Crucible Steel Castings Co.

494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD You are now enjoying many benefits that your friends and neighbors do not enjoy in other plants in this area. Most of you are getting 2% hours overtime per week for paid lunch time. Do you know of many plants where this is done? There are many other benefits which you are familiar with and which do not need to be enumerated . No union had anything to do with getting these for you. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17th, IS A VERY IMPORTANT DAY FOR ALL OF US. IT IS ELECTION DAY. BE SURE YOU VOTE! THIS IS YOUR PRIVI- LEGE AND YOUR DUTY. BEAR IN MIND THAT IT IS A MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY WHO ARE GOING TO DETERMINE WHETHER ALL OF US HAVE TO PUT UP WITH A UNION. EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY HAVE SIGNED A CARD FOR THE UNION, YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE YOUR HEAD AND DO A LOT OF TH,INX- ING. YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO THE BOOTH, WHERE NOBODY WILL SEE YOU, AND VOTE AS YOU SEE FIT. The fact that `you have signed a card does not mean that you have to vote for the union. Don't let anybody fool you and tell you that you may lose ]/bur job if you vote against the union. Nobody is going to know how you vote--neither the union organizer nor the company! Look around you and see how many plants in this area have voted against having a union . Workers are getting wise. Talk this situation over with your wife or your family, and BE SURE TO VOTE ON MONDAY. We feel that if you will be wise you will save $24.00 a year for yourself, and not have your neck in the union noose. THINK-AND THEN VOTE! Sincerely yours, LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY, (S) C. H. Austin, By----------------------------- President. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY and JAMES P. FLAGG. Case No- 8-CA-586. November °31,195 Decision and Order On April 11, 1952, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Complainant and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs. The Board I 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 Intermedi- IPursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston , Styles, and Peterson]. 101 NLRB No. 105. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 495 ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. The Complainant, Flagg, has excepted to the Trial Examiner's finding that he was not discriminatorily discharged. In our view, the record fully supports this finding. Flagg was the shop chairman, authorized to present grievances at the second stage of the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining contract with the Respondent. Flagg had persisted, however, on numerous occasions in handling grievances in a manner contrary to the contract provisions as well as in violation of posted shop rules, and had been repeatedly criticized and warned by his foreman for such infractions. On the day of his discharge he had injected himself into the processing of a grievance prematurely, and was outside his department in violation of shop rules. Although twice instructed by his foreman to return to his department and to his work, he refused and was discharged. In view of Flagg's violation of shop rules, his refusal to comply with his foreman's direction to return to work, and, particularly, his persist- ence in disregarding the provisions in the contract for handling grievances, we find that Flagg's discharge was not in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint issued herein against the Respondent, Crucible Steel Castings Company, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by James P. Flagg , an individual, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued a complaint dated December 11, 1951, against Crucible Steel Castings Company, herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint with a copy of the charge were duly served upon the Respondent and the Complainant. In substance the complaint alleges that on or about September 5, 1951, the Respondent discharged and refused to reinstate James P. Flagg because he joined, assisted, and engaged in concerted activities on behalf of the Inter- national Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 218, AFL, and/or Metal & Machinery Workers of America, Independent, herein called the Molders and Metal & Machinery Workers, respectively, and engaged 'The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are herein referred to as the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. By reason of its action the Respondent discouraged membership in each of the above unions and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent duly filed its answer, dated January 2, 1952, wherein it ad- mits certain allegations of the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Affirmatively, the Respondent asserts that at all times mate- rial it was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Molders which provided, inter alia, for a procedure with respect to the adjustment of grievances and further provided that there be no strike or lockout until all peaceful methods prescribed in the grievance procedure had been exhausted. The Respondent further avers that Flagg was chairman of the shop committee and was dis- charged because he left his place of work without permission, conducted meet- ings of the employees during working hours, undertook to prevent the orderly functioning of its agreement with the Molders, and directed unlawful work stoppages at the plant. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, on January 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. All of the parties were represented by counsel. At the outset of the hearing the General Counsel moved to exclude witnesses from the hearing room which motion was granted by the undersigned with the reservation that the Complainant and two repre- sentatives of the Respondent be permitted to be present during the hearing. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence perti- nent to the issues involved. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof, which motion was denied. At the conclusion of the case counsel for the Re- spondent renewed his motion, which was taken under advisement. In view of the findings and conclusions herein it is not necessary to pass upon the merits of this motion so it is now denied. At the same time the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent moved to conform the pleadings to the proof, which motion, limited to matters of form, was granted by the undersigned. The parties waived oral argument before the undersigned and were advised of their right to file briefs in the matter. Thereafter the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent submitted briefs which have been carefully considered by the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The parties stipulated that the Company, an Ohio corporation, maintains its principal office and plant in Cleveland, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manu- facture and sale of metal castings. In the course of its operations the Com- pany annually purchases raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which more than 20 percent is purchased, delivered, and transported from and through States other than the State of Ohio. The Company annually produces finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 30 percent is sold, delivered, and transported to customers in States other than the State of Ohio. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce as defined in the Act, and the undersigned so finds. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 497 International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 218, AFL, and Metal & Machinery Workers of America, Independent, are each labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The history of collective bargaining at the plant; the present agreement with the Molders The parties stipulated that the Company is, and for a number of years has been, represented in bargaining negotiations by the Foundry Manufacturers Negotiating Committee, an organization representing foundries in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, with the Molders as the exclusive bargaining agent for the em- ployees of the various members. The Company was a party to various agree- ments negotiated by the committee until about the middle of 1950 . On June 9 of that year, the committee and the Molders executed an agreement effective until May 1, 1951, which agreement provided for annual automatic renewal unless changed by either party upon the giving of written notice of such inten- tion, 60 days prior to the termination date thereof. Sometime prior to the execution of this agreement the UAW-CIO filed a petition for certification against the Company ' and pending resolution of this question the Company refrained from becoming a party to the contract . Subsequently, the Board , on September 8, 1950, following the conduct of an election , certified the Molders as the exclu- sive representative of all the Company's employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company, on October 2, 1950, then entered into a "Stipulation " with the Molders whereby it became a party to agreement. On May 1, 1951, the above committee acting on behalf of the Company and other foundries signed a contract with the Molders, effective until May 1, 1952. This agreement provides for a union shop , a procedure for the processing of griev- ances, and prohibits strikes or lockouts pending adjustment of disputes in ac- cordance with contract procedure. B. Flagg's employment and membership in the Molders Union Flagg was first employed by the Company on March 3, 1950, and continuously worked as a chipper in the cleaning department, which normally employed about 20 chippers, until September 5, 1951,' when he was discharged by his foreman, Anthony Violi. In accordance with the union-security clause in the agreement between the Company and the Molders, Flagg became a member of the Molders and 3 or 4 months later was elected shop committeeman for his department. As shop committeeman Flagg was responsible for the handling of grievances or com- plaints on the part of either the Company or employees in the cleaning depart- ment with the foreman thereof and also attended meetings of the entire shop committee, composed of committeemen representing the various departments, for the purpose of discussing "shop problems." Flagg served 2 or 3 months each in this capacity. About March or April, Flagg was elected chairman of the shop committee and as chairman acted as spokesman for the committee, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft ci Agricultural Implement Workera of America, CIO, 90 NLRB 1843. 1 All dates refer to 1951 unless otherwise stated. 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD called meetings of the committee and the membership, and discussed grievances with the committee, or members thereof, and management. Flagg was serving as chairman of the shop committee at the time of his discharge. The 1951-1952 agreement prescribes the following grievance procedure: 1. All disputes of employees shall be presented at once to the department foreman where the dispute arises and the employee if he desires, may be accompanied by one of the union shop committee in the department. 2. If the dispute is not settled and the employee desires to carry his grievance further, the same shall be presented at once by the chairman of the shop committee to the plant superintendent, or the person designated by management to consider disputes and grievances. 3. If the dispute is not settled in the manner provided above, the em- ployee has the right to carry his grievance to management, in which case the matter must be presented to management within 2 working days with a request for a meeting. Representatives of management will then meet with the district representative of the Molders or with the shop committee as soon as convenient to all parties. 4. If the dispute is not then settled satisfactorily to any party, that party has the right to have the matter referred to the Foundry Manufacturers Negotiating Committee within 15 days from completion of the foregoing procedure. The agreement also provides that there shall be no strike or lockout until all peaceful methods of adjustment have been exhausted and that pending adjustment of any dispute neither party shall discontinue operations, but shall continue with the business of operating the plant in the usual manner. The above agreement was signed by David Leighton, district representative for the Molders, and Flagg. Shortly after the execution of the contract Leigh- ton was expelled as district representative by the international executive board of the Molders. As chairman of the shop committee Flagg called meetings of the committee at the plant during the luncheon period, 11: 30 until noon. These meetings were not held at stated or regular intervals but were called by Flagg "as often as necessary," and usually lasted about 15 minutes. However, Flagg said that if the committee did not finish its business within the lunch period "they would stay until the meeting was complete," which at times required an additional 10 minutes or so, and on one occasion 15 minutes. Under like circumstances, Flagg also called meetings of the entire membership at the plant which carried past the lunch period about the same as the committee meetings. During his tenure as shop committeeman Flagg said he was never criticized by his foreman for attending meetings extending beyond the period, nor did he ever hear his fore- man reprimand any employee for reporting later under such circumstances. Flagg testified that as chairman of the shop committee he had the right to call meetings of the committee as well as of the membership whenever necessary and that as far as union matters were concerned he could leave his job without per- mission of his foreman and go anywhere in the plant, which he did. He further stated that the Company had no rules requiring the shop chairman to secure permission before leaving his job to engage in such matters, nor had he ever seen any company shop rules posted at the plant, although Violi had his own "rules and regulations" posted in his office. However, Flagg could not remember the substance of these rules. Theodore S. Andrea, an employee in the coreroom, stated that he preceded Flagg as chairman and served as such from January 1 to April 1. Andrea held CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 499 weekly committee meetings and membership meetings as necessary, "two or three a month, sometimes we didn 't have any." These meetings were held at lunch time, without prior permission of the Company , and on occasions lasted beyond the lunch period. Andrea admitted that on one occasion his foreman , Joseph R. Hrabak, told him as well as other employees that the meetings were not sup- posed to go past the regular lunch period and when they did so, the men could be docked for time lost . This warning was given near the end of Andrea's term as chairman and no further meetings were called by him. Andrea stated that while chairman he did not obtain permission to leave his work, was never criti- cized for doing so, and that he never saw any rules posted at the plant prior to September in regard to such a matter. C. Flagg's activities on behalf of the Metal & Machinery Workers Flagg said that commencing in the latter part of July he called more meetings of the committee and the membership than did Andrea because the employees were dissatisfied, the number of grievances increased, and the men complained that the representation afforded by the Molders "was no good." Flagg stated that a large majority of the employees wanted to know if it was possible to obtain another "bargaining agent" so he contacted Richard Tussey, representative of the Metal & Machinery Workers. Tussey told Flagg that since the Company had an agreement with the Molders nothing much could be done unless a hearing could be obtained before the Board and an election held among the employees. Flagg then secured membership cards for the Metal & Machinery Workers which he took to the plant and distributed among the committeemen, and within several days about 147 of the 250 employees in the unit represented by the Molders, in- cluding Flagg, signed cards. Between approximately the middle of June and July, Flagg, Leighton, and Tussey held 3 meetings which were attended by some 150 employees. Two of these gatherings were held at a private hall and the remaining one was held during lunch time at a playground immediately adjoin- ing the property of the Company. Flagg said that at the latter meeting Leighton spoke to the employees about grievances and disaffiliation from the Molders and was seeking "to interest" the employees in the Metal & Machinery Workers. Flagg also addressed the meeting but be did not give the details of his talk. While Flagg admitted that he signed up employees in the Metal & Machinery Workers he "wouldn't say that either" he or Leighton were organizing for that union. During June, July, and August, Leighton went to the plant on a number of occasions. About July 27, Tussey addressed a letter to the Foundry Manufacturers' Nego- tiating Committee stating that a substantial majority of the employees in the unit covered by the agreement it had negotiated with the Molders had signed cards repudiating the Molders as their representative and authorizing the Metal & Machinery Workers to act as their bargaining agent. On the same date Tussey sent a letter to the Company enclosing a copy of the above communication since its employees were included in the unit.