Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.

Itt the Matter of CONSOLIDATED MACHINE Toor, CORPORATION and PAT- TERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L. Case No. 3-C-783 -Decided April 25, 1946 DECISION AND ORDER On October 23, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On March 21, 1946, the Board heard oral arg Iment at Washington, D. C., in which the respondent participated. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- nlediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and additions hereinafter set forth. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner, and we find, that by the following conduct, more fully described in the Intermediate Report, the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act: (a) Foreman Maier's statement to ' In so finding, we do not concur or rely upon the Trial Examiner's concluding finding that "Soon after the pattern makers had signed the League applications, Foreman Maier expressed his disapproval of the employees organizing by saying to Elston that he would vote against the union " The Trial Examiner apparently based this finding upon his previ- ous finding that when Elston informed Maier that the pattern makers had signed the League's application cards, Maier said, "If it was me I would vote No on the election and then go ahead and do what I wanted as far as the union was concerned " It is clear, as the Trial Examiner has found, that the election referred to in this statement was the forthcoming election among the production and maintenance employees In view of the pattein makers' expre'acd desue for repiesentation in a separate unit, it seems apparent that Maier merely Was suggesting what he considered a method of effectuating the em- ployees' desire The further portion of the statement that the pattern makers do what they wanted as far as the union was concerned, obviously does not indicate any intention to interfere with the League's organizational effort. 67 N. L. R. B., No. 95. 692148-46-vol. 67--48 737 0 738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD r the pattern makers on March 29, 1.945, that the management had ac- cused him of causing the pattern makers to join the League by his conduct with respect to employee Embrey, and his request that the pattern makers, as a favor to him, defer their initiation as members of the League. scheduled for that evening, in order to give him a chance to clear himself of management's charge; 2 (b) Maier's statement to employee Simon early in April 1945, that he knew of four pattern makers who were against the League, his query of Simon as to how the latter "stood" with the League, and his further statement that if the pattern makers in the plant joined the League, it would result in the wages of the pattern makers in the lower brackets being raised to the level of the older men; a and (c) the activity of Superintendent Hohnhorst, Attorney Skivington, and Foreman Maier during July and September 1945 in questioning the pattern makers as to their attitude toward the League, in preparing for the signature of the pattern makers' letters withdrawing their membership application cards and designation of the League, and in circulating these letters among the pattern makers for their signature.4 2. We concur in the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the League was on January 16, 1945, and, at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees within the ap- propriate unit. In excepting to this conclusion, the respondent does not challenge the Trial Examiner's findings that a majority of the employees within the appropriate unit had signed the League's mem- bership application cards by January 16, 1945, and "Candidate's Applications" on March 27, 1945. The respondent contends, however, that the signing of such cards did not constitute designation of the League as bargaining representative on the grounds, in substance, 2 The respondent argues that Maier's request was an "individual personal" matter, that the employees regarded it as such, and that Maier's conduct therefore was not violative of the Act. We find no merit in this contention. Although it appears that Maier's request was motivated by his concern over his reprimand by higher officials, this reprimand, ac- cording to Mater's statement to the employees, was occasioned at least in part by the said officials' belief that Maier's conduct with respect to Embrey had caused the pattern makers to affiliate with the League Maier's statement to the pattern makers of the reasons underlying his request for defermenyt of their initiation thus made plain to the employees that this request stemmed directly from conduct by his superiors which re- flected the respondent's opposition to the pattern makers' organizational effort. ' There is no merit in the respondent's contention that this conversation contained "no suggestion . . . as to any attempt to influence Simon." It occurred shortly after the respondent's opposition to the League was reflected by Maier's request that the pattern makers defer their initiation as members of this organization By asking Simon how he "stood," after having informed him that four of the nine employees in the pattern making department were opposed to the League, Foreman Maier placed Simon in the position of deciding, with knowledge that his employer would be aware of his decision, whether or not the League would be the pattern makers' bargaining representative 4 This conduct constituted an unlawful invasion of the employees' rights under the Act. See N L R. B. v Norman H. Stone, et at 125 F (2d) 752 (C C. A 7), enf'g as mod 33 N L R. B 1014, F IV Woolworth Co v N L R B, 121 F. (2d) 658 (C C A 2), enf'g as mod, 25 N L R B 1362 CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 739 that the cards contained no express designation of the League as bar- gaining agent; that the pattern makers never became members of the League, nor did they pay their entire initiation fee to the League; that certain of the pattern makers testified at the hearing that they signed the cards for the purpose of being excluded from the bargain- ing unit which the Machinists sought to represent and did not desire representation by the League; and that the signing and delivery of the cards by the employees were conditional. Like the Trial Examiner, we find no merit in the respondent's contention. As the Trial Ex- aminer states, an application for membership implies authority to bargain ; neither membership in, nor payment of dues to, a union is determinative of statutory authorization. And we agree with the Trial Examiner that the testimony of a signer as to his subjective state of mind at the time of signing cannot operate to overcome the effect of his overt action in having signed the application card.5 Nor does the record support the respondent's assertion that the signing and delivery by the employees of the membership application cards was "conditional." Lichtenwalter, who solicited the signatures to the application cards, testified that there was no agreement between him and the employees that the effect of their signing was conditioned upon