American Furnace Co.

In the Matter of AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY and LOCAL No. 99, STOVE MOUNTERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL Case No. 14-C-1015.-Decided January 8, 1946 DECISION AND ORDER On June 14, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re- port 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 out in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On December 18, 1945, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C. The respond- ent and the Union were represented and participated in the argument. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions, the contentions advanced at the oral argument before the Board, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices which independently violated Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act, we shall, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Our cease and desist order is also predicated on the following find- ings : As more fully revealed in the Intermediate Report, the respond- ent's campaign of interference, restraint, and coercion with the employ- ees' self-organizational rights included threats of moving the plant should the employees select the Union as their bargaining agent; an at- tempt to have union members withdraw from the Union; permitting the mayor to make an anti-union speech to the employees at the plant, in 65 N. L. R. B., No. 52. 247 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which speech the mayor stressed the possibility of the respondent moving the plant if the Union came in ; permitting the distribution on the respondent's premises of anti-union literature while prohibiting the distribution at the same place of pro-union literature ; posting a notice to the effect that it was not necessary to join the Union in order to continue to work for the respondent without also indicating that joining the Union would not result in loss of work, a fear which had been instilled in the employees by the mayor's speech and state- ments of a supervisory employee ; and the sponsoring and mainte- nance of a company-dominated and supported labor organization, which presents a ready and effective means of obstructing self -organi- zation of employees and their choice of their own representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose we are convinced and find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices prescribed by the Act and that a danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interde- pendent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, American Furnace Company, Red Bud, Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Amer- ican Furnace Labor Organization, by whatever name known, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support to the American Furnace Labor Organization, by whatever name known, or to any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) Recognizing the American Furnace Labor Organization, by whatever name known, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con- ditions of employment; AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY 249 (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise,of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local No. 99, Stove Mounters In- ternational Union of North America, AFL, or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively, through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the American, Furnace Labor Organization, by whatever name known, as the repre- sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment and com- pletely disestablish the American Furnace Labor Organization, by whatever name known, as such representative: (b) Post at its plant, at Red Bud, Illinois, copies of the notice at- tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the Regional Director 'for the Fourteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : We hereby disestablish American Furnace Labor Organization, by whatever name known, as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev- ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes. 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or ad- ministration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local No. 99, Stove Mounters International Union of North America, AFL or any other labor or- ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY, Employer. Dated -------------------- By ------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced. cr covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Keith W. Blinn, for the Board Case, 'Voyles Case, by Mr. Clarence 7' Case, of St Louis, Mo., for the respondent. Mr. John F. Green, of Belleville, Ill., for the Union. ST ATEHENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on March 30, 1945, by Local No. 99, Stove Mounters International Union of North America, AFL, herein called the Stove Mounters, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Mis- souri ), issued its complaint, dated April 2, 1945, against American Furnace Company, Red Bud, Illinois, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent, the Stove Mounters and American Furnace Labor Organization, an alleged illegal labor organization. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in sub- stance: (1) that during the period from about September 1944, to the date of the issuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Respondent, by its officers, agents, and representatives, including Algernon Gucker, Orville Kaffenberger, and Arnold Schrieber, urged, persuaded, and warned its employees from becom- ing or remaining members of the Stove Mounters; questioned them concerning their union activities and affiliations; made disparaging remarks to- them about the Stove Mounters ; threatened to cease operations if the Stove Mounterm succeeded in organizing the plant; and distributed anti-union circulars and notices; (2) that on or about November 1943 the Respondent initiated, formed, and sponsored a labor organization known as American Furnace Labor Organ- AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY 251 ization, and thereafter dominated, interfered with the administration of, and contributed' financial and other support to, said organization; and (3) that by the afore.aid acts, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On April 14, 1945, the Respondent filed its answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Red Bud, Illinois, on April 24 and 25, 1945, before the undersigned, W P Webb, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Respondent, and the Stove Mounters were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.' Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro- duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board's counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to formal matters. The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. Opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner at the conclusion of the hearing was waived by the parties Briefs have been received by the Trial Examiner from counsel for the Board and the Respondent. 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 Respondent, American Furnace Company, is a Missouri corporation, hav- ing its principal office at St Louis, Missouri. It is duly licensed to do business in the State of Illinois. It owns and operates a plant in Red Bud, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of steel furnaces and plastic plywood boxes. The principal raw materials used at the plant are steel, plastic plywood, steel rivets, and paint During the calendar year 1944, the Re- spondent purchased such raw materials in excess of $1,000,000 in value, of which over 90 percent was obtained and shipped to the plant from States other than the State of Illinois. During the same period the Respondent manufactured, at its Red Bud plant, finished products in excess of $1,800.000 in value, of which over 80 percent was shipped to points outside of Illinois. The Respondent is en- gaged in war work to the extent of about 90 percent of its operations. It con- cedes that it is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local No 90, Stove Mounters Inteinational Union of North America, AFL, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and American Furnace Labor Organization, unaffiliated, are labor organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. Background In February 1942 the Respondent moved its plant from St Louis, Missouri, to, Red Bud, Illinois, retaining only executive offices and storage facilities in St. Louis. As an inducement to make this move, the business men of Red Bud had, I The American Furnace Labor Organization did not file an answer to the complaint ands was not represented by counsel at the hearing. 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD subscribed approximately $27,000 for the erection of a suitable plant building, which under the terms of an agreement, was deeded to the Respondent after it had paid out the sum of $250,000 in wages. This provision of the contract had been complied with and the Respondent had acquired title to the property prior to the organizational campaign of the Stove Mounters. It was necessary to enlarge the municipal water and power facilities to meet the demands of the Respondent's plant, therefore the City of Red Bud raised approximately $50,000 by the issuance of bonds, and installed the improvements. When the Red Bud plant was opened, Eugene C. Koch, the Respondent's plant superintendent at St. Louis, was transferred to the Red Bud plant as superintendent. About July 1942, the Respondent began the production of war material at the Red Bud plant, which necessitated a considerable increase in its working force.2 According to Algernon C. tucker, a local druggist also a member of the Red Bud Chamber of Commerce and the local Draft Board, he was one of the com- mittee of Red Bud business men which went to St. Louis in 1940, to discuss with Clarence S. Franke, president of the Respondent, the proposition of moving the plant to Red Bud. After the plant had been moved, Gucker, at the request of the local Chamber of Commeice, endeavored to assist the Respondent in securing workers by letting it be known that applicants could leave their names at his drug store and he,would communicate with them whenever lie had been notified by Superintendent Koch that additional employees were required. Gucker did that because he had subscribed $750 toward the cost of the Red Bud plant and was anxious for the business to succeed Gucker did no hiring himself, but sent the applicants to Superintendent Koch. After the respondent had employed a personnel manager in October 1942, Gucker ceased these activities. The Re- spondent has no interest nor control over Gucker's drug business, nor does Gucker have any connection with or financial interest in the Respondent nor any voice in the conduct of its business or the formulation of its business policies and no authority over working conditions in the Respondent's plant. In October 1942, the Respondent employed Victor Guebert and put him in charge of the personnel department of the Red Bud plant under