent of a supervisory nature that would entitle him, in the eyes of the employees, to express opinions reflecting the desires of the management. Not until April 1943, after the Employees Union had been formed through his assistance, recognized, and functioning as a labor organization, did Murphy resign. On the basis of the above findings and the record in its entirety, the undersigned finds that Meyers, Talbot, and Murphy, former Plan representatives and the self- appointed committee which named, planned, and consummated the Employees Union, and Talbot active in the Independent occupied at times material herein the dual position as representatives of the employees and the management. C Conclusions and findings It is clear from the foregoing facts that the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent were the Respondent's creatures, in fact, one organization from the inception of the Plan in 1933, through its transformation to the Employees Union in 1937 and later the metamorphosis of that organization to the Independent in 1943 This accomplishment of the Respondent, without a break in the performance of the organization, made certain a continuity of procedure, leadership, and support that would provide the Respondent with an organization subservient to its desires. It is also clear from all the evidence that the Employees Union in its essential character, as well as in point of time, was the successor to the Plan From 1933 to May 1937 the Respondent had suppressed self-organization of its employees by its maintenance of the Plan. When the illegality of, Respondent's conduct became ap- parent, it took no measures to inform the employees that it had abandoned its long established policy of dictating their form of representation. On the other hand, sub- sequent to validation of the Act, it merely announced the end of the Plan, privately, to Employee Representative Meyer. Thereafter, the Respondent continued to deal with a Plan Committee for the adjustment of employee matters, during the time that Meyer, Murphy, and Talbot, as a self-appointed committee, were planning the Em- ployees Union. Before any appreciable interval of time had elapsed, this group introduced the Employees Union, not to the employees generally, but to a group of Plan representatives and selected employees, Meyer, Murphy, and Talbot, trained by their service on the Plan to defer to the Respondent, demonstrated their sub- servience to the Respondent in their request to an attorney that the constitution for the Employees Union be based upon the provisions of the Plan, except for Respond- ent's financial support. The "new" organization launched by them resembled the Plan in its significant characteristics. In the Plan and Employees Union the members generally were limited to voting in the annual nomination and election of employee REMINGTON ARILS COMPANY, INC. 635 representatives In neither organization had the members generally a Noice in tile selection of officers The members generally did not participate in the adopt on in either organization of changes in wages, hours, and work ng conditions, which are the important factors for which employees seek self-organization Representative, in both organizations joined with an equal number of management representatives, as joint committees in dealing with employer-employee relations hi the scope of its activities, its structure, and its Board of Representatives, the Employees Union fits the pattern of the Plan. The Respondent made no attempt to disavow its sponsorship of the Employees Union Under these circumstances, it was inevitable that the Re- spondent's employees should conclude that the Employees Union like its predecessor the Plan was a medium of representation prescribed for them by the Respondent The employees' choice of the Employees Union to represent them in collective b ii - gaining was thus not the free choice contemplated by the Act but rather a reaction to familiar compulsions imposed by the Respondent and never effcc'tively removed The undersigned's conclusion that the Employees Union is the Respondent's crea- ture, dominated by it, does not rest solely upon the fact of its successorship to the Plan under circumstances hereinabove discussed. The Respondent assisted and supported the Employees Union by permitting the Employees Union to solicit membership in the plant; by permitting the annual elections to be held in the plant, under condi- tions similar to those -for the Plan, by endowing the Employees Union with the prestige of representing the employees in the administration of safety and welfare activities; by paying the representatives of the Employees Union for time spent, during working hours, in carrying on the activities of that organization; and finally. by its recognition of the Employee Union at a time when the C 1 0 and A F L were active rivals among the employees It is further clear that the concept of an Independent originated while the employees Union was still in existence, with the respresentatives 'of the Employees Union. whose election in April 1943, had been conducted on the Respondent's time and property, and who as representatives of the Employees Union succeeded to similar posts in the Independent. There was no break with the past between the two organiza- tions. The illegality of the Independent is further established by the fact that it was in reality a continuation of the Employees Union with onh minor modifications After revision of the constitution of the Employees Union the structure of the two organizations was largely the same, and the procedure followed under the Em- ployees Union continued when the Independent began to function 30 Further, assist- ance and direction was given to the Employees Union by the Respondent, through the activities of Meyer, Murphy, and Talbot not only because of their close rela- tions to the management as employee representatives of years standing, but also for the reason that they occupied positions in the plant of a supervisory and man- agerial nature,31 which the undersigned finds would designate them in the minds (if the employees generally as management representatives as well The representatives. particularly Meyers, Talbot, and Murphy, in setting up the Employees Union and the Independent acted in a dual capacity as representatives