` Leighton by letter dated July 28 advised the Company that he was still the elected representative of Local 218 for the purposes of collective bargaining despite the action of the international executive board of the Molders in ex- pelling him as district representative. The International Molders Union advised the Company by letter dated August 2, signed by its secretary and Isaac Chapman and Lester Leibey, international 4 These letters are dated June 27, but the parties stipulated that they were sent and received in the latter part of July. 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representatives, that Leighton no longer represented the Molders in any capacity whatever. On August 5 Flagg and four other individuals sent a letter to the Company ` to the effect that the membership of "Local 218" had voted to disaffiliate from the Molders and to become "a component part" of the Metal & Machinery Workers and that the signatories to the letter had been elected to carry out the dis- affiliation. The letter concluded by stating that if the Company has a checkoff "we advise you to send the money to the" Metal & Machinery Workers' local office. On cross-examination Flagg testified that the purpose of the above letter was to eliminate the Molders from the plant "as far as the membership was con- cerned." However, Flagg did not intend that the Company should "cease ob- serving the Molders' Union contract," then in effect. Further, he stated that while he was acting as the representative of the Metal & Machinery Workers "as far as this letter is concerned," he was not thus representing the employees "in the shop." Again, when Flagg was asked if he represented both unions, he answered, "I represented the men. As far as this letter was concerned, it was. I was representing the Metal & Machinery Workers Union, yes." Flagg did not know whether this situation would preclude the functioning of step 3 of the grievance procedure, which provides that management will meet with the dis- trict representative of the Molders, because Leighton was still the district repre- sentative, although he did not "know just what Union it was." D. The work stoppages Flagg stated that on April 16 an employee was discharged and when manage- ment representatives advised Flagg and the committee that they "wouldn't take it up until after working hours," he immediately called a meeting of all the employees which lasted about 20 minutes and the men then returned to their jobs. At that time the 1950-1951 agreement, which contained a no-strike no- lockout clause and also prohibited discontinuance of operations pending adjust- ment of grievances, was in effect. Flagg conceded that on Tuesday, May 22, all of the employees attended a meet- ing which was held at the union hall, and that no work was performed that day. Flagg said the work stoppage occurred under the following circumstances : Dur- ing the previous week representatives of management and the committee dis- cussed a few grievances and the supplying of gloves by the Company. Manage- ment, according to Flagg, agreed to furnish gloves and other "things for the men" and requested that Leighton and the committee meet the following Monday, May 21. The meeting was held and during the discussion the Company stated it had changed its previously announced position. Leighton declared that "we will call a meeting downtown tomorrow and see what can be done about it." Flagg said the committeemen spread word of the meeting among all the employees but denied that he posted or displayed any written notice to this effect at the plant. Flagg presided at the meeting which admittedly was called without per- mission of the Company and no work was performed at the plant that day. At that time the parties were negotiating upon the terms of the 1951-1952 agree- ment and during this interval the parties extended and adhered to the provisions of the 1950-1951 contract. LeRoy A. Polk, committeeman for the cleaning department, testified that he was working on the night shift on May 21, and while he heard of the meeting to be S The letter was signed by Flagg and Jeff Williams, then employed by the Company, and three other persons employed in other foundries. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 501, held the following day, and attended the same, he did not see any notice posted at the plant concerning the meeting. Andrea said he saw a notice posted on the bulletin board at the back of the plant stating , in substance , that a special meet- ing of the employees would be held at 10 o'clock the next morning and "everybody should be present." The notice did not bear any signature. Andrea said that no work stoppages took place while he was chairman of the. committee. Hrabak said that on the afternoon of May 21, he saw Flagg post a notice near the locker room, which was signed by Flagg, stating that there would be "nos, work for any of the employees the following day, as there would be a meeting down at the Union Hall, at 10 o'clock." Louis Klein, foundry superintendent, stated that he observed a notice to the above effect, signed by Flagg, which was posted on the bulletin board outside the locker room. Klein instructed Andrew Warcaba, general foundry foreman, to remove the notice. F. The warnings issued to Flagg; the evidence pertaining to his alleged violation of shop rules Flagg testified that in the latter part of July and early August he was warned by Foreman Violi to "be back on time" when meetings were held , otherwise he was going to be docked and subsequently he was docked on three occasions when he returned late. Flagg also stated that during the period about August 5 to 21, he complained to Violi that he "was giving me trouble about taking up grievances, and anybody talking, coming over to my bench, talking to me, .. . that he was denying me the right to take care of my activities as a Union representative, as I did in the past." Violi told Flagg he had no union or contract and Flagg replied, "We have a contract." Violi then asked who the representative was and Flagg answered he was "representing the men and abiding by the contract." Later, about August 29, Flagg and the committee met with management and in the course of the meeting Flagg asked Bruce Aiken, general manager of the plant, if he still had the right to take up such matters and Aiken answered in the affirmative. Flagg then asked him to so inform Viol!, since he was giving Flagg "a lot of trouble about taking up grievances." Aiken replied that Violi had his instructions. Aiken also told Flagg to stay on his "job and work and let other people's business alone." Rufus Wheeler, committeeman for the molding department for about 1 year, was present at the meeting on August 29, and stated that Flagg told Aiken that Violi was giving him trouble about leaving his job in order to carry out his duties as chairman. Flagg, upon being assured by Aiken that he had authority to process grievances, stated : It is clear now that I have authority to take up grievances that arise, because Tony [Violi] has been asking me any time I leave my bench or anything, he has been on me. . . . Now, I want it understood with the foreman that I have authority to take up grievances in the shop. Aiken replied that the foremen have their instructions. Wheeler said he dis- cussed grievances with employees in his department during working hours, which discussions lasted from 5 to 15 minutes, without any complaint from his foreman. During his term as committeeman Wheeler left his department in connection with a grievance on only one occasion and that