Superintendent Koch. Guebert's first duties were to recruit approximately 150 additional employees, which he proceeded to do s The following incident illustrates the anti-union attitude of the Red Bud business men : According to J. W Berry, a teacher in the Red Bud Community High School, Arnold Sehrieber, a local business man and a member of the Red Bud School Board, gave him a typewritten circular letter 4 and requested him to run off a 2 These findings are based upon the undisputed testimony of several witnesses 'Guebert interviewed applicants , filled out their applications , and recommended to Superintendent Koch whether they should be hired . In the Respondent's application for wage increases with wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division . U S Department of Labor , St Louis , Missouri , on December 1, 1943 , the Respondent stated that the duties of the Personnel Manager were as follows he is responsible for properly handling the requirements under present Gov Ruling regarding letters of availability , age certificates , social secuiity iecoids, etc He checks and computes pav of each employee from time cards Makes out any accident reports and handles any minor labor matters that may come up Guebert testified that this job description correctly reflected his position in the plant at that time and still does with the exception of the accident reports 4 The full text of the letter was as follows RED BUD, ILLINOIS October 27, 1944 To the Employees of Amei lean Furnace Company For many years the Red Bud Business Alen and other loyal citizens worked very hard to get a good industry to locate in Red Bud so that our local people would have AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY 253 number of copies on the school hectograph machine, and to purchase the paper and charge it to the "business men of Red Bud." Berry complied with the request and delivered the copies to Schrieber. Schrieber first testified that the first time he saw the circular letter was when he found it on his desk in his office, and that he did not know who had prepared it or who had brought it to his office. He also denied having given it to Berry, but stated that he gave it to Koelling, the School Superintendent. On cross-examination Schrieber was asked if the circular letter came from President Franke, and he replied that he did not "think" that Franke gave it to him. Schrieber also testified that he was a member of the "Business Men's Association" in Red Bud and, when asked if he knew whether or not anyone connected with that organization had prepared the circular letter, he replied "No, I don't. I don't know whether it was written by a schoolboy or the attorney here in town or who wrote it." Schrieber finally admitted that 100 or more copies of the circular letter were sent to his office and that he had extra copies made. Also, that at a meeting of the Business Men's Association, the circular letter was approved by them and they agreed that Schrieber should take them to the plant and distribute them to the Respondent's employees. On or about the date appearing on the circular letter, Schrieber gave them out to the employees at the plant. He passed them out indiscriminately to all employees, as they carne out of the plant He was standing on the plant premises near the front door. Nothing was said to him by any supervisory employee and he was not interfered with in any way. Schrieber's testimony in iespect to his reason for distributing this circular letter reads as follows: Well, it was for the interest of the business at heart that I felt we should try to protect it. We had lost so many plants at Red Bud, and I thought it was high time we held one. While testifying, Schrieber was asked the question, "Did you get the approv al or the sanction of any supervisory officer at the plant or executive to go down there and distribute these circulars?" He replied, "No, sir, I never asked for it " The record does not disclose that the Respondent had any control over either the Business Men's Association or Schrieber, or that they had any connection with, emploinient After iaising about $27,00000 the Ameiican Furnace Conipain was induced to conic to Red Bud and the nioney was used towai ds construction of our factory One of the agreements made with the American Finnace Company was that aftei a ceitain payroll was paid out. the factory and all seal estate with it was to be deeded over to the company We all know that this amount of payroll was met over a keai ago, and todai the Ameiican Furnace Company owns all property and are at liberty to do with it as thei please Under the circumstances the Ameiican Furnace Company can lock the doors as they see fit They can move out, rent out the build- m_ and thei can move elsewhere What law can prevent the Company from doing what they wish with the property? Please do not be misled by all kinds of state- ments Do tom own investigating Do the people who have been employed for several (sic) feel that the company has been unfair' Is the present movement spon- sored by outsiders' Do the people who live here realize the seriousness of the pres- ent action' Do the most of the workers think nothing of foicing the door of the factory to close and deny people living here the right to isork' Wages paid in the eutne box depa rtnient are certainly in line with similar industries, even in St Louis. Throughout Dlissoun and Illinois aie many closed factories and plants which will never be re-opened Some iscre shoe factories, knitting mills. etc Don't be unsleil by glowing statements of Unions You are a niembe' onh