of the employees and the Respondent. The undersigned is convinced that the employees so understood '*Neither the Plan nor the Employees Union has ever been 'disestablished or repudiated bs the Respondent; they are no longer active organizations having lapsed into a passive state by being . merged into the Independent since its creation in 1943 It appears under these circumstances that disestablishment and withdrawal of recognition from the Independent will effectuate the purpose of the Act 31 N. L R B v International 4,s'n of Machinist,, ,I I U S 72, and .tmolquumted Lit lily iVoiPecs v Consolidated Cdi,on Co , 109 U S 261 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the situation and that such organizations are not and never have been the freely chosen bargaining representatives of the Respondent's employees. In view of all the foregoing facts and the record in its entirety, the undersigned finds that the Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and admin- istration of the Plan, the Employees Union and the Independent, and contributed support to them, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act n The undersigned also finds that the agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Independent on April 8, 1944, and the supplement dated June 1, 1944, are invalid because made with a labor organization that did not represent a majority of the employees of the Wage and Salary,Rolls employees, and that was dominated, interfered with, and supported by the Respondent, in furtherance of the Respondent's unfair labor practices.33 The undersigned is of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this case, the Respondent should be ordered to reimburse each, former and present, employee. for any amounts which the Respondent has deducted from his wages for dues in the Independent, even though the agreement did not provide for a closed shop or require all members of the Independent to authorize such deductions Here the employees have, since 1933, been encouraged to accept as their collective bargaining agency an organization dominated and controlled by the Respondent and it is necessary, in order to wipe out the effect of such a situation, that the Respondent not only dis- continue such practice, but that it also reimburse the employees. While the check-off provision in the agreement was nominally voluntary, it could no more be avoided by the employees than could membership in such an organization. The undersigned finds that the monies thus deducted from the wages of the employees constituted the price of retaining their jobs, a price under these circumstances coerced from them for the Respondent's purpose of supporting and maintaining the Independent, the successor to the Employees Union and the Plan, from the latter of which it had withdrawn direct financial support All of these organizations the Respondent had dominated and supported in order to thwart bona fide representation. The under- signed further finds that, as a result of the check-off provision of the agreement, the employees suffered a definite loss and deprivation of wages equal to the amounts deducted from their wages and paid over to the Independent It is appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the Act that the employees be made whole by reimburse- ment of amounts exacted from them for such purposes" IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE, The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, B and C, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce 32 The legal principles applicable to these facts have been set forth in the following decisions of the Courts: N L R. B v Link-Belt Co, 311 U S 584, Westinghouse Electric & Maaufactuinig Co v N L R B 112 F (2d) 657 (C C A 2), Western Union Telegraph Co v N L R B, 113 F (2d) 992 (C C A 2), Sperry Gyroscope Co v N L R B, 129 F. (2d) 992 (C C A 2), and N L R B v Standard Oil Co , 138 F (2d) 885 (C C A 2) See also N L R B v :Veurort News Shipbuilding & Diydock Co , 308 U S 241, Roeblinq Employees Assn v. N L. R B., 120 F (2d) 289 (C. C A 3), N L R B v Baldwin Locomo- tive Works, 128 F (2d) 39 (C C A 3), Kansas City Power & Light Co. v N L R B , 111 F (2d) 340 (C C A 8), and Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp v N L R B , 121 F. (2d) 165 (C C A 10) 13 Sec N L R B v National Licorice Co , 309 U S 350 34 See N L R B v Virginia Electric & Power Co, 319 U. S 553, and N. L. R B v Baltimore Transit Co„ 140 F (2d) 51, (C C A 4). REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 637 among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. TIIE REMEDY Since the undersigned has found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The undersigned has further found that the Respondent initiated, formed, spon- sored, promoted, contiibuted support to, and interfered with the administration of the Plan, the Employees Union, and the Independent Since the Plan and the Em- ployees Union no longer exist and there appears to be little, if any, likelihood of their reappearing under such names, the undersigned will not recommend their dis- establishment. The effect and consequences of the Respondent's domination of, 'interference with, and support of the Independent and initiation, formation, spon- sorship and contribution of support to its predecessor organizations, as well as the continued recognition of the Independent as the bargaining representative of its employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of the rights guaranteed them in the Act, and for the additional reason that this illegal conduct makes the Independent incapable of serving the employees as a genuine col- lective bargaining agency, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent disestablish and withdraw all recognition from the Independent as the representa- tive of any of its employees at the Bridgeport plant, for the purpose of dealing with them concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment, or other conditions of employment Under the facts found by the undersigned, the agreements with the Independent were part of the unfair labor practices and constituted a means whereby the Re- spondent has used the Independent to frustrate self-organization and defeat genu- ine collective bargaining by its employees. The undersigned will