took place when two employees "got to scrapping one night." Violi, an employee of the Company for about 23 years and general foreman of the cleaning room for about 6 years, stated that the Company has always had shop rules and in 1942 when the agreement with the Molders, was distributed 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fn booklet form to the employees the rules were set forth as an appendix to the contract. Aiken said that no booklets, or at least none containing shop rules, were distributed among the employees until about October 1951, for the reason that during this period the yearly agreements between the Molders and the Foundry Manufacturers Negotiating Committee were silent in this respect and each Company operated under its own rules. Meantime, the Company continued to work under the 1942 rules. Aiken further stated that booklets of the 1951- 1952 agreement, without shop rules, were given to foremen and members of the committee shortly after the execution of the contract and sometime in October the agreement and shop rules were distributed to all the employees. Between the date of the execution of the agreement and the distribution of the latter booklet representatives of the Company and the committee discussed shop rules but up to the time of Flagg's discharge no agreement had been reached thereon. Violi said that about 18 months prior to the hearing the personnel office sent him a carbon copy of typewritten shop rules signed by Aiken, which he imme- diately posted on the bulletin board inside his office in the cleaning department where they remained at all times herein material. Violi also stated that identi- cal notices were posted on the bulletin board near the time clock and another one located at the opposite end of the plant. Aiken and Hrabak testified substan- tially the same as to the posting of the written shop rules. Aiken further stated that the Company had shop rules in effect since 1942 but the only posted notices were those discussed above. The foregoing documents were offered and re- ceived in evidence at the hearing and the pertinent portions thereof provide that: Employees are not permitted to leave their place of work to go to other parts of the plant without permission from their respective foremen. Employees are not permitted to visit with fellow employees during work- ing hours. Flagg said that it was his duty to check on literature appearing on bulletin boards but he did not see the above documents posted on any boards at the plant including the one in Violi's office. However, he admitted that Violi had rules and regulations, which "he made up himself," posted in his office, but he could not remember the substance of these rules. John F. Cantrell, who worked in the cleaning department during 1951, did not see any shop rules posted at the plant. During his employment he went into Violi's office several times but he did not notice any shop rules posted there. Joseph Hawkins, Wheeler, and Polk likewise testified that they never observed any posted rules although Hawkins admitted he was never in Violi's office. William Kimpel, shop committeeman for the molding department, when shown the shop rules previously identified as having been on the bulletin boards, stated, "Yes. I have seen that. Those are the shop rules." However, he said the rules had not been posted. Andrea could not remember if the shop rules were placed on bulletin boards but he did see some of the provisions in the documents posted at other places in the plant. Andrea never went into Violi's office. Violi testified that while Flagg was a steady and efficient employee, upon be- coming a member of the Molders he began leaving his work without permission and he warned Flagg, almost daily, about this practice. On two occasions in 1951, probably April or May, Violi called Flagg into his office and told him to look at the posted shop rules "because I am going to enforce those rules." On the first occasion Flagg just "laughed" and the second time he stated, "Those rules don't mean nothing to me." Flagg called meetings of the committee and the membership during lunch hour, the same as Andrea, only more frequently. These meetings occasionally CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 503 extended past the regular lunch period but Violi apparently made no objection, it excessive time was limited to about 5 minutes. Violi stated that he personally made written notations in a notebook of "unusual happenings" in his department. Testifying from this notebook,' Violi revealed about 20 notations in respect to Flagg occurring in the period from about March 30 to August 28. These entries as well as Violi's testimony pertain principally to Flagg reporting excessively late after committee and membership meetings, time lost talking to employees, and warnings given to Flagg. While chairman, Flagg never requested permission to hold any meetings and only on one occasion did he ask Violi if he could leave his job in order to talk to a committeeman, in which case permission was granted. Violi also stated that he docked Flagg 2 or 3 times for returning late from meet- ings. Viols admitted that the employees were free to leave their work to purchase cigarettes. etc., at vending machines maintained at the plant since this required only a few minutes and the employees did not abuse this practice. About August 21, Flagg came to Violi's office and asked why he had discharged an employee that day. Violi told him that the employee had refused to obey an order whereupon Flagg said he should be notified when employees were to be discharged. Violi stated there was no such provision in the Molder's agreement. Flagg answered he did not recognize the Molders "because he had his own union," and Violi said if that was the case he did not consider Flagg as chairman for "that is the only contract I recognize, the Local 218." Testifying in rebuttal, Flagg denied that he was warned by Violi about leaving his department as shop chairman at any time prior to the latter part of June or July. F. Flagg'8 discharge Flagg testified that on September 5 he commenced working at 6 o'clock in the morning and about 15 minutes later Hawkins, who was employed in the coreroom, reported that he had been discharged. Flagg inquired if Hawkins had discussed the matter with his foreman and he replied that he had. Flagg further inquired if he had taken up the matter with his shop committeeman, Joseph Grill, and when Hawkins stated he had been unable to locate Grill, Flagg suggested that Hawkins see another committeeman, so he left. About 20 minutes later Hawkins returned with Grill and advised Flagg that he had been discharged by Hrabak for absenteeism and failure to call in. Flagg asked Grill what he had done con- cerning the discharge and he said there was nothing he could do and that Hrabak had suggested he talk with Flagg. Hawkins requested Flagg to see Hrabak about his discharge, so the three men went to the office of the superintendent, Klein, who had not yet arrived at the plant. Flagg told Grill to get Hrabak and bring him to the office, which he did. Flagg discussed the discharge with Hrabak and in the course of the discussion Hrabak admitted that he was wrong in discharging Hawkins "without the procedure of notifying the Union." The group had dis- cussed the matter for about 15 minutes when Violi came into the room and asked I'lagg what he was doing there. Flagg replied that he was taking up a grievance whereupon Violi stated, "You have no business down here, you have no Union, you have no contract, you have no nothing . . . you're fired." Viols told Hrabak not to listen to Flagg and ordered Flagg to get his clothes and leave the plant Viols and Hrabak then left the group. Flagg told Hawkins to wait around and called a meeting of the shop committee. Flagg informed the com- mittee what had happened and the committeemen declared, "We won't work now, Violi's assertion that he gave his notebook to the field examiner in the course of his investigation of the present charge was not challenged by the General Counsel at the hearing. The notebook was made available to the General Counsel at the hearing. 