Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Co.

MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 75555. ... interference with an election by one party does not license- interference by the other. It is impossible to gauge with mathe- matical precision the extent to which improper pressures on tho, employees by one party have been offset by improper pressures by the other party. It would be unrealistic to assume that where, as here, the opposing pressures consist of the same kind of mis- conduct, they have canceled each other out and the employees' freedom of choice has been left unimpaired. As the Employer permitted Local 107 to talk to the assembled night shift employees on company time and property within 24 hours of the instant election, in violation of the Peerless Plywood rule, we, in agreement with the Regional Director's recommendations, sustain the Petitioner's objections to the election on that ground.' Accordingly, we shall set aside the election of March 30, 1955, and' direct that a new election be held. [The Board set aside the election held March 30,1955.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]; CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEDIBER RODGERS took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election. 5 We find no merit in the Employei's contention that Peerless Plywood is inapplicable. because the Teamsters is not a party to this proceeding or because the Teamsters' speech to the night shift workers was not delivered to a massed assembly of employees within the meaning of that case. Rib let Welding and Mfg. Corp , 112 NLRB 712; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 111 NLRB 623. Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company and' Frederick E. Cronk Local 155, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and' Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) and- Frederick E. Cronk. Cases Nos. 7-CA-909 and 7-CB-154. August 17,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1954, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his Inter-- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The, 113 NLRB No. 78. 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the General Counsel's exceptions, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent with our decision herein. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent Company had vio- lated Section 8 (a) -(1), (2), and (3), and the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2), of the Act because an em- ployee, Frederick E. Cronk, had been laid off by the Company at the request of the Union for reasons other than his failure to tender periodic dues and initiation fees. However, the Trial Examiner de- clined to recommend any remedy for Cronk on the ground that he was such an undesirable employee that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to do so. The Trial Examiner found the circumstances of the instant case analogous to those in the decision in Kingston Cake,' where the discharged employee also was denied any remedy. We believe, however, that the circumstances in these two cases are distinguishable. In the Kingston Cake case, the discharged employee, a union officer, who had transferred his allegiance to a rival union,, refused to file a non-Communist affidavit as required by the Act in order to prevent the union of which he was an officer from securing a place on the ballot in a representation election. This was a direct interference with the processes of the Act; accordingly, the court held it would not have effectuated its policies to have granted either re- instatement or back pay to that employee. In the instant matter, Cronk has in no way abused or obstructed the- processes of the Act. One reason why the Trial Examiner failed to, recommend any remedy for Cronk was that Cronk had admittedly falsified certain of his previous employment records in order to secure, a journeyman card from the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council of UAW-CIO, which was issued to persons who could show 10 years' experience in the tool and die trade. Among other things, this journeyman card entitled Cronk to a 10-cent per hour increase- in wages, pursuant to a verbal agreement between the Company and Union. The second reason why the Trial Examiner believed that Cronk should be denied any remedy was Cronk's abusive conduct respecting a fellow employee, Kachel. Cronk, who was chief steward at the plant, threatened the Company's management with a union strike if Kachel were not discharged. During the period in question, Cronk may not have been a desirable' employee and the Board does not condone such conduct. Certainly, the Company could have discharged him for securing an undeserved raise by means of the fraudulently obtained journeyman card. How- ever, the Company has at no time indicated that it found Cronk so un- IN. L. R. B. v. Kingston Cake Co., 91 NLRB 447, enft. denied 206 F. 2d 604 (C. A. 8). MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 757 desirable that, absent union pressure, it was unwilling to employ him. Indeed, previous to the hearing, it notified Cronk that it would actively reinstate him as soon as business conditions improved. Moreover, we cannot overlook the fact that a denial of the normal remedy of rein- statement would leave the effects of 'his unlawful layoff by the Re- spondents effectively unremedied and thus fail to effectuate the policies of the Act. Under all the circumstances we shall, accordingly, order the usual remedy for Cronk.a At the hearing, the complaints were amended to allege that since on or about January 1, 1953, the Respondents have had an agreement re- quiring membership in and/or a clearance from the Union as a condi- tion of employment and as a condition of receiving journeyman pay. In support of this foregoing allegation, the General Counsel attempted to prove that the Respondent Company, in pursuance of an oral agree- ment with the Union, required applicants for a job as journeyman toolmaker to have a journeyman card from the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council