i,, ion, as von pay dries Are working conditions bad in the plant' If difficulties aiice in the plant, does not the management correct' Has the managemmot been con,ulted toneerning organiz- ing' Before any decisions aie reached please consult isith the management and use }our best judgment to keep the factory here The Bu,uieva Alen of Red Bud 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or financial interest in, the Respondent, or any voice in the conduct of the Re- spondent's business or the formulation of the Respondent's policies. Although the record is clear that both the Respondent and a majority of the business men of Red Bud were opposed to the Stove Mounters organizing the Respondent's employees, the undersigned makes no finding that the Respondent is liable for the distribution of this anti-union letter at the plant by Schrieber ° 2 Interference, restraint, and coercion On September 17, 1944, John F Green. vice president of the Stove Mounters, went to Red Bud and inaugurated an organizational campaign among the Re- spondent's employees. Meetings of the employees were held and a charter for Local 99 was secured. On October 23, 1944, Green informed the Respondent by letter that the Stove Mounters was the representative of the employees and re- quested a conference for the purpose of negotiating a contract. The Respondent did not reply. On October 30, 1944, Green telephoned to President Franke in St. Louis. Franke acknowleged receipt of the September letter and they ar- ranged for a meeting on November 3, 1944 The meeting was held in Franke's office in St. Louis. Green and a committee of employees from the Red Bud plant were present and represented the Stove Mounters Green introduced `himself to President Franke and stated the object of the meeting. He also submitted to Franke,a proposed contract. Franke asked the coat rnttee why they had organized. He also gaid to them, "If you are dissatisfied with the plant you should have taken it up with Mr. Koch or taken your troubles up with us" The Committee then said that they wanted to organize in order to enjoy some of the benefits of collective bargaining Franke told them that if they were dissatisfied with their wages, they should have come to him and lie would have been willing to meet with them. Green insisted that the employees should be organized and requested Franke to consider the proposed agreement. Franke agreed to submit it to his Board of Directors and let Green know later Green telephoned Franke on November 13 and another meeting was arranged for November 15. The meet- ing was held and the same conferees were present Franke said that his Board of Directors had instructed him to get a' list of all the employees,who were ineinbers of the Stove Mounters. Green refused to divulge their names until after a contract had been signed. Franke then metused to recognize the Stove Mounters or to continue the negotiations unless the Haines were furnished. Negotiations ceased and the Stove Mounters filed it Petition for Investigation and Certification with the Board.° As it result, a consent election agreement was entered into and an election was held in the plant on December 7, 1944 The Stove Mounters lost the election During the negotiations with the Stove Mounters Franke did not mention the American Furnace Labor Organization? In October 1944 Personnel Manager Guebert asked William Bitch, a former employee of the respondent, to tell his two daughters, who were employees of the Respondent, to see employee Ei dman and have him i efund the money that they had paid to the Stove Mounters. Guebert also said to Bitch, "Now we got the factory going down here in Red Bud, and nie going good, and Erwin Erd- man wants to come from Horse Prairie with this union "8 According to the testimony of employee George Kern, which is credited by the undersigned, in October 1944 Guebert told him to go to Gucker's drug store 8 Springfield Woolen Mills, 41 N L It. B 921 ; Ely and Walker Drygoods Co., 40 N. L. R B. 1202 ° Case No. 14-R-1107. ° These findings are based upon the testimony of Green and Franke 8 This finding is based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Buch. AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY 255 as Gucker wanted to talk to hini . Kern went to the drug store and Gucker stated to him as follows : That the business people of Red Bud did not want that factory organized, and they was the ones that had that factory come to Red Bud, and that they all give money toward it, and he had seven hundred dollars toward it. If they organized and throwed a picket line. they have women in Red Bud who would shoot their way in. And also if organized the fac- tory would leave Red Bud. According to the undemed testimony of Foreman Paul Rieke,' which is credited by the undersigned, in the latter part of October 1944, Orville A. Kaffenberger,'0 the then Mayor of Red Bud and President of the Lions Club, made a speech at the plant just after 4: 00 p. m. to approximately all of the employees, both day and night shifts In respect to Kaffenberger's speech, Rieke's testimony reads as follows : Ile [Haffenberger] said business people were responsible for having the plant down here, and that they put a lot of money in it, and the Ameri- can Furnace Company had met all of their agreements with them and they could go out or probably would move out it the Union came in there . . . Could move out and probably would if we joined the Union or had any trouble down there. Then he said he did not see why we had to get somebody else in there to organize because Mr. Franke, President of the