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we will go up now and get it straight." Flagg was opposed to such action and advised the committee members to return to work and at 8 o'clock the entire group would take up the grievance with management. The inen thereupon re- turned to work and Flagg waited in the locker room. About 8 o'clock Flagg and the shop committee met with Aiken and after discussing the Hawkins case,' the subject of Flagg's discharge was brought up. At the conclusion of the present- ment of the Flagg matter Aiken informed the committee that he could not give an immediate answer but would do so in about half an hour. The meeting ended and the men returned to work while Flagg waited in the locker room. About an hour and a half later Flagg and the committee were called to Aiken's office and advised that management required additional time to consider Flagg's case and that the committee would be given an answer at 10 o'clock the following morning. Some of the committee members asked for an immediate answer but Aiken re- fused because he desired to get the facts and consider the matter. The committee left the room and Flagg told them that "We'll call a meeting and see what the men want to do about it." The committee then called a meeting of the entire membership in the locker room. Flagg reported upon the discharges and Aiken's statement at the meeting that management would give an answer in respect to his discharge the next morning. The membership then instructed the committee to inform the Company that they wanted an answer that day and if not, they would not work until an answer was made. Flagg and the committee called on Aiken and advised him of the action but Aiken refused to recede from his original position. The committee informed the employees, who had remained in the locker room, of Aiken's response. Flagg told the membership, "If you are think- ing of walking out on account of me, don't do it. You suit yourselves. Whatever you do is entirely up to you." As chairman of the meeting Flagg asked the membership to vote upon the question of whether they should "go out or stay in" and obviously the vote was in favor of going out for the employees walked out of the plant after the meeting. The following morning Flagg and about 200 employees appeared in front of the plant. Shortly after 10 o'clock a representa- tive of the Company asked the shop committee to come in. Flagg said as he reached the door the guard stopped him and said he could not come in. Aiken came out and told Flagg the Company would not meet with him since he was no longer an employee. The committee members then stated that they would not meet without Flagg and walked out. The employees placed pickets at the plant and the parties stipulated that the strike continued until about October 1, when the men returned to work. Hawkins stated that on September 5 he was discharged by Hrabak for absen- teeism and failure to call in. Admittedly, Hawkins failed to report for work between September 1 and 5, and, in the absence of any denial on his part, obviously neglected to notify his foreman with respect to his expected absence. Hawkins testified substantially the same as Flagg concerning the meetings and discussions at which he was present, namely up to the first meeting with Aiken. Grill did not appear as a witness at the hearing. Polk testified that Flagg informed him of his discharge and that he was present when the shop committee met with Aiken about 9 o'clock that morning. Flagg, according to Polk, told Aiken that he had been discharged for handling a grievance although he had been advised by Aiken about August 29 that "he could take up grievances . . . and he can't see why he changed his decision, why he [Aiken] didn't instruct his foremen." Polk further stated that Violi was ' Flagg said that the Company definitely refused to rehire Hawkins but that as far as he was concerned the case was still pending. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 505 called into the meeting to give his version of Flagg's discharge. Violi informed the group that while he was checking his time cards a foreman told him that Flagg was in the rear of the plant talking with another foreman. Violi went to the back of the plant where he found Flagg and stated that he had no business there and to go up front. Flagg answered that as chairman "he was supposed to take up grievances as they arise. He wasn't supposed to wait. He had to settle that man's case there, if he could." Violi concluded by saying that Flagg was discharged because he refused to go back to his place of work. Polk stated that Aiken requested more time, about an hour, to consider the Flagg case whereupon the committee left. About 10 o'clock the committee again saw Aiken who advised them that he would meet with them at 10 o'clock the next morning. Flagg then announced that "he would let the men decide whether they wanted to wait until 10, or whether they wanted to go out." As they were leaving Aiken's office Flagg told the committee, "That's it, boys. Let's go and let the men make a decision." Following this, the committee called a meeting of all the employees at which Flagg reported Aiken's position and told the men, "it is up to you. You make your own decision. If you want to go out on account of I got fired, you go out, if you don't, you can stay on the job." Flagg said the majority wins and then took a vote on the question, which seemingly was in favor of going out, and the employees about 11 o'clock concertedly left their employment. Hrabak stated that he discharged Hawkins about 6 o'clock the morning of September 5,° and advised him that the reasons therefor were absenteeism and failure to call in, plus the fact that he had been warned several times in the past concerning the practices. Hawkins did not engage in any discussion with Hrabak in respect to his discharge and Hrabak specifically denied that he told him to contact Flagg. About 6: 30 Hrabak met Flagg, Hawkins, and Grill at or near the coreroom and Flagg requested Hrabak to discuss Hawkins' discharge in Klein's office. The group went to this office and Hrabak explained why he had discharged Hawkins. Flagg admitted that Hawkins was wrong but he said that Hrabak should have notified the committeeman for the core department prior to discharging him. Hrabak replied that he had never given notice to the committeeman in respect to the hire, discharge, or layoff of employees and he had never seen any such provision in the contract between the Company and the Molders. During the discussion Wareaba came into the office and when he "passed a few words" on the matter, Flagg stated that "he had no business but- ting in on the meeting," so Warcaba left. Shortly thereafter Violi came in and asked Flagg what he was doing and Flagg answered he was handling a grievance. Violi told Flagg he did not have permission to leave his department and that he should go back to work, which Flagg refused to do. Violi again stated that Flagg had not received permission to leave his work and to return to his job until he could get the matter straightened out with management later in the morning. Flagg replied, "You're not telling me what to do," and since he had a grievance he was going to "straighten it up right now." He further stated that as chairman of the committee he had the right to go any place in the shop at any time as long as he was engaged in handling grievances or "business doings." Violi told Flagg, "If that's the way it is, you're fired." In view of this action, he advised Hrabak not to discuss the matter with him, whereupon Violi and Hrabak left the office. Violi, according to Hrabak, in the course of the meeting also pointed out that Flagg had previously declared he was not representing the Molders, conse- quently he had no business sitting in on any grievance. Later in the morning, about 8: 30, Hrabak was called to Aiken's office where management representa- 8 The day shift was working 6 to 4: 30 p. in. 506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tives and the shop committee were meeting.' Hrabak stated the reasons for Hawkins' discharge and the committee admitted the action was justified. Flagg told Hawkins to leave and shortly thereafter Hrabak returned to his department. About 9: 45 Hrabak was called back to Aiken's office and found Aiken and other management representatives and Flagg. Hrabak was present only a few minutes during which time Aiken attempted unsuccessfully to telephone 'a representative of the Molders. In the meantime, between 9 and 9: 30, Flagg called a meeting of the employees in the locker room and after about 15 minutes the men returned to work. About 10: 30 Flagg called another meeting of the employees in the locker room which lasted until about 11 