any future event. We credit his testimonv.e The respondent further contends that even if it be assumed that a majority of the pattern makers had designated the League by signing its cards, they voluntarily withdrew such designation in the letters of July 30 and September 5, 1945. This contention is also without merit. As we have stated above, the conduct of the respondent's representatives in preparing and circulating these letters constituted part of a course of conduct violative of the Act. Upon the entire record, we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the sign- ing of the letters was induced by the respondent's unfair labor prac- tices, and that such practices cannot operate to change the bargaining representative previously selected by the untrammeled will of the majority." "See Matte? of The Aubone Companrr, Ine 62 N L R B 322. N L R B, v. Sunshine ltininq Company, 110 F. (2d) 780 (C C A 9) 6In support of its contention that the signing and delivery of the membership applica- tion cards were conditional, the respondent relics (a) upon the testimony of employee Habrecht that before he signed a card he had told Lichtenwalter that he would join the League if the hitter could show him that 80 or 90 percent of the pattern makers in the city had loured, and that it was so agreed, and (b) upon the testimony of three other em- that they signed application cards because they understood that this was necessary ri ord to by excluded from the bargaining unit requested by the Machinists Insofar as their te,4rnion3 Bias be inconsistent with that of Lichtenwalter we do not accept it. But ever if belier ed, we are of the opinion that such testimony is insufficient to establish that the effect of the signing of the application cards by there emplo8ees was conditioned upon future event V L R B v Bradford Aycinq 1 ssor ration . 310 U S 318 , Met7o Photo Supply Corpo- i,ihon i v L R P.. 321 U S 678 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. With respect to the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent refused to bargain collectively in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act, the respondent urges, in substance, that its refusal to recognize or otherwise bargain with the League until it, majority status was estab- lished in an election was motivated by a genuine doubt as to whether the League had been designated by a majority of the pattern makers. We, like the Trial Examiner, reject this contention. Following the designation of the League as bargaining representative by a majority of the pattern makers-a fact which soon was called to the respondent's attention, the respondent engaged in conduct which was violative of Section 8 (1) and which was intended to destroy the League's majority status. We have frequently held that an employer cannot be heard to say that he entertains an honest doubt as to a union's majority status where he conducts a campaign to destroy that majority.s Upon the entire record, we are convinced, as was the Trial Examiner, that by refusing to recognize or otherwise bargain with the League until its majority status was established in an election, after having engaged in unfair labor practices directed toward the dissipation of the League's majority status, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the League in violation of Section 8 (5) 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, Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation, Rochester, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all its wood pattern makers and apprentices at its plant in Rochester, New York, excluding production and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action; (b) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in, or other activities on behalf of, the above-named or any other labor organization ; 8N. L R B v Chicago _4pparatn & Co, 116 P ( 2d) 753 (C. C. A 7) ; N. L R. B v. Burke Machine Tool Company, 132, F ( 2d) 618 (C C A. 6) ; Matter of Twin City Milk Producers Association , 61 N L R P. 69, Matter of The Nubone Company, Inc, 62 -N L R. B 322 CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 741 (c) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, to bargain collectively with it. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all its wood pattern makers and apprentices at its plant in Rochester, New York, excluding production and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) Post at its plant at Rochester, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third 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 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 Third Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: We will not in any manner interfere with the efforts of Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, to bargain collectively with us. We will not interrogate our employees concerning their mem- bership in, or other activities on behalf of the above-named or any other labor organization. We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All wood pattern makers and apprentices eluployed at the Rochester, New York, plant, excluding production and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with au- thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action. CONSOLIDATED MAOIiINE TOOL CORPORATION. By ------------------------------------------ (IReOresentative ) (Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material, UNTEItME1 nIATE RE1'( i1IT Messrs Fiancts X Melgesen and Eugene J roil Nellstaenni, tor the Board. Sleivington and Skivington, by Messrs. George J Skivington and Percival D. 0,tiatt, all of Rochester, N. Y., for the Respondent. Mr. R Liclitcnwalter, of Erie, Pa, and 1lessi s John Mi(iphy and Cornelius Behuge, of Rochester. N Y, for the Union ST\ri iIEN1 of rxi. ('_'si. Upon an amended charge duly filed by Pattern Makers League of America, A. F. of L., herein called the League, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , by its Regional Ilireetor lm the Third Region tBuifalo, New York), issued its complaint , dated August 10, 1945, against Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation, Rochester, New York, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was en aging in unfair labor practices ,dfectmng commerce, within the meaning of Soctiou 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 40 Stat 449, heteni called the Act Copies of the complaint and mended clia rge, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon , weio duly served upon the Respondent and the League. With respect to,the unfair labor practices. the congdaint. as amended duting the hearing,' alleged in substance . (1) that during the period from about January 1, 1945, to and including September 5, 1945, the dal before the instant hearing, the Respondent, by its officers and agents, made statements derogatory to the League, advised its employees that they would not be benefited by collective bargaining through the League, warned them against affiliating iiith the League or voting for the League in the consent election which was scheduled to be held in the plant on April 26, 