United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 622 (UE) and GEORGE A. GOZDICH and STUPAKOFF CERAMIC & MANII- FACTURING COMPANY, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. Case No. 6-CB-1,00. Mardi 17,195° Decision and Order On September 6, 1951, Trial Examiner David London issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom 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. The General Counsel also filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board 1 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 In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications noted below. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent entered into a collective bargaining agreement containing an illegal union- security clause, that it caused the Company to discharge Gozdick on August 11, 1950, pursuant to such unlawful union-security provision, and that it thereby violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act 2 The union-security clause, which is quoted in full in the Intermediate Report, does not accord to those who were employees when the contract was executed, but who were not already members of the Union, the statutory 30-day period to become members. For that reason, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the union-security clause in question is not one which is sanctioned by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and that the contract may not be asserted as a defense to the discharge in question s 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles.] 2 We find merit in the General Counsel's exception to the portion of the Trial Examiner's recommended order directed against this illegal union-security clause on the ground that the proposed order appears to be limited ' to the hfrtng provisions of the contract. We have' modified the order accordingly. Al Massera, Inc., at al., 97 NLRB 712. 98 NLRB No. 106. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, ETC. 665 For the reasons fully stated in National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards (George C. Quinley),4 we likewise agree with the Trial Examiner in rejecting the Respondent's contention that the Board is without authority to find a violation of Section 8 (b) (2) because the Company has not been joined as a party to this proceeding. Nor do we find that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to order the Respondent to reimburse Gozdick for only half of the back pay due. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 622 (UE), its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Causing or attempting to cause Stupakoff Ceramic & Manu- facturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns to dis- criminate in any manner against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (b) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to the un- lawful union-security provisions of its collective bargaining agree- ments with the Company, or entering into or enforcing any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or any superseding agreements containing union-security provisions, except as author- ized by the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (c) In any like manner restraining or coercing employees of Stupa- koff Ceramic & Manufacturing Company, its successors or assigns, in the exercise of their right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the conc8rted activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Notify Stupakoff Ceramic & Manufacturing Company that it has no objection to said Company's immediate and full reinstate- ment of Gozdick to his former or substantially equivalent position + 92 NLRB 877. See also N. L. R. B. v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union et al., 192 F. 2d 654 (C A. 2). Progressive Mine Workers of America et at. v. N. L. R. B., 187 F. 2d 298 (C. A. 7), relied on by the Respondent, is inapposite. In that case, the court disagreed with the Board's finding that the employees in question had been discriminated against, and, for that reason only, did not find a violation of Section 8 (b) (2) against the Union. 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD without prejudice to the seniority or other rights, privileges, and increased wage status, if any, which he would have enjoyed or attained had he not been discharged on August 11, 1950. (b) Make Gozdick whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section in the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." s Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the 'Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representatives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region signed copies of the notice attached hereto as an appendix, for posting, the Company willing, at its place of business in or near Latrobe, Penn- sylvania, in places where notices-to employees are customarily posted. The notice shall be posted for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Copies of said notices to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed as pro- vided in the preceding paragraph, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Appendix NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 622 (UE) AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF STUPAKOFF CERAMIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 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, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause STUPAKOFF CERAMIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, its officers, agents, successors, or as- signs, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against its employees 6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS , ETC. 667 because they are not members in good standing of United Elec- trical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 622 (UE), except in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain of coerce employees of STUPAKOFF CERAMIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, its successors or assigns , in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the