therefore recom- mend that the Respondent cease and desist from giving effect to any agreements between it and the Independent, as well as to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereto, and any superseding contracts which may now be in force. Nothing herein should be taken, however, to require the Respondent to vary those wage, hour, and other substantive features of its relations with the employees them- selves, which the Respondent established in performance of the agreements as ex- tended, renewed, modified, supplemented or superseded The undersigned is of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this case, the Respondent should be required to reimburse each employee for any amounts which it has deducted from the wages of the employee for dues in the Independent, par- ticularly where as here the continuity of the organization since 1933 has not been broken, except for changes in name and methods of operation and employees in positions of a supervisory nature participated in the activities of the organizations. Hence, the undersigned will recommend, in order that the purposes of the Act be effected and the status quo be restored, that the Respondent reimburse its former and present employees for the amounts deducted from their wages for dues in the Independent. 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 1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and The Bridgeport Employees Independent 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR R1ELATiONS BOARD Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, unaffiliated, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Employees Representation Plan also known as Works Council and the Bridge- port-Remington Employees Union, Incorporated,' were labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of and contributing support to the Employees Representation Plan also known as the Works Council, the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union, Incorporated, and The Rem- ington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 4. 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. 5. 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 above findings of fact and conclusions of law the undersigned recommends that the Remington Arms Company, Inc, Bridgeport, Connecticut, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall - 1. Cease and desist from (a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administration of and con- tributing financial or other support to the Employees Representative Plan, also known as the Works Council, the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union, Incorporated, or The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Recognizing the Employees Representation Plan, also known as the Works Council, the Bridgeport-Remington Employees Union, Incorporated, or The Rem- ington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, as the representa- tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concern- ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, (c) Giving effect to any and all agreements and contracts or supplements thereto or modifications thereof, or any superseding contracts with The Remington Employees Independent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to, self-organization, to form, join or assist labor or- ganizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerned 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 undersigned finds will effectu- ate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from The Remington Employees Inde- pendent Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, as the representative of any of its em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor 35'The Employees Union, as heretofore shown, started in May 1937, as a voluntary associa- tion and in August of that year, was incorporated The use of the corporate name in the Con- clusions of Law and Recommendations is intended to refer to the voluntary, as well as the corporate, association REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. 639 disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ- ment, and completely disestablish that organisation as such representative, (b) Reimburse all its former or present employees whose dues in the independent were checked off, for the amounts thus deducted from their wages; and (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Bridgeport, Connecticut, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive 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 recommended to cease and desist in para- graph 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the aforesaid recommendations , (2) that the Re- spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; and (3) that its employees are free to join any labor or- ganization of their own choosing. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respond- ent has taken to comply herewith It is further recommended that unless or on before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notify said Regional Director in writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Rela- tions 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 Na- tional 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 date 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, Rochanibeau 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, to- gether 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 within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. Dated October 9, 1944 JAMES C. BATTEN Trial Examiner "APPENDIX A" NOTICE TO ALL EM PLOYEES 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 hereby disestablish The Remington Employees Indepenednt Union of Bridgeport, Incorporated, as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev- ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of einployment, or 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other conditions of employment , and we will not recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes. We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or adminis- tration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Work- ers of America, C. I 0 , or any other labor organization , to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material,