1945; (2) that at all times since January 15, 1945, and particu- larly on or about January 26, March 28, and April 10, 1945, the Respondent has 'The amendments to the complaint consist of (1) changing the date March 20, 1945, in line 1 of paragraph 5, to read January 15, 1945. (2) inserting the date January 26, 1945, just before the date March 28, 1945, in line 1 of paragraph 6, and (3) in lines 1 and 2 of paragraph 8 strike out the following "The date of the issuance of this Complaint" and substitute therefor the date "September 5, 1945 " CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 743 refused to bargain collectively with the League although it had been selected and designated as the collective bargaining agent by a majority of the Respond- ent's employees in a unit appropriate for the puiposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment; and (3) that by the aforesaid acts, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its einployees'in the even c'se of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer, dated August 30, 1945, which was amended during the hearing to contorm to the amended complaint, admitting certain jurisdictional allegations of the amended complaint, but denying the com- mission of the alleged unfair labor practices, and alleging affirmatively that the designation of the League by its employees, as their bargaining agent, was secured by fraud and undue influence, and that these employees subsequently, of their own free will and accord. revoked and cancelled such designation, and that thereafter the League was no longer such representative and was without authority to act as such iepresentative. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Rochester, New York, on September 6 and 7, 1945, before the undersigned, W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the League by its representatives. All parties par- ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the beginning of the hearing, the motion of Board's counsel to exclude the witnesses from the hearing until they were called to testify, was granted by the Trial Examiner. At the conclusion of the Board's case and again at the close of the hearing, the Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss certain paragraphs of the amended complaint, and also to dismiss the amended complaint in its en- tirety. Ruling on these motions was reserved by the Trial Examiner They are hereby denied. At the conclusion of all testimony, the Trial Examiner granted, without objection, motion by the Board's counsel to conlorin the pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board argued orally, on the iecoid, before the Trial Examiner. Counsel for the Respondent preferred to state the Respondent's position in a brief. Briefs have been received by the undersigned from counsel for the Board and the Respondent Upon the entire record in the case 1md from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. 'IHE BUSINESS OF 1HE RESPONDENT The Respondent, Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation, is a Delaware cor- poration having its principal office and place of business in Rochester, New Yolk, where it is engaged in the m:mufacture and sale of machine tools and related products The materials used by the Respondent consist principally of cast iron, bronze, cast steel, metal bar stock, lumber, and paint During the last 0 months of 1944, the Respondent's purchases of such materials exceeded $250,000 in value, of which approximately 16 percent was obtained from sources outside of the State of New York. During the same period, the Respondent manufactured, at its Rochester plant, finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 96 percent was slipped to points outside of New York State. The Respondent concedes, for the purposes of the instant proceeding, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 744 it. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Pattern Makers League of North America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR d'RACTICES The refusal to bargain; interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The appropriate unit It was stipulated by the parties and the undersigned finds that all wood pattern makers, herein called the pattern makers, and apprentices,' excluding production and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, at all times material herein constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and that such unit insures to employees of the Respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the League of a majority in the appropriate unit According to the credible and undenied testimony of R D. Lichtenwalter, district organizer of the League, a campaign was started about January 2, 1945, to organize the pattern makers, and by January 16, 1945, and all of the pattern makers, except one, In the aforesaid unit had signed application cards for mem- bership In the League. These cards were received in evidence at the hearing.' At a meeting of tliB League on March 27 all of the Respondent's pattern makers, who had previously signed application cards, except one,4 executed cards, known as "Candidate's Applications" for formal initiation into the League and paid part of their initiation fees. These cards were received in evidence' The under- signed finds that on January 16, 1945, and at all times thereafter, the League was the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the League was on that date and at all times thereafter, and is now, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. • 2 During the time material herein, there were 10 non-supervisory pattern makers in the plant There were no apprentices A copy of the application card Is as follows PATTERN MAKERS' LEICUE Proposed by Bro. ----------------- Date----------------- Recommended by Bro ----------------- Bro ----------------- of North America The subscriber respectfully represents that, being duly qualified as required by the laws of the League and your Association, he is desirous of being admitted to member- ship therein --------------------------------------------------- Signature of Applicant Residence------------------------------------------ Employee N. J Getzin signed an application for membership in the League In January, but did not sign a "Candidate's Application." 6 Employee P. R. Embrey signed an application for membership in the League in January, and also a "Candidate's Application" at the meeting on March 27, but the latter card was not received in evidence as Embrey's employment with the Respondent had been terminated at the time be signed the latter card. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 745 3. Sequence of events On January 2, 1945, the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., herein called the Machinists, filed a petition for investigation and certification of representatives with the Board, in respect to the production and maintenance employees of the Respondent, which included the pattern makers At that time, the League was endeavoring to organize the pattern makers in the Rochester area and, according to Lichtenwalter, the League immediately began to solicit members among the Respondent's pattern makers and, by January 16, all of the pattern makers in the aforesaid unit, except Ernest Robinson, had signed appli- cation cards for membership in the League. On January 16. a meeting was held between representatives of the Board, the Respondent, the Machinists, and the League 0 At that meeting it was agreed between the parties that the Respondent's pattern makers would not be included in the unit sought to be represented by the Machinists, but that they should constitute a separate and distinct unit for the put poses of collective bargaining. Also an agreement was entered into between the Respondent and Machinists for a consent election to be held among the other employees of the Respondent on January 211.7 Pattern maker William A. Elston testified, without contradiction, that the pattern makers had signed application cards for membership in the League during the first half of January without the knowledge of Foreman Bill Maier, but that very soon thereafter, he told Maier that they had all signed up.8 Before disclosing this information to Maier, the subject was discussed among the pattern makers, and they decided that Maier should know abort it.' On that occasion, Maier said to Elston, "If it was me I would vote No on the election 10 and then go ahead and do what I wanted as far as the union was concerned." - Pattern maker Ernest Robinson testified, without contradiction, that he was the senior pattern maker in the plant in point of service; that in August 1944, he was assigned to the job of expeditor, which required him to visit the foundries mn order to expedite the castings; that in January 1945. he was transferred back to the pattern shop and given his previous job as checker ; that in the last part of January, Foreman Maier informed him that all of t1 e pattern makers had signed application cards for membership in the League ; that he told Maier he was surprised and could not understand it, "because they were all old hands in the shop and they know of the privileges that we had and the conveniences that we were given" ; that Foreman Maier replied "That is the way it goes, I sup- pose",; that he discovered later that Elston was the one who had informed Maier that the pattern makers had applied for membership in the league Robinson further testified that he was opposed to the League and had never been solicited 4 According to the Respondent's letter to Lichtenwalter dated January 26, this meeting occurred on January 15. However, the undersigned finds that It occurred on January 16. Those in attendance at the meeting were a Field Examiner of the Board, Arthur H. Ingle, president of the Respondent, Percival D. Oviatt, attorney for the Respondent, Mr. Price and one other for the Machinists, and Lichtenwalter for the League 7 After postponement, the Machinists' election was finally held on April 5, 1945, and the Machinists lost by a considerable majority. s This must have occurred between January 16 (the date on which all of the pattern makers had signed applications for membership in the League ), and January 26 (the first date set for the Machinists election ), as Elston testified that it occurred prior to the Machinists' election The record discloses that Foreman Maier and the pattern makers often had their lunches together and that they were on very friendly terms. Maier was very popular with the pattern makers and they had great respect for him 11 Maier was referring to the Machinists ' election which was first scheduled to take place on January 26, 1945. 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, to join it He also testified that he (lid everything he could to keep the other pattern makers out of the League. On January 17, the net day after the aforesaid meeting. Lichtenwalter made two unsuccessful attempts to contact Arthur lI Ingle, president, of the Respondent, by telephone for the purpose of requesting the Respondent to rec- ognize the League as the bargaining agent of the pattern makers lie talked to Ingle's secretary and requested her to ask Ingle if he would recognize the League Under date of January 211 President Ingle informed Lichtenwalter by letter" that his message had been received but that the Respondent did not believe that the League represented a majority of the Respondent's pattern makers, and that the League should file a petition for investigation and certifica- tion of i epresentatives with the Boai d Upon receipt of that letter, Lichtenwaltei conferred with the pattern makers and it was decided to defer filing a petition with the Board until the League had organized some of the other plants in the Rochester area,' as the Respondent's pattern makers stated that they did not wish to be the first pattern makers in that area to join the League. On March 27, a meeting of the League was held at the Powers Hotel in Rochester. At that meeting, seven of the nine pattern makers of the Respondent who had previously signed application cards for membership in the League, executed applications for initiation In the League, and each paid part of his initiation fee Pattern maker P. R Embrey, who had just severed his employ- ment with the Respondent, attended that meeting and told those present that the Respondent had refused to give him a release and lie accused the Respondent of unfair treatment on that account. Embrey had signed an application card for membership in the League in January On March 28 Lichtenwalter had a meeting with Percival D. Oviatt, attorney for the Respondent, and President Ingle in the latter's office At that meeting Lichtenwalter requested Ingle to recognize the League as the bargaining agent for the Respondent's pattern makers. He was told that' lie would be given an answer after the Machinists' election, to which lie agreed. Also at that meeting, either Ingle or Oviatt asked Lichtenwalter if he could show proof that the League represented a majority of the Respondent's pattern makers. Lichten- walter told them that the League represented a majority but declined to show them the signed application cards. Lichtenwalter's testimony with respect to, this, reads as follows : " The full text of the letter is as follows. JANUARY 26, 1945. Mr. R T LICHTENWALTFR 118 Inglewood Drive, Rochester, New York. DEAR SIR • I have learned that you had telephoned a message asking whether our company would recognize your union as a bargaining agent or would want an election to select representatives of the patternmakers in our employ. You will remember that at the hearing held by the National Labor Relations Board represented by Mr Dishner on January 15, 1945, the company agreed with the Ma- chinists Union that a consent election was to be held on January 26, 1945. At that time you will recall you announced that the patternmakers did not wish to be Included with the machinists as a bargaining unit and asked for a separate election Mr Dishner ruled that no election of a representative of the patternmakers could be held until after you had filed a petition with the Board. We feel that we should observe this ruling We also wish to say that we do not believe