American Furnace Company, would not recognize any American Federation of Labor or CIO but he would recognize a Shop Union, then he said they had a meeting with Mr. Franke the night before, and he had met with Mr. Franke and if there were any differences down there between the employees we should, if we did not want to talk to Mr. Franke himself we should appoint a committee and he would be the go-between man.'1 K.iffenberger talked about 15 minutes and no work went on in the plant dur- ing his speech, although the night shift was due to begin work about 4: 00 p m. Kaffenberger testified that he made the speech with the knowledge and con- sent of President Franke, and that, among other things, he told the employees that the business men "were interested in the employees organizing a com- pany union , whereby the dues collected would remain in their own treasury, to be spent for their own benefit, and not go into all outside treasury " Ac- cording to the testimony of President Franke and Superintendent Koch the employees were never advised by the Respondent, either orally or by written notice, that the Respondent assumed no responsibility for Kaffenberger's re- marks. According to. Personnel Manager Guebert, sometime daring November 1944, he was asked by several employees whether or not the Respondent would move the Red Bud plant to St. Louis if the Stove Mounters came to Red Bud, and he replied "It is possible they might." About that time Guebert was also asked by a number of employees if the Stove Mounters was a good union to join. Guebert's testimony in this respect reads as follows : There were a lot of them I could not recall their names The question was put to me what I thought of the Stove Mounters Union being the organiza- tion down at the American Furnace Company plant. I do recall telling them that I could not understand why they would want the Stove Mounters 9 According to the undenled testimony of Paul Rieke he was foreman of the spot welders 10 Kaffenberger was accompanied by Schrieber, Gucker, and several other local business men 11 This testimony of Paul Rieke was substantially corroborated by employee Erdman. 679100-46-vol. 65-18 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union when we only had three mounters out of two hundred employees, most of them making boxes. According to Superintendent Koch, during November 1944 he posted on the plant bulletin board a typewritten notice signed by him which stated "It is not necessary for any employee to belong to an organization to continue working here." This notice remained posted until after the consent election on December 7, 1944. He stated that he posted the notice because it had come to his attention that some of the employees had been told that unless they joined the Stove Mounters they could not work in the plant. Koch's testimony in respect to this notice, reads as follows: So in order to let the people know they did not have to comply with that kind of coercion, I thought it would be best to put up a notice to that effect that they could continue to work On December 6, 1944, the day before the election, while employee E F. Erdman was passing out copies of a Stove Mounters' hand bill at the plant, Superintendent Koch said to him, "You can't give them out here on the premises. If you want to do that give them out on the lot. And don't let me catch you on the inside giving them out to employees, or I will have to bung up charges against you." This occurred early in the morning, before Erdman was due to go to work. He was outside the plant, but standing on the Respondent's premises. He dis- continued the disti ibution of the c irculm , The Respondent had no rule pro- Whiting the distribution of circulars on the plant premises In the Molter of LeTouineau Company of Ueoigta and United Steeliaoici.i of America, 0 1. O.," the Board stated as follows. Upon all the above considerations. we are convinced, and find, that the respondent, in applying its "no-distributing" rule to the distribution of union literature by its employees on its paikmg lots has placed an unreasonable impediment on the freedom of communication essential to the exercise of its employees' right to self-organization . . . C. Conclusions with respect to interference, restiaint, and coercion Upon the foregoing facts, the undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the Respondent has failed to maintain the neutrality that the Act requires in respect to the right of its employees to choose their representative for the purpose of col- lective bargaining. At the very first meeting between the Respondent and the union representatiies, which included i number of Respondent's employees, President Franke indicated his hostility toward the Union by telling the em- ployees, in substance, that they should have come to him or gone to Superintendent Koch with their troubles, instead of to the Union Franke also refused to nego- tiate with the Union unless he was furnished the names of the union members Personnel Manager Guebert was also active in defeating the Union's efforts to organize the employees by endeavoring to have two members withdraw from the Union. He also sent employee Kern to see druggist Gucker who gave him an anti-union talk Superintendent Koch admitted that he posted a notice in the plant to offset rumored union propaganda He also piohibited the distribution of union circulars on the plant premises, but made no protest when anti-union circulars were similarly distributed at the plant The Respondent further dis- played its desire to prevent the Union from organizing the employees by