o'clock. When Hrabak learned that employees were leaving their jobs he asked Flagg if a couple of coremakers or laborers could stay in order to clean up and complete some work, but Flagg refused to permit anyone to remain. Violi testified that on the morning in question Warcaba reported that Flagg was in Klein's office arguing with Hrabak, so he went over to see him. Viola told Flagg he had left his job without permission and to go back to work. Flagg said he would go back when he was finished. Violi again told Flagg to go back to work but he refused whereupon Violi discharged him. Violi then announced that since Flagg did not recognize the agreement with the Molders he was not chair- man of the committee and Hrabak should not listen to him. After returning to his department Violi made a report of the incident to Klein. Flagg went to the locker room accompanied by some of the cleaning room employees, who returned in about 10 or 15 minutes. About 9: 30, Viola attended the meeting between management and the committee in Aiken's office. Violi stated the cir- cumstances of Flagg's discharge and left before the meeting concluded. Shortly thereafter Flagg and the committeemen called a meeting of the employees which lasted about 15 minutes. Following this meeting Flagg and the committee went to Aiken's office and upon returning called a second meeting of the employees after which the employees left their jobs. Aiken said he arrived at the plant about 8 o'clock and was at once informed by Klein that Flagg had been discharged and that the committee had requested a meeting as soon as possible. About 10 minutes later Aiken, Phillips, and Meier met with Flagg and the committee. After disposing of Hawkins' case, Aiken discussed Flagg's discharge with the committee for about 20 minutes and at the conclusion thereof he informed the committee he would try to give them his decision in about an hour. He then discussed the case with Phillips and Klein and decided that the Molders should be represented in the matter. After several telephone calls Aiken located Leibey and requested him to come to the plant. Leibey said he was presently engaged in negotiations with another foundry but would call Aiken later in the day. Aiken thereupon called back the committee and stated that he would meet with them at 10 o'clock the next morning. Flagg insisted upon an immediate answer and when Aiken replied he could not do so, Flagg remarked, "Come on, boys, that's it," and the com- mittee left the meeting. Aiken admitted that he made no mention of his call to Leibey to the committee. After the employees left the plant Flagg and Leighton came to Aiken's office but Aiken told Leighton he could not meet with him because be no longer represented the Molders. That afternoon Aiken received a telephone call from Leibey and Chapman in the course of which Aiken stated the employees were on strike, that he had arranged a meeting with the committee for the next morning at 10 o'clock, and asked Leibey to attend the same. Chapman told Aiken that they could not be present since the committee O Present were Messrs . Aiken , Phillips, Klein, and Meier representing the Company and Committee Members Flagg, Grill, Dovala, Konte, Kimpel, Polk , and Spears. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 507 had not requested them to attend the meeting. The following morning the committee, accompanied by Flagg and Leighton , called upon Aiken but he refused to permit Flagg or Leighton to enter the plant because the former had been discharged and the latter no longer represented the Molders. While Aiken was willing to meet with the remaining members of the committee, apparently this was not acceptable to the group and no meeting was held. Aiken said Flagg had violated and disregarded the contract by his actions on September 5, and he reached the decision that Flagg "should stay fired" after the last meeting on that date. On September 19, while the strike was in progress, Aiken met with Leibey, Chapman, Flagg, and the committee at which the Molders' representatives asked that Flagg be rehired but the Company refused to do so. While the meeting was in session Jack G. Day told Aiken, outside the meeting room , that he was counsel for the Metal & Machinery Workers and representing Flagg and requested permission to attend the meeting. Aiken reported this request to the group and Leibey and Chapman objected to his presence so Day was not permitted to attend. However, Flagg was informed that counsel for the Company would confer with I)ay at a later date, if he so desired. In the latter part of September several members of the committee informed Aiken that recent meetings of the membership indicated sentiment to return to work and requested a roster of the employees so that they could contact the workers. The Company complied with this request. About October 1 Aiken met with Leibey and Chapman for the purpose of discussing the Hawkins case but when Hawkins failed to appear the matter was considered closed. Concluding Findings As appears from the pleadings and the evidence set forth above , the basic issue presented is whether Flagg was discharged because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Molders and/or Metal & Machinery Workers and engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Company admits the discharge but asserts it was prompted by reasons other than those alleged by the General Counsel. On the whole the essential facts are not seriously disputed. The undersigned finds that for many years preceding the instant controversy, and at all times material herein, the Company has had collective bargaining agreements with the Molders and that the parties conducted and maintained peaceful and harmonious labor relations throughout this period.10 It is undisputed that when Flagg obtained employment with the Company he joined the Molders by reason of the union-shop provision in the then existing agreement and subsequently he was elected shop committeeman for the cleaning department and later about March or April was elected chairman of the committee. It is also undisputed that as chairman , Flagg acted as spokesman for the shop committee, called meetings of the committee and membership as required, during the luncheon period, and discussed grievances with the committee and with representatives of management as provided in the second and third steps of the grievance procedure set forth in the 1951-1952 contract. Flagg admitted that commencing about July he held more meetings of both the committee and the membership than did his predeces- sor, Andrea. He further conceded that some of these meetings extended beyond the normal lunch period and for that reason he was, on three occasions, docked for being late. Flagg stated that it was his position that as chairman he could 10 The records of the statistical section of the Board do not disclose any decisions or orders entered against the Company at this plant in any unfair labor practice cases. 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD call meetings whenever necessary, and that he was not required to secure per- mission of his foreman to leave his work and could go anywhere in the plant, which he did, as long as he was transacting union business. Again, Flagg declared that the Company had no rules either oral or written governing the conduct of the shop chairman, that no shop rules were posted at the plant, and that the only rules he had ever seen were Violi's own "rules and regulations," which were displayed in his office. Cantrell, Hawkins, and Polk corroborated Flagg's testimony that no shop rules were posted at the plant but Hawkins admitted he was never in Violi's office. Kimpel readily identified the written shop rules but stated they were never posted and Andrea said he could not recall any shop rules appearing on bulletin boards although some of the rules were posted at the plant. Andrea, like Hawkins, never went to Violi's office. On the other hand, Violl testified that shop rules had been posted for more than a year on various bulletin boards, including one in his office, and on two occasions he specifically called Flagg's attention to rules with a warning that he intended to enforce them. Hrabak and Aiken substantiated fully the testimony of Violi in regard to the posting of written rules at the plant. The evidence in this respect is sharply conflicting but the undersigned, after careful consideration and evaluation of the testimony, is