and that such card was issued only to members of the UAW-CIO. The Trial Examiner apparently found that such an arrangement existed in fact, but recommended dismissal of the complaints in this regard because , in his view, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to find the arrangement violative of the Act. Although we agree with the Trial Examiner's recommended con- clusion to dismiss the complaints in this respect , we make this determi- nation solely on the ground that the evidence adduced by the General Counsel was not sufficient to establish that the Respondent .Company required as a condition of initial employment a journeyman card issued by the Council solely to members of the UAW-CIO. We hereby adopt all the remaining findings , conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that: 1. The Respondent; Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: (a) Cease and desist from : (1) Entering into, renewing, or enforcing the clauses of any agree- ments with the Respondent Union, or any other labor organization, 2 We shall order that Cronk be reinstated and made whole by the Respondents for any loss of pay suffered by him from the tine of his actual layoff until the time Cronk would have been laid off on a seniority basis due to the contraction of the Company' s business iIn the absence of any exceptions by either Respondent, we adopt the findings of the Trial Examinei that the union-seem ity `provision in their 'contract was violative of the Act. 758 ' DECISIONS ' OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which require its, employees'fo join,'or-maintain their membership in, such labor organization 'as a ' condition • of employment, unless- such agreement has been authorized as provided in the Act. = (2) Encouraging membership in the Respondent Union or in any other-labor organization of its employees; by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of any of its employees because he is not a member in good standing of such labor organization, except to the extent authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. - (3) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or'coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization; to `form labor organizations, to join or assist the Respondent Union, or'any other labor organization, to bargain collectively- through represents= tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid-or protection; or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the 'extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring 'member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author- ized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : - (1) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Union, make whole Frederick E. Cronk for any-loss he may have suffered by reason-of the discrimination against him, by paying to him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned in the Company's employ from the period when he was discriminatorily laid off on April 29, 1953, until such period when he would have been laid off on a seniority basis (as well as such period when he would have been recalled on a seniority basis until the time he was actually recalled), less his net earnings else- where during said period (see Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB` 440), in accordance with the Board's established practice (F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289). (2) Upon request make available to the Board, or its agents, for examination or copying all payroll and other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due. (3) Upon application offer Cronk immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, dismissing, if, neces- sary, any person hired on or after the date of his unlawful layoff. (4) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the notice at- tached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for 4 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The. Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appedls, there; shall be substituted for, the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 759 the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Company's representative, be posted by it immediately upon the 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 Com- pany to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other materials. (5) Notify the Regional Director of the Seventh Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. II. The Respondent, Local 155, International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, .(UAW-CIO), and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: (a) Cease and desist from: (1) Entering into, renewing, or enforcing the clauses of any agree- ment with the Respondent, Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manu- facturing Company, Detroit, Michigan, or with any other employer, which requires employees to join, or maintain their membership in, the Respondent Union as a condition of employment, unless such agreement has been authorized as provided in the Act. (2) In any like or related manner causing or attempting to cause the Respondent, Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Michigan, or any other employers, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (3) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (1) Notify Frederick E. Cronk and the Respondent Company im- mediately in writing that it has no objection to Cronk's employment. (2) 'Jointly and severally with the Respondent Company make whole Frederick E. Cronk for any loss he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the same manner as stated above in part I of this Order where the Company is ordered to make Cronk whole. (3) Post at the office of Local 155, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), copies of the notice attached to the Inter- mediate Report and marked "Appendix B." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by representatives of the Respondent See footnote 4 for amendments to notice attached to Intermediate Report. 