stopping all wok in the plant and permitting Mayer Kaffenberger to make it speech to 13 54 N L N B 1253, affirmed by U S Supreme Court April 23, 1945, Nos. 226 and 452. AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY 257 the employees , in which he stressed the dire results which would be likely to follow if the employees joined the Union. The undersigned finds that by the foregoing acts and statements of Franke, Koch, and Guebert, by permitting and endorsing the anti-union speech of Kaffen- berger in the plant, by posting in the plant the notice in respect to union member- ship, and by prohibiting the distribution, on plant premises, of union circulars, as found above, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exereise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 3 The formation and domination of American Furnace Labor Organization In November 1943, 1 petition for a wage increase was circulated throughout the plant, by one Eggerdmg, a then non-supervisory employee. Approximately all of the employees signed it. It was then presented to Superintendent Koch. About a week later, Koch called Foreman Paul Rieke and his brother Fred Rieke 33 into his office during working hours. When they arrived at the office they found Franke, Koch, Guebert and Mr. Archibald, an executive from St. Louis, also five foremen 14 and employee Emerson. Franke asked "What it was all about." The employees said that they wanted a raise in wages because of the increased cost of living. Nothing was agreed upon at that meeting. A few days later another meeting was held and the same conferees were present, together with Mr. Keck, a State Labor Conciliator` The subject of a wage increase was discussed, and Keck suggested that the employees elect a Com- mittee to represent the employees About 3 days later, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent, an election was held in the plant during working hours. Blank ballots were distributed among the employees by Personnel Man- ager Guebert and others, and each employee wrote the names of 9 employees on the ballot A second ballot was taken and the 3 out of the 9 who received the most votes were selected as the Committee, herein called the First Committee. They were Foreman Ellis, Fred Rieke, and Pearl Grithn" A few days after the election, the First Committee had a meeting, during working hours, with Franke, Archibald, Koch and Guebert. They agreed upon a 10-percent wage increase. At the request of the First Committee and with the approval of President Franke, Personnel Managet Guebert was selected to act for and to represent the First Committee." On December 1. 1943, the Respondent submitted to Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division, United States Department of Labor, St. Louis, Missouri, an executed National War Labor Board Form 10," for a wage increase for approxi- mately 190 employees, including an increase for Guebert, the personnel manager. On January 4, P144. the application was approved in part 19 The application was signed, "For the Employer," by R. A. Etavard, Secretary and Treasurer of the Respondent, and "For the Labor Organization" by Personnel Manager Guebert, Representative. The name cf the labor organization was given as "Amer., Fur- nace Co. Labor Org" Guebert testified that the "American Furnace Company Labor Organization" is the same as the "American Furnace Labor Organization " 13 Fied Rieke etas in assembles in the Furnace Department 11 These foremen wete Luther Ellis, Charles and Bert Sipple, Stanley Moeny and Wilbert Cheat There was no contention that these employees were not foremen The record does not di,close iiht heck was present. Pearl Gtufiin was i punch pies,; of brake operator "These findings are ba,ed upon the cimlible anti indented testimony of Fred Rieke 18"Application ton approial of a wage of salary rate adjustment o1 schedule" "'The application 1%a, denied in icspect to the foieuien in the Steel, Box and Sliippmg Depai tnients 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Guebert further testified that he did not know who selected the name "American Furnace Labor Organization ." His testimony in this respect, reads as follows : Q. Who selected the name "American Furnace Labor Organization?" A. I don't know. Q. That is in your handwriting, is it not? A. Yes. Q You do not know who ever told you that would be the name? A. I don't know. ' Q. Did anyone ever tell you that would be the name of the organization? A. I think so . It must have been one of the committee It is too long ago 20 According to Guebert, he made two trips to Kansas City, Missouri, during December 1943, "to acquaint the War Labor Board with the conditions at the plant, and ask to get this wage increase allowed." The Respondent paid his expenses for both trips, and also his salary during the time he was away from the plant. American Furnace Labor Organization paid no part of this expense. He was representing both the Respondent and the American Furnace Labor Organization. In the first part of September 1944, another petition for a wage increase was circulated in the Furnace and Shipping Departments of the plant by employee John Wetzel. When the petition reached Superintendent Koch, the latter called Fred Rieke, Wetzel and Walter Guebert t1 into his office and designated them as a committee, herein called the Second Committee, to represent the American Furnace Labor Organization. They agreed on a 10-percent wage increase. Personnel Manager Guebert was selected to represent both the Second Committee and the Respondent. Fred Rieke was the only member of the