unlawful union-security provisions of our collective bargaining agreements with STUPAKOFF CERAMIC & MANUFACTURING COM- PANY, or enter into or enforce any extension, renewal, modifica- tion, or supplement thereof, or any superseding agreements with said company containing union-security provisions except as authorized by the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make whole George A Gozdick for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. WE WILL notify STUPAKOFF CERAMIC & MANUFACTURING COM- PANY that we have no objection to the immediate and full rein- statement of George A. Gozdick to the position held by him on August 11 , 1950, or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to the seniority or other rights, privileges , and increased wage status, if any, which he would have enjoyed or, attained had he not been discharged on August 11, 1950. UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 622 (UE) Labor organization. By -------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (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. Intermediate Report Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed by George A. Gozdick, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, issued a complaint dated July 22, 1951, against United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 622 (UE), hereinafter called Respondent or the Union. The complaint alleged that the Union had 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), 8 (b) (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, amended charge, and notice of hearing were duly served on the Union and Stupakoff Ceramic & Manufacturing Com- pany,' the Employer involved, and hereinafter called the Company. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that commencing on or about July 27, 1950, aid thereafter, the Union attempted to cause the Company to discharge George A. Gozdick ; that on or about August 11, 1950, Gozdick was discharged by the Company and thereafter denied rein- statement ; that all the action afore-mentioned was taken pursuant to a collective bargaining contract between the Company and the Union executed on or about July 27, 1950, by which contract membership in the Union was illegally required as a condition of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The Union, by its answer, denied that it had committed any unfair labor practices and, by a motion attached to its answer, moved to join the Company as a neces- sary party to this proceeding. The motion afore-mentioned, having been duly referred to the Trial Examiner by the Regional Director, was denied on July 18,1951.' Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Greensburg, Pennsylvania, on July 23, 1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine all witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertaining to the issues was accorded all parties. The General Counsel's motion, made at the close of the hearing, to conform the pleadings to the proof as to formal mat- ters, not involving substance, was granted. Other motions made during the course of the hearing on which rulings were reserved are disposed of in accord- ance with the findings and conclusions that follow. On the entire record in the case, the briefs of the General Counsel and Respond- ent, and from my observation of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY During all times material herein, Stupakoff Ceramic & Manufacturing Company has maintained a place of business at Latrobe, Pennsylvania, where it was and is engaged in the manufacture of ceramic insulators. In the course and conduct of its business operations, the Company, during the calendar year 1950, pur- chased raw materials such as clays, talc, and glass having a value of $665,622, approximately 12 percent of which was purchased from points outside of Penn- sylvania and shipped to it in that Commonwealth. During the same year the Company sold merchandise having a value of $1,800,764, of which sales, approxi- mately 85 percent was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania. I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 622 (UE), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and admits employees of the Company to membership. i The caption appears as amended at the hearing. ' International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union and Roosevelt Stafford, 94 NLRB 1091 ; National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards and George C. Quincy, 92 NLRB 877 ; Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, ETC . 669 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of events Collective bargaining contracts between the Union and Company since 1943 to the date of the hearing contained union-security clauses reading as follows : "All employees shall become members of the Union within 30 days of their em- ployment. Only members in good standing with the Union shall be employed by the Company after the 30 day period has been completed. Any member of the Union who is notified by the Union that he is not in good standing and does not place himself in good standing within one week from date of such notice shall, within two weeks from the time of such notice to the Company, be con- sidered to have quit the employ of the Company." However, contracts in exist- ence during a period after the effective date of the Labor Management Relations Act in 1947 and ending on July 27, 1950, the last having been executed on May 1, 1950, contained the following provision immediately after the foregoing quoted paragraph : "The above paragraph shall become inoperative on July 1, 1948, but shall again become operative if and when made legally permissible." An election to authorize the execution of a valid union-security agreement was held on June 23, 1950, following which the Board on July 3, 1950, authorized the Union to execute such a contract (Case No. 6-UA-1235). Pursuant to that certification, the Company and the Union on July 27, 1950, entered into a "supple- mental agreement" eliminating the inoperative clause quoted above from the contract entered