that Sou presently represent a majority of the patternmakers Yours very truly, CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION, A. H INGLE , President About that time the League secured applications for membership among the pattern makers of several other plants CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 747 I told them I had at that time it majority of the pattern makers in their plant organized but I wouldn't show them the cards because it is not the policy of the pattern makers League to show any applications to the company. On the night of March 29, the seven pattern makers of the Respondent, who had executed "Candidate's Applications" were scheduled to be formally initiated into the League as members. However, during the lunch period on that day, Foreman Maier told the pattern makers that due to a misunderstanding he had had with Euibm in regard to the tatter's release, the management had accused him, Maier, of having been the cause of the pattern makers joining the League and, that as a favor to him and in order to give him a chance to clear himself of that charge, he, Mauer, requested the pattern makers to defer their initiation into the League. They agreed to do so, and their initiation was postponed indefinitely " In respect to this incident the testimony of Elston reads as follows: After lunch we would gather around these two benches just for the pur- pose of talking and whiling away the time When we got back from lunch that particular noon, Mr. Maier told us he had been called on the carpet by company officials and severely criticized for the way lie had handled the -Embrey case, and at that time he was blamed for the pattern makers con- sidering going into the Union . . . for the way he had handled the Embrey case, and asked us if we wouldn't postpone any definite action until he had a chance to get it straightened out. He figured if we postponed going into the Union, as we had intended on that same evening, that would show the company officials that the Embrey case had no bearing or no influence on us, as far as going into the Union is concerned . . . I volunteered to go in to the company officials and do my part in squaring the situation with the company in reference to the bearing that the Embrey case might have had on our decision to join the Union. • On April 6, the day after the Machinists' election, Lichtenwalter telephoned to President Ingie's office and was informed by Ingle's secretary that he was not in Lichtenwalter requested the secretary to have Ingle call him as soon as he came in. The next day, April 7, Lichtenwalter again endeavored to get Ingle on the telephone, but without success. On April 10, having received no word from Ingle, the League filed a petition for certification of representatives with the Board. On that same day, Lichtenwalter informed President Ingle by letter that the petition had been filed." According to the undenied testimony of Simon, he usually rode to work with Foreman Maier and, on one occasion in the early part of April, Maier told him that he knew of four pattern makers who were against the League. Maier also asked Simon how he "stood" with the League. Simon replied that if a majority was not in favor of the League he would be against it" At that time, Maier 13 These findings are based upon the credible and undenied testimony of employees Simon, Elston, Habrecht and Williams Foreman Mares did not testify at the hearing, and no reason was assigned by the Respondent for not calling him as a witness. "The full text of the letter is as follows I have called on you several times but have been unable to get an answer from you as to whether the company would recognize the Pattern Makers League of North Ameiica as a bargaining agent for the pattern makers Therefore we are notifying sou that we will file a Labor Relations Board petition to establish our rights to bargain 1 Simon testified that there were nine pattern makers in the plant , and if four were against the League as stated to him for Foreman Maier, that placed him , Simon, in the position of deciding whether the majority would be for or against the League 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD also told Simon in substance that if the senior pattern makers in the plant joined the League, it would result in the wages of the pattern makers in the lower brackets being raised to the level of the older men.16 On April 18, the League and the Respondent entered into an agreement for a consent election, to be held on April 26 among the pattern makers in the afore- said unit. The agreement was duly executed by the League and the Respondent but was never signed by the Regional Director or the Board's Field Examiner. Those present at that meeting were Lichtenwalter, representing the League, Harold S. Coyle, attorney, representing the Respondent, and a Field Examiner, representing the Board " Prior to that meeting, the League had given the signed application cards to the Field Examiner, and they were in the latter's possession during the meeting. At that meeting the Field Examiner asked the Respondent if it would recognize the League without an election, which evidently the Re- spondent declined to do, since the result of the meeting was that all parties agreed to a consent election. A day or two after the execution of the consent election agreement, Lichtenwalter received information from one of the Respondent's pattern makers 1R which led him to request the Regional Director not to take any further action on the petition. Two (lays later, on April 20, the League filed charges against the Respondent, alleging a refusal to bargain. The election was never held. According to the testimony of Superintendent Hohnhorst and pattern maker Edward F. Habrecht, in the early part of July Iohnhorst called all of the pattern makers into his office, one at a time. Ernest Robinson was the first one to be called in, although he had never signed an application for membership in the League. According to Hohnhorst, he told them that charges of unfair labor practices had been filed against the Respondent by the League; that the Re- spondent had been informed by a representative of the Board that it would have to bargain with the League or a hearing would be held; and that the Respondent wanted to know what the attitude or the pattern makers was toward the League. Habrecht's testimony as to what occurred when he was called into Hohnhorst's office, reads in part as follows : He just asked me what my attitude was toward the Union. I just told you what I told him, that the City of Rochester . . .'here is my words. to him, "The City of Rochester is about to be organized, it is going to be organized, you might as well see it is, and I told him the reason why the boys were receiving more moneys in both Buffalo and Syracuse . . . Where they were organized. And he also asked me what I thought of joining at this time, and I said, I won't join under fire, the way this thing is going The testimony of pattern maker Kenneth C. Dirkx as to what Hohnhorst said to him on that occasion, reads as follows : He said that they had secured a notice from the National Labor Rela- tions Board that they had been accused of unfair labor practices, and he read to me a number of the complaints. Then he asked me if I would be willing to sign a letter stating the fact that I no longer desired to become a member of the Union. . . . I said yes, I would. Pattern maker Norman J. Cetzin testified that Foreman Maier instructed him to go to Hohnhorst's office, and upon arriving there, Hohnhorst read a "letter" to him,,and then asked him if be would be willing to sign a letter withdrawing 18 The senior pattern makers were paid at a higher rate than those with less experience. lx Neither the Field Examiner nor Attorney Coyle testified at the instant hearing. 