379288-56-vol. 113- 49 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and main- tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to -insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other materials. (4) Mail to the Regional Director for the Seventh Region a copy of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Ap- pendix B," duly signed by the proper and qualified officers of the Union, for posting, the Respondent Company, Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company, being willing, in places where it customarily posts notices to employees. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being signed as provided for above, be forthwith returned to the said Regional Director for posting. (5) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the complaint, as amended at the hearing herein, to the effect that the Respondents violated the Act by requiring membership in and/or a clearance from the Union as a condition of employment and as a condition of receiv- ing journeyman pay be, and they hereby are, dismissed. CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by Frederick E. Cronk, an individual, the National Labor Rela- tions Board 1 by the Regional Director of the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued complaints against Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company,' herein referred to as the Respondent Company and Local 155, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), herein referred to as the Respondent Union,2 on September 30, 1953. At the same time he issued and served upon the parties his order consolidating the cases (as cited in the caption ) and notice of hearing thereon. The complaint alleged that the Respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2 ), and (3) and 8 (b) (1) (A) and ( 2) and Section 2 (6) and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act._ With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as issued and as amended at the hearing herein, alleged in substance that the Respondents: (1) Entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering the Company's employees on or about October 4, 1950, which contained a union security provision in the words and figures hereinafter set forth, and have at all times since the execution of said contract continuing to the date of the complaint, retained in said contract and/or succeeding contracts negotiated with the Union 'The General Counsel and his representatives at the healing aie referred to as the General Counsel The National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board. 3 Where deemed necessary the Tiial Examiner will refer to the Union and Company collectively as the Respondents . He will also refer to the Respondent Union and the Respondent Company on occasion as the Union and Company respectively for purposes of brevity and convenience. MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 761 and maintained in full force and effect said union security provision which is set forth below: Section 3 The Company agrees to keep in its employ, members in good standing in the Union only. All new employees shall have not more than 30 days from the date of hiring to become members in good standing in the Union. (2) That the foregoing union security clause is illegal for the reason that it contravenes the proviso in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, in that it requires old employees covered by the aforesaid agreements to become and remain members of the Union without according to them the statutory thirty (30) days waiting period. (3) By reason of the Acts set forth immediately above, any modification, supplement, renewal or extension thereof is invalid and in violation of the Act, and interferes with, restrains and coerces the Company's employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act, and that the Respondents by entering into and by retaining in effect the aforesaid union security clause has discriminated and is discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of its employees, thereby encouraging membership in the Union, and thereby did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and 8 (b) (2) of the Act. (4) On or about April 16, 27, 28 and 29, 1953, and at all times thereafter continuing to the date hereof, Frederick E. Cronk had tendered and paid the periodic dues and initiation fees required by the Union as a condition of organiz- ing and retaining membership therein. (5) On or about April 16, 27, 28, and 29, 1953, the Respondent Company had reasonable grounds for believing and knew that Frederick E. Cronk had tendered and/or paid to'the Respondent Union the periodic dues and initiation fees required as a condition of acquiring and retaining membership in the Union; that on or about the same date the Respondent Union by its officers, agents, and representatives represented to the Company that the said Frederick E. Cronk was not a member in good standing in the Union and demanded that the Respondent Company lay off, discharge or otherwise terminate the employ- ment of Frederick E. Cronk pursuant to the terms of the contract and union security provision therein as described above; that the Respondent Union sus- pended the membership of Frederick E. Cronk on April 27, 1953, and demanded that the Respondent Company lay off, or otherwise terminate the employment of the said Cronk for reasons other than the payment or the tendency thereof of his periodic dues, and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of retaining membership in the Union; and that the Respondent Company acquiesced in the Respondent Union's demands and did thereafter on April 29, 1953, terminate the employment of the said Frederick E. Cronk, and to this date has failed and/or refused to reinstate him to his former or substantially equivalent employment with it. (6) On or about April 27, 1953, Respondent Union did blacklist Frederick E. Cronk and/or bar him from employment with any employer with whom Re- spondent Union or United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Worker of America, CIO, maintained contractual or other