Second Committee who had been a memberof the First Committee. According to Koch, the members of the Second Committee were selected by him because they were the ones most interested in the second application for wage increase On September 9, 1944, the Respondent submitted another application for wage increases to the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division. U. S. Department of Labor, Centralia, Illinois. This application was signed by the same parties who signed the first application, except the name of the "Labor Organization" was given as "American Furnace Labor Organization." In the body of this appli- cation there appears the following statement. "American Furnace Company Labor Organization, Victor Guebert, representative, Red Bud, Illinois " In its letter accompanying the application, the Respondent stated, as follows: A verbal agreement has been arrived at between the management of the Company and the American Furnace Labor Organization, to establish a rate range to allow for merit raise to be given those employees who qualify, in order to properly compensate those employees for skill and efficiency which they have acquired and which is required for production of items on our various war contracts and our normal products Thanking you to give this application to put our agreement into effect your early apps oval, we remain. According to Personnel Manager Guebert , he made a trip to Chicago, Illionis, in October 1944 to "acquaint the War Labor Board with our situation and to try 20 Fred Rieke was a member of the First Committee . He testified that he knew nothing about an organization known as the American Furnace Labor Organization , and that he had never heard the name before. 21 Wetzel was a mounter Walter Guebert was the brother of Personnel Manager Victor Guebeit, and worked in the Shipping Department AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY 259 to get approval of this request in wage increase" While in Chicago, Guebert contacted Mr. Sherman of the War Labor Board, and told him that he was very anxious to get immediate approval of the application as "delay might cause trouble." The respondent paid Guebert's expenses during this trip, and also his regular salary The application was approved on November 8, 1944. In January or February 1945, another and different committee, herein called the Third Committee, was selected by Superintendent Koch to represent the American Furnace Labor Organization The Third Committee wds composed of both foremen and non-supervisory employees.-" According to Koch, he selected the Third Committee after discussing the matter with Foreman Ellis and em- ployee Fred Rieke. The Third Committee was appointed for the purpose of im- proving "working conditions" in the plant. According to Fred Rieke the Third Committee had weekly meetings with management during working hours for the discussion of working conditions. Guebert testified that about "forty-five or sixty days ago" the Respondent filed another application with the National War Labor Board for the approval of vacations with pay. This application was signed by the same parties who signed the two previous applications. Victor Guebert signed it as the representative of the American Furnace Labor Organization.' This application was filed subsequent to the selection of the Third Committee. The Respondent and the American Furnace Labor Organization are now negotiating for an agreement in respect to a profit sharing plan for the employees. Personnel Manager Guebert is still the representative of the American Furnace Labor Organization Concluding findings in respect to the American Furnace Labor Organization 11 That the Respondent was opposed to the Stove Mounters is clearly shown in the record A majority of the business men of Red Bud were equally anxious to prevent the Stove Mounters from organizing the Respondent's ph,nt, because of the persistent rumors that, in such an event, the Respondent would move the plant to St. Louis. The Respondent has fulfilled its obligations to the busi- ness men in respect to the required amount of wages to be paid out and had acquired title to the plant premises, prior to the organizational campaign of the Stove Mounters, and it could move the plant if it so desired. The employees had no voice in the selection of the Second or Third Committee nor in their negotiations with the Respondent American Furnace Labor Organization had no constitution or by-laws, and no source of ievenne other than the Re- spondent. The traveling expenses of Guebert, the representative of American Furnace Labor Organization, to Kansas City and Chicago were paid by the Re- spondent Even the name of the dominated organization must have originated with Guebert, as he admitted that he wrote it in the applications for wage in- creases, but could not remember who suggested it. Fred Rieke, a member of the First and Second Committee testified that lie had never heard of the name American Furnace Labor Organization. The election of the First Committee was held in the plant with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent The Second and Third Committees were selected by Superintendent Koch, with- out reference to the wishes, if any, of the employees. The Third Committee includes several foremen. The Respondent's personnel manager, Guebert, was " The foremen were Ellis, Paul Rieke, Choat, Mocny, Charlie Sipple, Wolf Rehmer, Liefer and Annefeld Giiffin (Forelady). The non-supervisory employees were Fred Rieke, Walter Guebert, Pearl Griffin, and Jimmy Tobin The record shows that the Third Com- mittee was active and functioning at the time of the instant hearing, and the undersigned so finds. 