18 The name of this employee was William A Elston. He was among those who signed applications for membership in the League in January. CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 749 from the League, and he said that lie would. Iohnhorst knew, at that time, that the pattern makers had signed applications for membership in the League, and he also knew that they hail not vet been formally initiated into the League. About a week atter his interview with the pattern makes, Hohnhorst went to the pattern shop and pi esented the pattern makers, all of whom were present except two who wete on vacation, with a letter of resignation from the League, saying to them "Here is the letter you boys agreed to sign." All of them signed it Even Robinson signed it, although lie had never signed an application for membership in the League The full teNt of the letter reads as follows: Ro< ties i rat, New YORK, Jir(it 30, 19 j5 NA71ON_xi, LABOR IiEi.A'iIONS BOARD 71^ Genesee Baildi»p, Buffalo 2. New York GI:NTLEMEN: We, the undersigned employees of Consolidated Machine Tool 0orporation, 565 Blossoiu Road, Rochester, New York. hereby withdraw our application cards to join the Pattern Makers League of North America, as we do not vvant to become members of the League and we do not want the League to represent us in any way. Yours very truly, S. F. WILLIVVis . Jr SAM MusoA'1E. W),f. A ELsIoN E. F. H.vnREcar. KENNETH E IIIRKX FRANK P . WEHNER NORMAN GEMN ERNEST ROBINSON. c- c to R. Liehtenwalter, District Organizer c• c to Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation After securing the signatures of the pattern makers to the letter, Hohnhorst sent the original and the two copies to the Respondent's attorneys According to the credible and undenied testimony of Simon, Elston and Wehner•, on September 5, the day before the instant hearing, George J. Skivington, attorney for the Respondent, accompanied by Superintendent Hohnhorst, went to the pattern shop about 10: 30 a. in. and, after the pattern makers had been called together by Foreman Maier, Skivington told them that a Board hearing would start the next morning, that the Board had their signed applications for mem- bership in the League; that there were two ways the pattetii makers could with- draw their niembeiship in the League, one by testifying at the hearing, and the other by signing letters to that effect. It was suggested that letters be written and Skivington then left, and in a short time returned with two letters which he had prepared, one addressed to the Board and the other to the League. These letters are self-explanatory, and read as foliows- Rocni s'iiR, NEW YORK, Septein her 5, 1911,; NATIONAL LABOR RiLATIoNS BOARD. 714 Genesee Building, Buffalo 2, New Yoih. GENTLEMEN : We, the undersigned Patternmakers employed by Consoli- dated Machine Tool Corporation, 565 Blossom Road, Rochester, N. Y having been infornied that a hearing is to be held before your Board at Rochester, N Y on September 6, 1945 with reference to what are claimed to be unfair labor practices on the part of our employer, desire to he oil record with your 19 The letter is dated July 30, because two of the pattern makers were away on vacation when the others signed it. They signed it upon their return to work 7,0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board to the effect that we do not rtow wish the Pat, evil] naker, League of North America to be our bargaining agent of to 1o anywise represent as in collective bargaining We are not members of the l'atternmakers i.e,igue of North America fuel although we have signed application cards for membership therein, we are today notifying the League that we are withdrawing our applications and also withdraw any designation by u, of the League as our bargaining agent and we are sending the League a copy of this letter Yours very truly, Ernest Robinson Ff autk P Wehner Norman Getzin Edward F. Habrecht Stephen F Williams, Ji Will A. Elston Edward G Snrton Kenneth t' llirkx - Sala -.Nlil4cato His ur,taci. Ni w Yonne, Nepicntbi t 5. t9§5 Pr'r'fEBN1.13Kf R, Lr 1.111 >; ot, Ne5111 Aytr,itiC_r, Rocttc,tci, Acif IUtl, I Att ention Mi It. Lichteim ,tt el, I sic i [),'At f a t Org:onlzer 1 GiyTL}MtN APO, the ntldetafguecl I'attevil n thee, employed ip Ceusoli- tlated Machine Tool Corporation of 5ii5 Blossom Road Rochester, N Y , hand you herewith it copy of a letter and notification which we are liltng with the National Labor Relations Board which is self explanatory This is to :adyes' you that we have decided to and lieleNlith do withdraw from any connection with youl' organization We v ltlidlaw our applications for membership in your organization and we further withdraw any designa- tion of you as oul bargaining agent. We no longer W1, 11 to be connected NN [tit the Patter'nmakers League of North Anferiea at the present bate. Yours very truly, Norman Getzin. Frank P Weliner Stephen F. Williams, Jr. Edward F flabrecltt Edward G. Simon. Wm. A. Elston. Sam Muscate. Kenneth C. Dirkx These letters were brought to the hearing on September 6, 1945, and handed to counsel for the Board The pattern maker, knew that Skivington was the Respondent's attorney it the time they signed the letters. According to Simon, he had never contemplated withdrawing from the League and would not have done so had the letters not been presented to him Wehner also testified that prior to that meeting with Skivington in the pattern shop on September 5, he had no intention of withdrawing from the League I)irkx Iestifieii that he knew nothing about these letters until the day of the instant beau ing, when they -were presented to him by Robinson, and that prior to that time, he had no intent ion of sending iii such letter to the League. 0 4 Conclusions (a) Ittterjcre,tec, ceittccoct, and cociccwt Upon the facts here disclosed the Respondent has engaged in a coercive course of conduct designed to defeat the Belt-organization of the pattern makers at its Rochester plant Soon atter the pattern makers had signed the League applica- tions, Foreman Mauer expressed his disapproval of the employees ohganiziug CONSOLIDATED, MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 751 by saying to Elston that lie would vote again .