relations; that Re- spondent Union by its officers, agents and representatives and employees, has since on or about April 1, 1953, and continuing to the date hereof, engaged in a continuous course of restraint and coercion of Frederick E. Cronk and the other employees of the Company in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza- tion, to form, join or assist labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and for other mutual aid and protection and to refrain from such activities. Particular acts in the furtherance and effectuation of Respondent Unions restraint and coercion involved, but are not limited to the following; (a) threatening to cause his fellow employees to eject Frederick E. Cronk from his place of employment; (b) threatening to blacklist Frederick E. Cronk and bar him from employment with employees with whom Respondent or United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, maintained contractual or other relations. (7) That by the conduct described above the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2), and Sections 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. (8) At the hearing herein the complaint was further amended to allege in substance that since on or about January 1, 1953, Respondent Company has 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD required and the Respondent Union has demanded that all employees receive clearance from the Respondent Union as a condition of receiving journeymen pay, which conduct was likewise violative of Sections 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) and Sections 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. On or about October 5, 1953, the Respondent Company filed its answer to the complaint in which it admitted certain jurisdictional allegations; neither admitted nor denied certain other allegations, alleged that the contract referred to in paragraph numbered 6 of the complaint, containing the above-quoted section concerning union security was terminated as of May 31, 1953; and alleged as follows as regards the allegations in the complaint concerning the Charging Party herein, Frederick E. Cronk: (1) Admitted that Frederick E. Cronk had tendered and paid his periodic dues and initiation fees to the Respondent Union for periods prior to April 30, 1953, and that it knew this to be true as alleged in Paragraph XI of the complaint; (2) As a further answer it alleged that on or about April 29, 1953, the Union, by its president one Leach, advised it that Frederick E. Cronk was not a member in good standing in the Union and demanded that his employment with it be suspended pending classification of his status as a member of the Union; that it was further advised that if said Cronk were not suspended by it other of its employees that were represented by the Union would refuse to work; and that upon information and belief admits that the Union suspended the membership of the said Cronk; denies that it at any time had reasonable grounds for believ- ing or believed that membership in the Union was not available to Frederick E. Cronk on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or that his membership in the Union was terminated, and further denied that the Union demanded the discharge of said Cronk for any reason or at any time, admits that it on or about April 29, 1953, at the request of the Union, was sus- pended from employment; denies that it failed and refused to reinstate or reem- ploy him;, and affirmatively alleges that by written notice dated August 6, 1953, the said Cronk was unconditionally reinstated to its employ, copy of which notice is on file with the Board. (3) In further answer the Respondent Company alleged that because of a reduction in force, and under the terms of the seniority provisions in its contract with the Union Cronk is not now [that is at the time of filing its Answer] eligible for active employment with it. (4) Respondent further alleges that all matters with respect to Cronk in the complaint are now moot for the following reasons: (a) that Cronk has been unconditionally reinstated by it, and it is advised and believes that said Cronk suffered no loss in wages by reason of his suspension, but rather that he secured other employment at a higher wage than that he received while employed by it, and that it is advised and believes that said Cronk will not accept reemployment with it, and consequently has no standing as to a complainant in this proceeding. The Respondent Union filed its answer to the complaint on October 9, 1953. It admitted certain jurisdictional matters and denied other pertinent allegations in the complaint. In the main its answer covers the same ground and sets up the same defenses as the Respondent Company, particularly as regards Cronk's tenure, and the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment, which it admits was at its request for reasons other than the nonpayment of dues. The answer then goes on and sets forth as an affirmative defense, by way of con- fession and avoidance, that Cronk's conduct as its chief steward in the Respondent Company's plant was so reprehensible that it was compelled in the circumstances to demand his suspension. The Trial Examiner feels that since the Respondent Union's answer presents a unique and unusual defense, and as far as he can ascertain raises an issue that has not as yet been considered by the Board that excerpts therefrom should be inserted herein below: Respondent alleges and charges the fact to be that the action of the com- plainant was such as to lead to labor disputes which might burden or ob- struct commerce and the free flow of commerce in that he caused the Com- pany to discharge two employees for the sole reason that they did not agree with the position that he took at one of the union meetings in insisting that the company fire one of the foremen and then refused to re-employ him under the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement hereinbefore mentioned. That he threatened to have other employees of the company discharged for speaking against his dictatorial