23 The application has been approved by the National War Labor Board. 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD chosen as the representative of all three committees, and still is the representa- tive of the Third Committee for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondent. Obviously such a bargaining agent as the American Furnace Labor Organization is incapable of serving the Respondent's employees, as a bona ?rde collective bargaining agency, within the meaning of the Act Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned finds that the Respondent sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation of the American Furnace Labor Organiza- tion and contributed financial and other support to it. It is further -found that by said acts, and by the various acts of interference, restraint. and coer- cion engaged in by the supervisory employees of the Respondent as above re- lated, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade. traffic, and com- merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY " Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor'„practices affecting commerce, it'will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the under- signed finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of American Furnace Labor Organization and contributed support to it. The undersigned finds that the effect and conse- quences of such domination, interference, and support render American Furnace Labor Organization incapable of serving the Respondent's employees as a bona fide collective bargaining agency, and the recognition of American Furnace Labor Organization by the Respondent as the bargaining representative of any of its employees would constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by the employees of the right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing It will therefore be recom- mended that the Respondent withdraw all recognition from American Furnace Labor Organization as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and com- pletely disestablish American Furnace Labor Organization as such representative. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local No 99, Stove Mounters International Union of North America, AFL, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and American Furnace Labor 2-i The "American Furnace Labor Organisation" as described in this Intermediate Report includes each of the aforesaid three Committees, which have represented the Respondent's employees, and in particular the present or "Third Committee," however constituted and by whatever name it may be known. AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY 261 Or:;amzation. unaffiliated, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2 By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of American Furnace Labor Organization and by contributing support to it, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act 3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 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 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, American Furnace Company, Red Bud, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or contributing support to, American Furnace Labor Organization; and dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of, or contributing support to, any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) In any other manner interfering with. restraining. or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to foi ni labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Local No. 99, Stove Mounters International Union of North America, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act 2. Take the fallowing affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw all recognition from American Furnace Labor Organization as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish American Furnace Labor Organization as such representative; (b) Post at its plant at Red Bud, Illinois, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Re- spondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recomniended that unless on or before ten (i0) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Re- pional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board-Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944-any party or counsel for the Board, may within fifteen (15) clays from the (late of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Build- ing, WW?ashington, 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies_ of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement bf exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. W. P WEBB, Trial- Examiner. Dated June 14, 1945. APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the'National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: We hereby disestablish American Furnace Labor Organization as the rep- resentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment, or other conditions of employment, and we kill not recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes We will riot dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contiibute financial or other support to it. We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local No. 99, Stove Mounters International Union of North Amer- ica, AFL or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. AMERICAN FURNACE COMPANY, Employer. Dated -------------------- By'----------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.