into between the parties on May 1, 1950, which contract was originally made effective until April 30, 1951, and "thereafter from year to year unless on 60 days notice before expiration of each year either party may propose modifications...." Both the contract of May 1, 1950, and the supple- mental agreement of July 27, 1950, were made between, and executed by, the Com- pany and "United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, U. E., in behalf of and in conjunction with Local #622, U. E. R. M. W. A., U. E." On Oc- tober 23, 1950, a further agreement was executed, purporting to between the parties signatory to the May 1, 1950, contract, and extending that agreement, as amended, to May 1, 1952. The last extension agreement, however , was signed only by the Company and the Respondent Local. George Gozdick was hired by the Company in December 1940 as a lathe operator and continued in its employ until he was discharged on August 11, 1950. He joined the Union shortly after he was first hired and remained a member thereof until he was expelled from membership in February 1950. In the interim he served as steward, treasurer, and financial secretary of the Union. On July 27, 1950, the Union forwarded to Gozdick a copy of the supplemental agreement of July 27, afore-mentioned, and advised him as follows : "Under the provisions of the contract covering the union shop, this gives you one week in which to place yourself in good standing with the Union." On the same date, the Union likewise wrote the Company as follows : "Notice has been sent to Mr. George Gozdick by registered mail this 27th day of July 1950, notifying him that he is not in good standing with Local 622 UE. Under the clause of the con- tract covering the Union shop, Mr. Gozdick has one week from the above date in which to place himself in good standing with the Union." A few days after receipt of this letter, Gozdick was called to the office of D. E. Bossart, personnel manager for the Company, and the latter explained to him that because of the Union's action above described, it would be necessary for Gozdick to join the Union or else be separated from employment with the Com- pany. On August 7, at a meeting between the Company and the Union in the office of Mr. Fritz, the Company's vice president, and attended by three union officials, Albert Fetter, the union president, asked Bossart and Fritz if the Com- 670 ` DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pany was in "accord with the Union's action concerning George Gozdick" and the "union shop provision which made it mandatory for George Gozdick to join the Union and pay dues." Fritz replied that the Company was in agreement' Gozdick did not rejoin the Union within the time demanded by it and on August 11, 1950, was discharged from the service of the Company. Having need for men of Gozdick's skill, the Company, without consulting the Union, rehired him sometime in March 1951 as a new employee and with for- feiture of seniority and other rights enjoyed by him on August 11, 1950. He rejoined the Union in March or April 1951, having been told by Bossart, at the time he was rehired, that he would have to join the Union within 30 days. B. The contention of the parties It is the claim of the General Counsel : 1. The union-security clause agreed to on July 27, 1950, currently enforced and maintained by Local 622 and the Company, violates Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. By entering into such an agreement and by enforcing and maintaining it, Respondent Local 622 is in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 2. The discharge of Gozdick on August 11, 1950, was in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Local 622, by requesting and obtaining this discharge pur- suant to an illegal union-security clause, violated Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. The Union urges the following as a basis for denying any relief against it: 1. Failure to join the Company as a respondent in the present proceeding fore- closes relief against the Union. 2. Resort by the General Counsel, during the hearing, to a statement obtained by a Board investigator from the president of the Union after having allegedly represented to the union official that the "statement would not be used in evidence." 3. Gozdick voluntarily terminated his employment. 4. If the termination was not voluntary, it was effected by the Company "more than 30 days after the effective date of a [valid] union security clause." C. Concluding findings 1. The illegality of the contract Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against his employees "to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization." A proviso to that section, however, permits an employer to make an agreement with a labor organization "to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement whichever is the later." Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act makes it unlawful for a labor organization "to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of" Section 8 (a) (3). The principal issue for decision herein is whether or not 8 The finding on this conversation is based on the credited testimony of Bossart . Though Fetter, the only witness called by the Union who was questioned concerning this conversa- tion, denied that Gozdick's case was "discussed on the part of the Union," he admitted that the Company "did mention something, about it . . . They merely said they were going to comply with the thinking of the agreement as written ." In light of all the -circumstances, "including the correspondence alluded to in the text, I credit Bossart's .version of the conversation. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, ETC. 671 the following union-security clause is one which may, legally be contracted or enforced under the proviso of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act: All employees' shall become members of the Union within 30 days of their employment. Only members in good standing with the Union shall be employed by the Company after the 30 day period has been completed. Any member of the Union who is notified by the Union that he is not in good standing and does not place himself in good standing within one week of such notice shall, within two weeks from the time of such notice to the Company be considered to have quit the employ of the Company. The Proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act quoted above prescribes the only type of union-security agreement permitted by law. Any security clause not sanctioned by that proviso, or more limited in scope, cannot serve as a defense to the discrimination necessarily resulting from resort to such a clause. Green Bay Drop Forge Co., 95 NLRB 399. Any such agreement not in strict compliance with the explicit requirements of the proviso imposes upon the Company a con- tractual obligation during the life of the agreement to adopt and adhere to discriminatory conditions of employment forbidden by the Act. N. L. R. B. v. National Maritime Union, 175 F. 2d 686 (C. A. 2), cert. den. 338 U. S. 954; United Mine Workers v. N. L. R. B., 184 F. 2d 392 (C. A. D. C.), cert. den. 340 U. S. 934. The first sentence of the union-security provision quoted above provides that "All employees shall become members of the Union within 30 days of their em- ployment." The statute, however, only permits an agreement "to require as a condition of employment membership [in the Union] on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) Assuming, there- fore, that the union-security provision became effective, as Respondent urges in its brief, on July 3, 1950, employees beginning their employment on July 1, 1950, would under the agreement, be required to join the Union not later than July 31, 1950, a period 2 days short of the later "effective date-of such agreement." The provision, therefore, failing "to permit an employee to refrain from union member- ship during a period of at least 30 days 'following . . . the effective date of the agreement' clearly exceeds the limited form of union security agreement per- mitted by the Act."' Shepherd Manufacturing Company, Inc., 90 NLRB 2196; Worthington Pump & Machinery Corporation, 93 NLRB 527; National Foundry d Furnace Company, 88 NLRB 1083. By executing and renewing the illegal union- security provision, the Union violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. Printz Leather Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1312; Childs Company, 93 NLRB 281; Clara-Val Packing Company, 87 NLRB 703. As such an illegal contract carries "an actual and immediate threat of loss of employment to all employees who might desire to exercise the protected right to refrain from joining a union, . . . its execution . . . likewise coerces and restrains employees in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)." New York State Employers Association, Inc., 93 NLRB 127. a Nor do the remaining two sentences of the agreement vitalize the provision. They read : "Only members in good standing with the Union shall be employed by the Company after the 30 day period has been completed. Any member of the Union who is notified by the Union that he is not in good standing and does not place himself in good standing within one week from date of such notice shall, within two weeks from the time of such notice to the Company, be considered to have quit the employ of the Company." As dis- tinguished from the fixed sentence of the provision just discussed in the text and which speaks of the obligation of "all employees" to become members of the Union, the remaining two sentences deal only with "members" of the Union. Presumably these two sen- tences were intended to give additional protection to employees after they became members of the Union. 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The illegal discharge of Gozdick The record establishes conclusively that Gozdick's services were terminated on August 11, 1950. Respondent contends that he was never- discharged but left his employment voluntarily. However, no evidence was offered as to why Gozdick should voluntarily leave a job after having acquired 10 years valuable seniority rights which, under the existing bargaining contract would be, and actually were, forfeited by him. When he accepted an offer of reemployment approximately 7 months later, he returned as a "new" employee. On July 27, 1950, the Union informed the Company in writing that Gozdick had 1 week from that date "in which to place himself in good standing with the Union." On August 7, union officials asked the,company officials whether they were in agreement "with the Union, with the union shop provision which made it mandatory for George Gozdick to join the Union." The mere fact that the Union did not threaten the Company with reprisal if it refused to dis- charge Gozdick or, in more blunt terms, require it to accept the Union's de- mands, does not exculpate the Union. As the Board recently had occasion to observe, "once such [an unlawful] contract has resulted in actual discrimina- tion, the Union, by executing and enforcing the contract, must be deemed to have caused such discrimination." Utah Construction Cc., 95 NLRB 196; Childs Company, 9$ NLRB 281. The Company's records establish that.Gozdick was separated from employment because he "refused to pay union dues as per union shop contract." On the entire record I find that the Union caused the Company to discharge Gozdick on August 11, 1950, pursuant to an illegal union-security contract and that the Union thereby violated Sections 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Prinz Leather Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1312; Carlyle Rubber Co., Inc., 92 NLRB 385; Sub Grade Engineering Company, 93 NLRB 406. 