of the opinion that written rules were posted at the plant during 1951. In reaching this determination the undersigned, in addition to the direct and unequivocal testimony of Violi, Hrabak, and Aiken, is persuaded by the admission of Flagg that shop rules were posted in Violi's office, although he con- sidered these to be Violi's own rules, as distinguished from those of the Com- pany. This admission plainly detracts from the weight to be given to the con- trary testimony of Cantrell, Wheeler, and Polk. On the other hand, while Kimpel and Andrea denied that they had observed rules posted at the plant in the form produced at the hearing, the former admitted he had seen the document and the latter conceded that some of the provisions set forth therein were displayed at the plant. Moreover, Wheeler said that at the meeting held about September 19, be- tween management and the committee, and Leibey and Chapman, Aiken left the room and returned with a notice concerning shop rules which Attorney Smoyer read to the group. Although Leibey and Chapman said "something" about the notice no one, according to Wheeler, raised any question as to whether or not the notice had been posted on the bulletin boards 11 Under all the circumstances the undersigned accepts and credits the testimony of Violi, Hrabak, and Aiken and finds that notices setting forth shop rules were posted upon bulletin boards at the plant, as well as in Violi's office, at all times herein material. It is undisputed that Flagg, like Andrea, called committee and membership meetings during lunch hour without obtaining permission of management and obviously the Company interposed no objection to this procedure, at least during the early stage of Flagg's term as chairman. However, it must be observed that Andrea admitted he was warned on one occasion concerning the excessive length of a meeting and held no further meetings. Flagg conceded, and it is found, that commencing about July he called a number of meetings which went beyond the normal lunch hour by reason of which he was warned and docked three times by Violi for such conduct. Further, he conceded that the number of grievances increased greatly, which no doubt required his time and attention. These conditions he related were prompted by the employees being dissatisfied with the Molders as their bargaining representative and their desire to secure other representation. Flagg, together with Leighton, who had already been "Polk said the entire committee as well as Flagg asserted the notice was not posted. In view of Wheeler's testimony, plus the fact that Flagg declared he did not hear any discussion as to the posting of shop rules, Polk's testimony in this respect is rejected. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 509 expelled by the Molders as its district representative , 12 then engaged in a cam- paign on behalf of the Metal & Machinery Workers in an attempt to replace the Molders as the bargaining representative . As part of this drive , Flagg, on August 5, notified the Company that the local membership had voted to disaffiliate from the Molders and advised the Company to send any money obtained through a•checkoff of dues to the Metal & Machinery Workers. Throughout this interval Flagg was not only fully cognizant of the agreement recently executed between the Company and the Molders but he was the principal representative of the union at the plant and charged with the duty of administering the terms of the agree- ment. Flagg's explanation of his status at the time of the above letter is interest- ing though unsound. Thus, he stated that while he intended to eliminate the Molders from the plant its existing agreement should continue to be observed. Again, although he represented the Metal & Machinery Workers for the purposes of the letter, he was not its representative in the shop, for there he alone repre- sented the men. In short, the Company was to maintain its obligations under the contract and Flagg himself was to administer the agreement without the Molders even being considered as a party thereto. Suffice it to say that this reasoning is contrary to elementary principles of contract law, and the policy and decisions of the Board in giving full recognition to and enforcement of bona fide agreements during the appropriate term thereof. But despite Flagg's actions, which the undersigned can only characterize as being in complete violation of his trust to the Molders, nevertheless, there is no evidence indicating that he was ever repudiated or removed as chairman by either the Molders or the employee- members at the plant. Consequently, the undersigned finds that Flagg during the critical period continued to serve as chairman of the shop committee. As chair- man and representative of the Molders his activities in this respect were clearly governed by the terms of the current agreement as well as the working rules of the Company, not inconsistent with those terms. The evidence, in the opinion of the undersigned , fully warrants the con- clusion that Flagg, upon assuming his duties as chairman, engaged in a course of conduct not only unsanctioned by the agreement and shop rules but in plain violation thereof. Thus, contrary to the no-strike provisions of the 1950-1951 agreement, Flagg called a 20-minute work stoppage on April 16, and again on May 22 called out the employees for the entire day. The General Counsel argues that the first stoppage was appropriate because Flagg, following a griev- ance meeting with management, called a meeting of the membership during working hours for the purpose of informing the members of the grievance and this action was in accordance with plant practice whereby the chairman held general meetings whenever he felt it necessary to do so. While the record shows that general meetings were held during the lunch period there is nothing to indicate that such meetings were called or held during normal working hours. The General Counsel seeks to justify the second stoppage on the grounds Leigh- ton decided to hold the meeting and that Flagg did not post any notice at the plant concerning same. Irrespective of whether Flagg actually posted any notice, he admitted that he passed the word around the plant that the meeting would be held and attended the same. The undersigned rejects the contentions of the General Counsel and finds that Flagg as chairman was responsible for, and actively participated in, the foregoing work stoppages. Flagg testified that it was not necessary for him to secure permission to leave his job and that he had the right to go anywhere in the plant on union matters. 12 In view of Flagg's testimony and the letter from the Molders to the Company, the undersigned , for the purpose of this case, has no difficulty reaching the conclusion that Leighton was expelled about June or July. 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As the number of grievances increased commencing about July, Viol! repeatedly warned Flagg about leaving his place of work. This action led Flagg to accuse Viol! of Interfering with his activities as chairman. In this connection Flagg, about August 21, during the discussion of a discharge with Violi, asserted that Viola said there was no union nor contract in effect at the plant. Viol! testi- fying in regard to the incident said that Flagg demanded that he be notified in advance of any discharge action and Violi pointed out there was no such provision in the Molders' agreement. Flagg replied he did not recognize the Molders "because he had his own union," whereupon Viol! replied in that case he did not consider Flagg as chairman because the contract he recognized was the one with the Molders. Violi's version is consistent with Flagg's expressed position that he, as distinguished from the Molders, was the representative of the employees. The undersigned therefore accepts and credits the testimony of Viol! and finds that Vloli did not make the statements attributed to him by Flagg. Following this discussion Flagg, about August 29, complained to Aiken of Viol! giving him trouble. Aiken, after informing Flagg he could func- tion as chairman, warned him to stay on the job and not to interfere with other employees. The evidence discloses and It is found that Hawkins was discharged by Hra- bak In the early morning of September 5 for absenteeism and failure to call In. Hawkins and his committeeman, Grill, after unsuccessfully discussing the discharge with Hrabak, reported