%t the union Elston had informed Maier that the pattern makers had signed applications for membership in the League. On March 21.) Foreman Maier made more evident to the pattern makers the Respondent's opposition to the League. He knew that theN were going to be initiated in the League that night, but he requested them not to go througt with it, in order to afford him an opportunity to clear himselt of the charge by the management that he had been responsible for the pattern makers joining the League. Maier further endeavored to discourage uiemhership in the League by inquiring of Simon how lie "stood" with the League, and by itrtorming Simon that he knew that four of the pattern rmakers were opposed to the League. He further told Simon that if tlih League got in the plant, the less experienced pattern makers ii ould receive the same wages as the older amen These effort. of Foreman Mauer to defe•it the self-orgamia:rtion of the pattern makers were followed up by Superintendent IIolinhorst in July when he called them into his office and, after discussing with them the charges that had been tiled against the Respondent by the League and questioning them in regard to their attitude toward the League, arranged for their to sign a letter withdrawing their applications for inenibei ship in the League. and stating that they did not desire the League to represent them This letter was later prepared by Hohn- borst and presented to the pattern rnakeis for them signature, with the announce- ment "IIere is the letter yon bo's aigoeeli to sign' Further acts of interference, restraint, and coercion wen e engaged in by the Respondent when the Respondent's atthrrey, Sinvington, aeeomp,uned by Superintendent liohnhorst and Foreman Maier, secured the sigrrainres of the pattern makers to two letters severing all connection with the League and disavowing and further affiliation with it These letters were prepared by the Respondent's counsel on the day preceding the instant bearing. Tile undersigned finds no mcait in the contentions of the Respondent that Fore- man Maiei"s request of the pattern makers to defer their initiation in the League had no effect on their subsequent attitude toward the League ; that Super- intendent Hohnhorst was justified in calling the pattern makers into his office :in(] inter'•ogatmg theme until respect to their atiii:tions with the League, and securing their signatures to a letter of withdrawal firm the League because he hid been instructed by officials of the Respondent to obtain this information troun these einplo>ees, as the Respondent was i«c_ed with the alteinatiie of entering into an agreement with the League or defending the charges of unfair labor practices ; and that the signatures of the bittern makers to the two letters secured on the day before the hearing were only for the purpose of indicating to the Bo:ud the present attitude of the bittern makers toward the League. The undersigned finds that b^ the statements and conduct of Foreman Maier, Superintendent IIolinhorst, and Attorney Skivington, as hereinabove set forth, the Respondent interfered with. restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (bi 't'he refa^nl to hnalnuni The Respondent's pohct concerning negotiations with the League' was both iarillating and deceptne At the meeting on January 16 when it was decided to segregate the pattern makers from the other employees in the Machinists' election, the Respondent was informed that the League was organizing the pat- rern Hikers On Janoarv 2(i, in response to the Leagues request for recognition 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD made on January 17, the Respondent informed the League that no election could be held among the pattern makers until a petition had been filed by the League, and that the Respondent did not believe the League represented a majority of the pattern makers, and that an election should be held The League made no fur- ther attempt to bargain with the Respondent until the meeting on March 28. At that meeting, the League again requested recognition as the bargaining rep- resentative of the pattern makers, but was informed by the Respondent that no reply would be forthcoming until after the Machinists' election on April 5. Not- withstanding the fact that the Respondent had been informed in the latter part of January that all of the pattern makers, except Robinson, had signed applications for membership in the League, which fact is substantiated by the undenied and credible testimony of both Elston and Robinson, the Respondent asked the representative of the League if lie could show proof that the League represented a majority of the pattern makers. He replied in the affirmative, but declined to expose the application cards. Despite the inquiry as to whether or not the League had a majority, the Respondent permitted the matter to rest there, and refused to negotiate without any explanation that its refusal to proceed arose out of any reasonable doubt as to the League's majority status. The Respondent's conduct thereafter lemis support to this conclusion. The very next day Foreman Maier requested the pattern makers not to be initiated in the League. During the next 2 days after the Machinists' election, the League's representative endeavored to contact President Ingle, as the League had been promised a reply to its request to bargain, after the Machinists' election On April 1Q, having received no word from the Respondent, the League filed a peti- tion for certification. The Respondent continued its campaign to dissipate the League's majority, as indicated by Foreman Maier's questioning Simon as to how he "stood" with the League. On April 18, the League and the Respondent entered into an agreement for a consent election to be held on April 26 However, the election was not held, as the League hied charges on April 20 The Respondent's contention that the pattern makers signed the application cards for membership in the League for the sole purpose of preventing their jnclusion in the unit sought to be represented by the Machinists is not supported by the evidence and is without merit It is not the province of the Board to explore the mental processes of employees who sign application cards, and where it is uncontradicted that the employees knew they were applying for membership in a labor organization, there is no merit to the contention that none of the employees intended to designate the organization as his representative for the purposes of collective bargaining 20 The Respondent further contends that the pattern makers never designated the League as their bargaining agent because the application cards for mem- bership in the League, which they signed in January, contained no specific au- thorization that the League represent them for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, and that they never became members of the League because they did not pay the full fees and were never initiated. The undersigned does not subscribe to this theory and finds no merit in it. It has been well established by the board and the courts that an application for union membership implies authority to bargain, and it is immaterial for purposes of determining a majority whether any of the applicants have paid their initiation fees, or are ever voted upon or ad- mitted to membership, since Section 9 (a) of the Act, states that "representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of 20 Matter of Sunshine Mining Company , 7 N. L. R. B. 1262, 1262, enforced 110 F. (2d). 