policies. MULTI-I-IYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 763 That he refused and neglected to cooperate with Local 155 officers to termi- nate a wildcat strike conducted in violation of the International Constitu- tion of the UAW-CIO. That he misrepresented his journeyman status to the officers of the Local Union and actually obtained his Journeyman card by fraudulent representa- tives. For attempting to deny an employee the right to work in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and in violation of Article 48, Section 2 of the International Constitution of the UAW-CIO, which resulted in the loss of ten days work to the said employee. That the conduct of the complainant was such as to create constant con- fusion in the company among its employees and that had the union not put a stop to his actions, in all probability, the business of the company would have been interrupted in violation of the collective bargaining agree- ment, subjecting the company to large losses and also, subjecting the union to a suit for damages for the violation of the terms of the said collective bar- gaining agreement in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act. That at the union trial of the complainant, he did not appear although prop- erly notified and that the said trial was adjourned and that the complainant was again notified of the new date and did not appear at that time. Respondent further alleges, in answer to the complaint, that Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended Act is unilateral, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on November 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, 1953, before James A. Shaw, the Trial Examiner duly designated by- the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent Company, and the Respondent Union were represented by counsel who participated in the hear- ing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the onset of the hearing the General Counsel moved to strike numerous allegations from the separate answers of the Respondents. All were denied except as regards those allegations therein that concerned the Charging Party's activities after he left the services of the Respondent Company. Thereafter the General Counsel filed a "Demand for a Bill of Particulars" with the Trial Examiner in Case No. 7-CB-154. The motion was granted in part and denied in part, as is fully shown and discussed in the transcript of the record for the first day of the hearing, November 4, 1953. In addition numerous motions were made by the General Counsel to amend his complaint, and corresponding motions were made by the Respondents to amend their separate answers. All were disposed of at the hearing and have been embodied herein above by the Trial Examiner in his opening paragraphs. While the motions to amend were being entertained by the Trial Examiner numerous motions to strike portions of the Respondents' respective answers were orally made by the General Counsel, and as indicated above were disposed of one by one and full discussions had by all parties concerned as the record amply demonstrates. At the close of the hearing the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof as regards minor matters, such as names, dates, and the like. The mo- tion was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. Although given an op- portunity to do so, all parties declined to argue their respective positions before the Trial Examiner. They were also advised of their right to file proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law and briefs in support thereof. The General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent Union availed themselves of this opportunity and their respective briefs were filed with the Trial Examiner on or about January 12, 1954. They have been given due and careful consideration by the Trial Ex- aminer. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Upon the entire record in the case the Trial Examiner finds that the Employer herein, Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company, is a Michigan cor- poration with its principal office and place of business in Detroit, Michigan, where it operates a manufacturing plant engaged in the production of welding equipment, fix- tures, jigs, and related products. In the course and conduct of its business operations it annually causes large quantities of raw materials to be shipped to its Detroit plant in interstate commerce from points outside the State of Michigan, causes large 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quantities of raw materials to be shipped to its Detroit plant in interstate and foreign commerce from points outside the State of Michigan, and causes large quantities of the products produced by it at its said Detroit plant to be shipped therefrom in inter- state and foreign commerce to States of the United States other than the State of Michigan and to foreign countries. For example, during the year preceding the date of the filling of the original charge herein, April 30, 1953, which is a representative period of all times material herein, the Company manufactured at its Detroit plant products valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than 10 percent of which it caused to be shipped in interstate and foreign commerce from its Detroit plant to customers outside the State of Michigan. The parties concede and the Trial Examiner finds upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the record considered as a whole that the Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR C-iGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Upon the record considered as a whole the Trial Examiner finds that Local 155, International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America, (UAW-CIO), is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES As indicated in the pleadings, and as amply demonstrated in the record by uncon- tradicted and undenied testimony as well as by concessions made by counsel for the respective Respondents, the Charging Party herein, Frederick E. Cronk, was laid off and/or suspended from