the matter to Flagg and requested him to handle the case. Hawkins said that Hrabak suggested that he and Grill see Flagg but Hrabak denied that he made any suggestion. While the undersigned does not attach too much importance to this phase of the events, Hrabak's de- nial, considered in the light of the grievance procedure, seems more convincing than Hawkins' testimony and it Is accordingly accepted. It is undisputed that Hawkins, Grill, and Flagg discussed the discharge with Hrabak in Klein's office. It is equally clear that during the discussion Flagg accused Hrabak of effectuating a discharge without prior notification to him or "the Union." In this respect Flagg said Hrabak admitted lie was wrong. On the other hand Hrabak denied he made any such admission but said he told Flagg that the agreement contained no such provision, and he had never given previous notice to the committeeman concerning the employment, discharge, or layoff of em- ployees. Flagg's testimony on this point is rejected. The group had been dis- cussing Hawkins' case for about 15 minutes when Viola came in and asked Flagg what he was doing in Klein's office. When Flagg said he was handling a griev- ance, Violi informed him he had no business to be there, since he had no union, or contract, and discharged him. Violi testified he told Flagg he had left his work without permission and to return to his job but he refused to do so until he had concluded processing the grievance. Viol! repeated his demand and when Flagg again refused to leave Violi discharged him. Viol! thereupon ad- vised Hrabak not to listen to Flagg as he did not recognize the contract, hence he could not be recognized as shop chairman. Hawkins and Hrabak testified substantially the same as Flagg and Viol!, respectively. The foregoing evidence strikes the undersigned as being more variable than conflicting and, after weigh- ing and evaluating the same, finds that Flagg without permission left his place of work in order to discuss Hawkins' discharge with Hrabak and when he twice refused to return to work he was discharged by Viol!. Moreover, Flagg's action in attempting to adjust Hawkins' discharge with Hrabak can scarcely be con- sidered as a form of protected activity for it was in plain violation of the es- tablished grievance procedure which provided that if the dispute was not settled at the department foreman level then the chairman had the right to present CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 511 the matter to the plant superintendent, or his designated representative. Again Violi's questioning of Flagg's status as chairman is plainly predicated on the assumption that Flagg himself refused to recognize the Molders' agreement and is simply a repetition of the conversation between Flagg and Violi about August 21, discussed above. Shortly after the above events, the undersigned finds, Aiken met with Flagg and the committee and the meeting concluded with Aiken saying that he would advise the committee of his decision in about an hour. Later the same morning Aiken called in Flagg and the committee and informed them he needed additional time to consider Flagg' s case and would give them his answer at 10 o'clock the next morning. Under the circumstances this request does not appear unreasonable and is certainly not inconsistent with the grievance procedure. (Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Condenser Corporation of America, 128 F. 2d 67, 77 (C. A. 3).) However, Flagg immediately called a general meet- ing at which he reported Aiken's position and the employees voted to strike or refuse to work until the Company gave its decision In the Flagg case. The following morning the employees appeared outside the plant and when repre- sentatives of management and the shop committee failed to meet, due to the Company's refusal to permit Flagg and Leighton to be present, the employees commenced picketing the premises and continued to do so until about October 1, when the strike was settled. Meantime, about September 19, Aiken met with Flagg, the committee, Leibey, and Chapman in the course of which the Molders' representatives asked that Flagg be rehired but the Company refused to do so. The General Counsel contends that as it was the policy of the Company to allow employees to leave their work, without permission, to purchase candy and cigarettes, so likewise Flagg was privileged to leave his job in order to transact his duties as shop chairman. This contention is rejected. First, the under- signed fails to see any analogy between the above policy and Flagg's conduct, and second, there is no evidence that employees abused this privilege. The Gen- eral Counsel further contends that although Flagg was warned for leaving his department these warnings were not accompanied by any threat of discharge, that the Company condoned his actions for a long period of time, and is now merely using Flagg's alleged misconduct as an excuse for eliminating a zealous chairman and a militant leader for the Metal & Machinery Workers. It is true that Flagg was not threatened with discharge and obviously the Company did continue to employ him for about a year and a half despite repeated infractions of its rules. However, this does not mean that the Company was estopped or foreclosed from discharging Flagg for any reason, including an accumulation of acts of misconduct or insubordination;' other than those prohibited by the Act. This contention is therefore rejected. Counsel for the Company urge that Flagg was not finally discharged until September 6, when Aiken decided upon this action and so informed Flagg. The undersigned cannot accept this argument. The evidence is clear, and the under- signed finds, that Violi finally discharged Flagg on the morning of September 5. Counsel also contend that Flagg was responsible for the strike on that date, which was in violation of the agreement. In view of the findings herein it is unnecessary to determine this question. The record, in the opinion of the undersigned, fully supports the conclusion that Flagg was discharged for reasons other than his activities on behalf of the Molders, or the Metal & Machinery Workers, or because he engaged in legit- imate concerted activites. Indeed it seems crystal clear that Flagg completely misinterpreted his rights under the Molders' agreement and his responsibilities as shop chairman. Moreover, the methods pursued by him, such as the work stoppages and his untimely campaign to oust the lawful bargaining representa- is Fred A . Snow Company, 53 NLRB 977. 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive, unquestionably tended to disrupt, and did disrupt, the harmonious rela- tionship existing between the Molders and the Company and to prevent the orderly administration of a valid collective bargaining agreement. Conduct of this character is in plain controvension of the expressed purposes of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations of Crucible Steel Castings Company, at its plant located at 'Cleveland, Ohio, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 218, AFL, and Metal & Machinery Workers of America, Independent, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent, Crucible Steel Castings Company, has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY 1 and UNITED TExTmms WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 11-RC-417, 11-RC-418, 11-RC-421, 11-RC-42?, 11-RC-4R3, and 11-RC-4 29 (formerly Cases of the 34th Subregional office). November 21,1952 Decision and Order Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 2 was held before Martin L. Ball, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.8 3. The Employer and the Intervenor are parties to collective bar- gaining contracts covering the employees whose representation is sought here. These contracts do not expire until May 1, 1953, and their existence is urged by the Intervenor as a bar to the petitions filed herein. ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. x These cases were consolidated by order of the hearing officer at the hearing over the objection of counsel for the Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, herein termed the Intervenor. We hereby affirm the action of the hearing officer inasmuch as the issues, parties , and, to a great extent , the factual situation involved in each of the cases are identical. 3 The Intervenor was granted intervention at the hearing without objection. 101 NLRB No. 97.