780 (C. C. A 9), cert. denied 312 U S. 678, 713. CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 753 the employees," and says nothing about membership in a labor organization. In Matter of Lebanon Steed Foundry,21 the court said: The Wagner Act requires no specific form of authority to bargain collec- tively. It is not a statute of frauds or an act prescribing the formalities of conveyancing No seal or writing is required by its terms. Nor is any special formula or form of words. Authority may be given by action as well as in words. An application for union membership implies authority to bargain. (Cases cited.) In Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company,22 the court held that it was immate- rial whether or not applicants, who had not paid initiation fees and dues, per- fected their applications and became members of the union. It also held that by signing applications employees signified their desire to be represented by the union. The contention of the Respondent that the pattern makers, by signing letters of withdrawal from the League in July and on the day before the hearing, are no longer members of the League and therefore the League cannot legally repre- sent them, is equally without merit. The Board and the courts have consistently held that the unfair labor practices of the Respondent cannot operate to change the bargaining representative previously selected by the untrammelled will of the majority.22 The undersigned finds that the Respondent, by its whole course of conduct hereinabove outlined, evinced an unwillingness to take an active and sincere part in negotiating with the League to the end that a collective agreement might be consummated and failed to bargain with the League in good faith. The un- dersigned further finds that by withholding its consent to bargain with the League until after the League's majority status had been established only through the conduct of an election after having engaged in unfair labor practices directed toward the dissipation of the League's prior majority representation claim and status , which were well within the knowledge of the Respondent, the Re- spondent refused to bargain with the League within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act 24 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that on January 26 and March 28, 1945, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain col- lectively with the League as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, 21 76 App . D C 100, 130 F ( 2d) 404, 33 N . L. R. B, 233 , cert. denied 317 U S. 659. 22 12 N. L R B 1002, 1007, enforced 116 F ( 2d) 753 (C. C. A 7). 23 Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association, 4 N. L. R B 604 , 310 U S 318, reversing 106 F (2d) 119 (C C A 1). 24 Matter of Twin City Milk Producers Association, 61 N. L. R. B. 69 The acquiescence of the League in a consent election indicated no more than a willingness to accept the best terms it could obtain in the circumstances and did not relieve the Respondent of its statu- tory duty to bargain with the League at that time Cf McQuay-Norris Mfg. Co. v. V. L R. B, 21 N. L R B. 709, 116 F ( 2d) 748 (C C A 7), cert denied 313 U. S. 565, where the Union' s acceptance of a contract granting recognition for its members only was held not to relieve the employer of its statutory duty to grant exclusive recognition Matter of Heilig Bros Co , 32 N L. R B. 505; 123 F ( 2d) 734 (C. C A. 3), cert . denied S 701 , Matter of H. McLachlan if Company , Incorpoiated, et al., 45 N L R. B. 316 U 1113; Matter of Franks Bros Company, 44 N. L R B 898 ; 137 F (2d).989 (C C. A. 1), aff'd 321 U S . 702 , Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company ( cited supra), 692148-46-vol 67-49 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce V THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging ,It unfair labor practices affecting commerce, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the League as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collec- tively with the League as such representative with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CoNc2uszoNS OF LAw 1. Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All wood pattern makers and apprentices of the Respondent at its plant in Rochester, New York, excluding production and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, at all times material herein, constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, was on January 16, 1945, and at all material times theroatter has been,. the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the moaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive repre- sentative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has. engaged in and is engaging in untair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 5 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. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce 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, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation, Rochester, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION 755 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all wood pattern makers and apprentices of the Respondent, at its plant in Rochester, New York, excluding production 4nd maintenance employees. office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all wood pattern makers and apprentices of the Respondent, at its plant in Rochester, New York, excluding production and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dr,eharge. discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommended such action, (b) Post at its plant at Rochester, New York, copies of the notice, attached hereto, marked "Appendix A " Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re- gional Director of the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond- ent'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 employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps should 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 Third Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond- ent to take the action aforesaid As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944, 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, Rochambean Building, Washington 25, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director . As further provided in said Section 33, should 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. W. P. WEBB, Trial Eva nincr. Dated October 23, 1945 APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de- scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement The bargaining unit is: All wood pattern makers and apprentices of the Respondent, at its plant in Rochester, New York, excluding production and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recomminend such action ; CONSOLIDATED MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION, 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.