his employment as a journeyman toolmaker by the Re- spondent Company on or about April 29, 1953, at the request and demand of the Re- spondent Union for reasons other than the nonpayment of initiation fees and periodic dues. In the circumstances the Trial Examiner normally would dispose of the issues herein forthwith and without more ado conclude and find that the Respondents col- lectively and unorderly violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Unfortunately such a piocedure is impossible in view of the issues posed by the Respondent Union in its answer where as indicated above it pleaded by way of "confession and avoidance in justification of its request and demand that the Respondent Company discharge Frederick E. Cronk." -As indicated above in the "Statement of the Case" the position of the Respondent Union is that Cronk's conduct as its chief steward in the Company's plant was of such a reprehensible nature that it was compelled to request his discharge. Respond- ent Union premises its position primarily on the theory that: (1) Cronk by inciting and prolonging a "wildcat" strike amongst the Company's employees on February 26, 1953, and refusal thereafter to cooperate with other officials of the Union in their attempt to persuade the striking employees to abandon the strike and return to work, was potentially injurious to it, in that since the strike was in violation of its contract with the Company it was subject to a suit for monetary damages by the Company under the provisions of Section 301 (a) of the Act; (2) Cronk by causing the dis- charge of certain employees created unrest and discontent amongst the employees in the unit that it was reasonable to assume that such a condition might also precipi- tate and cause not only friction between the Respondents but also work stoppages in violation of its contract with the Company; (3) Cronk's activities in causing the demotion and suspension of Foreman Stanley Kachel from his position by the Re- spondent Company was likewise violative of its contract; (4) Cronk secured his journeyman's card from the Detroit Tool and Die Council by false and fraudulent means, and (5) in the circumstances it was compelled to proceed as it did if it were to continue to exist as a responsible labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Since the Trial Examiner has referred to the Kingston Cake case on several occa- sions he feels that a brief resume of the facts and the courts ruling thereon should be inserted herein at this time. Briefly stated the case involved an employee who was an official of an independent union that had a contract with the employer. The con- tract contained a permissible union-security clause. While the contract was in full force and effect a rival union started an organizational campaign amongst the em- ployees of the company. The rival union secured sufficient applicants for member- ship to file a petition with the Board for an election for the determination of a collective-bargaining representative under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. The employee in question, though an officer in the independent union, joined the rival union seeking recognition as the bargaining agent of the employees, and refused to abandon his post with the independent union. Thereafter, as an officer in the inde- pendent union, he. refused to sign an affidavit as required under the provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The effect of his refusal to sign the required MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 765 affidavit was to deny to the independent union a place on the ballot in a forthcoming election under the auspices of the Board for the determination of a collective-bargain- ing representative. Faced-with such a situation the loyal members of the independent union whose contract was still in effect with the employer, demanded that the em- ployer discharge the employee for his disloyalty to it and thus for reasons other than nonpayment of dues. The employer did so even though he knew or should have known that the employee in question had paid his initiation fees and dues. There- after the employee filed unfair labor practice charges against the employer and the union. The case came on for hearing and eventually before the Board for considera- tion. The Board found that the employer by discharging the employee had violated Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) and the independent union violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act and ordered the employer to reinstate the employee to his former or substantially equivalent position and the employer and the independent union to make the employee whole for any loss of wages he may have suffered as a consequence of the joint acts. The employer and the independent union failed and refused to comply with the Board's order. Thereafter enforcement of the Board's order was sought in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ( Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania ). The court by a 2-1 decision refused to enforce the Board's order. Its reasoning was equitable in nature , as will be shown below. The court speaking through Staley, Circuit Judge, said inter aha: 3 . Although the conduct of the company and the association in this case was a violation of those provisions of the Act which Congress thought would protect the individual employee in his right of free choice of bargaining representative, at most, however, it would only remotely interfere with the freedom of choice, whereas Williams' conduct constituted a direct, frontal attack upon the principal means established by the Act to insure the individual his freedom of choice. To reinstate with back pay an employee guilty of such a perversion of the Act would breed contempt for it rather than effectuate its policies. We do not rely on any maxim of "clean hands ," because the doctrine does not apply since this is a proceeding by a governmental agency seeking enforcement of its order in the public interest . Republic Steel Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 1939, 107 F. 2d 472, 479, modified on other grounds, 1940, 311 U. S. 7, 61 S. Ct. 77, 85 L. Ed. 6. See also N. L. R. B. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 2 Cir., 94 F. 2d 862, 872, certiorari denied, 1938 , 304 U. S. 576, 585, 58 S. Ct. 1046, 82 L. Ed. 1540. The "benefits" of the board's remedial processes run to the public. The fact that an individual employee may also benefit is a means to the more im- portant end of industrial peace. We are convinced, however, that reinstatement of Williams with back pay would set ". . . a pattern of profiting by one['] s own wrong, which is just as immoral and inequitable in labor as in any other human relations." N. L. R. B. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc, 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F. 2d 589, 592. We turn now to the question of our power to deny enforcement. It was phrased as follows in N. L. R. B. v. Eanet, 85 U. S. App. D. C. 371, 179 F. 2d 15, 20. "Does the court have a modicum of judicial discretion in passing upon this petition for an enforcement decree? Or is it required to put the stamp of its authority automatically upon whatever request is made of it?" We are quite aware that administration of the Act was conferred upon the board and not upon judges of the courts of appeals. The Act is administered by a group of men whose constant, day-to-day touch with the problems of labor relations gives them a unique feeling for the appropriate solutions to the novel questions in the field . For this reason, their solutions are weighty when ques- tioned before judges who are, usually, without that comforting familiarity. That principle has been distilled into the following, concrete rule: "When the Board, `in the exercise of its informed discretion,' makes an order of restoration by way of back pay, the order ` should stand unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act."' N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 1953, 344 U. S. 344, 346-347, 73 S. Ct. 287, 289. See also Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., 1943, 319 U. S. 533, 540, 63 S. Ct. 1214, 87 L. Ed. 1568. 3 N. L R. B v. Kingston Cake Co., 206 F. 2d 604, 610 (C A. 3) setting aside 91 NLRB 447; see also 191 F 2d 563 (C A. 3). In the excerpt from the case inserted above the Tiial Examiner has deleted footnote 8 for the sake of brevity The footnote contains additional citations in support of the court's position. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We said recently, however, that "We approach the problem presented by the Board's petition for enforcement with the well-settled rule in mind that `The powers conferred upon this court by the National Labor Relations Act to enforce the orders of the Board are equitable in nature and may be invoked only if the relief sought is consistent with the principles of -equity.' " N. L. R. B. v. Globe Automatic Sprinkler Co., 3 Cir., 1952, 199 F. 2d 64, 70. Thus, while the board's discretion in ordering affirmative action is wide and should not lightly be disturbed, it has its limits. Certainly, a court of appeals has some responsibility for the effects of its own decree; this is especially so where it ap- pears that enforcement would entail subversion, rather than effectuation of the legislative purpose. Furthermore, we are convinced that this is not a case in which administrative expertise is of compelling weight. It is not a problem of such great technicality that only experts can untangle it. ' "... [H]e is no friend of administrative law who thinks that the Commission should be left at large." Mr. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting in Federal Trade Commission v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 1953, 344 U. S. 392, 406, 73 S. Ct. 369, 369. The petition for enforcement will be denied. As the Trial Examiner sees it the primary issue before him is this, was Cronk's conduct of such a nature that the Board should in all the circumstances refuse to exercise its remedial powers as to him personally on the theory that to do so would not effectuate the policy of the Act? The answer to the question is the record itself. The pertinent facts as to Cronk as the Trial Examiner interprets the record follow below. The position of the Respondent Union is unique to say the least, and but for the recent decision in Kingston Cake the Trial Examiner would have granted the General Counsel's motion to strike the allegations in support of its position from its answer, on the grounds that they were not only irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised by the allegations in the complaint but for the further reason that they put at issue the internal affairs of the Union which normally are not the proper subject matter for litigation before the Board. The Trial Examiner took all these matters into consideration at the time he de- nied the General Counsel's motion to strike. He has since carefully reviewed and analyzed the record, and is now convinced that certain of the allegations of the Union in its answer should be rejected as being without merit. He has particular reference to those allegations that pertain to the discharge of certain employees of the Respond- ent, particularly Brunner and Wolski. He is convinced that the circumstance sur- rounding their discharge was primarily a prerogative of management, and as such not at issue here either as a defense to the Union's conduct or as a proper sub- ject for consideration by the Board. Consequently the Trial Examiner will confine this report to the following incidents of Cronk's conduct which in his considered opinion have some semblance of merit and have persuaded him in his ultimate disposition of the case: (1) The strike of February 26, 1953; (2) the demotion and suspension of Foreman Stanley Kachel; and (3) the circumstances surrounding Cronk's acceptance as a journeyman toolmaker by the Respondent Company. In order that we may understand the issues to better advantage, and appreciate the position of the parties at times material herein, the Trial Examiner feels that some mention should be made of