3. Miscellaneous concluding findings (a) The Union's contention that failure to join the Company as a respondent in this proceeding forecloses relief against the Union was disposed of by the undersigned in a prehearing order on authority of the cases cited in footnote 2, supra. I adhere to that ruling. (b) In view of the conclusion announced in section III, 0, 1 above, pertaining to the illegality of the union-security provisions of the contract, I find it un- necessary to discuss or determine the question, briefed by both the General Counsel and Respondent, of whether or not the provision in question would become effective on July 3, 1950, when the Board issued its certificate author- izing a valid union-security provision' or on July 27 when the "supplemental agreement" was executed, and the related problem of whether or not Gozdick's services were terminated more than 30 days after the claimed effective date of those provisions. (c) For the same reason the admission in evidence of an investigative state- ment obtained by a Board employee from Fetter, president of the Union, after an alleged promise by the Board employee that it "would not be used in evi- dence" was without legal consequence. In that statement, Fetter stated that "the union-shop contract was successfully negotiated with the Company on 5 At the hearing, Respondent took the erroneous position that upon winning the union- security "election on June 23, 1950.... [the union-security provisions of the May 1, 1950, contract] automatically came into effect." In no event could a union-security agreement become legally effective until the Board issued the certificate required by Section 8 (a) (3). UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, ETC. 673 July 27, 1950." Because of the findings and conclusions previously announced there is no occasion to resort to the statement by Fetter and no use has been made thereof. (d) At the hearing, Respondent objected to the introduction into evidence of the agreement of October 23, 1950, extending the May 1, 1950, contract to May 1, 1952, on the ground that there was no proof of execution of the ex- tension agreement by the International. Likewise, in its brief, Respondent makes the loose and generalized claim that there was a failure to prove "the existence of a contract with the Company." ° The International was not a party to this proceeding and no relief is sought against it. The Company and Respondent executed all the agreements in question, including the extension agreement of October 23, 1950. No claim was made or suggested that the ex- tension agreement was not to become effective unless and until signed by the International. In any event, the original May 1, 1950, contract, signed by the Company, Respondent and the International, contained automatic 1-year re- newals. Iv. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, 1 shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that Respondent entered into an illegal agreement re- quiring membership in the Union as a condition of employment with the Com- pany. It will therefore be recommended that Respondent be required to cease and desist from giving effect to the unlawful hiring provisions of its collective bargaining agreement with the Company and refrain from executing agree- ments in the future containing union-security provisions except as authorized by the Act.' It has been found that the Company upon demand of the Union on August 11, 1950, discriminarorily discharged Gozdick because he refused to comply with said illegal union-security provisions. In view of the fact that Gozdick was reemployed by the Company in March 1951, there is no need for making any recommendations pertaining to reemployment with the Company. However, because he was reemployed as a new employee, and because there was no show- ing as to whether or not he was reinstated to his former position, it will be recommended that the Union notify the Company that it has no objection to Gozdick's immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to the seniority or other rights, privileges, and increased wages, if any,' which Gozdick would have enjoyed or earned if he had not been discharged on August 11, 1950. It will be further recommended that Respondent make Gozdick whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered 9 However, at another point in its brief, Respondent states that it "does not deny the existence of a contract with the Company." (Emphasis supplied.) 7 Utah Construction Co., 95 NLRB 196. 6 The bargaining agreement permits periodic wage increases within specified limits. 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by reason of the discrimination against him during the period from his dis- charge to 5 days after the date Respondent notifies the Company as specified in the preceding sentence. Said loss of pay shall otherwise be determined in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Wooliworth Company, 19 NLRB 289. The record indicates that Respondent took the illegal action because it in good faith believed it had a valid union-security agreement. In view of that fact, and because Respondent's past conduct does not suggest the danger that other unfair labor practices will be committed in the future, I am of the opinion that the issuance of a broad cease and desist order against Respond- (alit is unwarranted. Therefore, in accordance with Board practice in cases of this type,' it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and any like or related conduct. Upon the basis of the foregoing finding of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 622 (UE!), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By entering into, maintaining, and extending the illegal union-security provisions of its bargaining contract with the Company, Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 3. By causing the Company to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George A. Gozdick in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] 9 Carlyle Rubber Co ., Inc., 92 NLRB 385, and cases cited in footnote 14 therein. INTERNATIONAL FURNITURE COMPANY and UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 10-CA-116. March 17,1950 Decision and Order On September 6, 1951, Trial Examiner Charles W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom 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 support- ing brief.' I The Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied because the record and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 98 NLRB No. 100.