their physical setup, so to speak, such as the Respondent Company's complement of employees and the like, and similar informa- tion as regards the Respondent Union as revealed by the record herein. At all times material herein the Respondent Company had in its employ ap- proximately 125 persons. From what the Trial Examiner gleans from the record there has been a gradual and steady reduction in force in its plant until at the time of the hearing herein it had but about 25 employees. Insofar as we are concerned, the following officers and officials of the Company participated in the activities pertinent to the issues herein, President Richard P. Joy, Jr., Casey Grudzinski and Nick Koppinger, shop superintendents, Frank Kop- pinger, personnel director, and Stanley Katchel, one of several foremen. The Respondent Union Local 155, represents approximately 16,000 skilled crafts- men in about 183 shops in the tool and die industry in the Detroit area. The record indicates that Local 155 confines its activities to the east side of Detroit, and Local 157 of the same parent organization to employees in shops on the west side of the city. At all times material herein Russell Leach was president of Respondent Local 155. In the Respondent Company's shop Frederick E. Cronk was chief steward. The shop committee was composed of three employees, David Wyatt, Charles Smith, and Cronk in his capacity as chief steward. MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 767 A. The contractual relations between the Respondents = The contract at issue here was entered , into on October 4, 1950, between ".. . Multi-Hydromatic Welding Manufacturing Company, a member of the Automotive Tool and Die Association , hereinafter referred to as the Company , and Local No. 155 United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , hereinafter referred to as the- Union." The contract was to continue in full force and effect until June 1, 1953. - As set forth in the complaint the contract , article I, "Recognition," section 3, con- tains the following clause; The Company agrees to keep in its employ, members in good standing in the Union only. All new employees shall have not more than 30 days from date of hiring to become members in good standing in the Union. - The General Counsel, as indicated above in his complaint , alleges that the above pro- vision in the contract contravenes the proviso in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act in that it requires old employees covered by it to become and remain members of the Union without according to them the statutory 30 days' waiting period. The Respondent Union contends ( 1) the question is now moot , that is that at the time of the hearing herein the parties had negotiated a new contract that does not contain such a provision, and (2) that at the time the contract of October 4, 1950, was entered into all of the employees in the Company's plant were members of the Union in good standing , and that consequently the General Counsel 's allegation in this regard is so to speak , meaningless.. The Trial Examiner rejects this contention of the Respondent Union in its entirety, and finds that by the inclusion of the aforesaid clause in their contract the Respondents individually and collectively violated the Act in the mode and manner alleged in the complaint. Contrary to the Respondent Union's contention the question is neither moot nor meaningless, the contract was in full force and effect at the time the charge herein was filed, and at the time the pertinent events herein occurred. Moreover, even though the em- ployees in the plant were members of the Union at the time the contract was entered into they nevertheless were entitled to the protection of the Act the same as new employees as a statutory right. This the parties ignored. By its inclusion the Respondent Company violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, in that it amounted to discrimination against the employees of record on the effective date of the contract in violation of the proviso of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and constituted inter- ference with, restraint , and coercion , in-their exercise of the rights guaranteed them by virtue of Section 7 of the Act. Again, by the inclusion of such a provision in the contract at the demand and request of the Respondent Union, the Respondent Company rendered to it illegal assistance, in contravention of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1 ) of the Act. . As indicated above the Respondent Company was a member of the Automotive Tool and Die Association at the time it entered into the contract of October 4, 1950. Since this relationship of the Respondent Company has some bearing on the Trial Examiner's ultimate disposition of the issues herein, particularly as regards the hire and tenure of journeyman toolmakers in its employ at times material herein, he feels compelled to set forth herein certain factual matters, he feels are pertinent to the issues involved herein. The record shows that the Respondent Company as a member of the Association was a party to a contract between it and the Respondent Union Local 155, and also Local 157, affiliated with the same parent union, was under an obligation to follow the provisions of the contract as regards the journeyman toolmakers in its employ, such as rates of pay, job classifications, and the standards required of those employees classified as journeyman. An examination of the contract shows that before an employee could qualify as a journeyman toolmaker he must be able to show 10 years of qualifying experience in the trade. The record also shows that in the area, that is in and around Detroit, Michigan, there existed at all times material herein, the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council, C. I. 0., whose purpose was to insure to employers and employees alike that persons certified by it as journeyman tool- and die-makers had met the standards laid down not only by it but as recited in the contract between the Automotive Tool and Die Association and the Respondent Union, and Local 157. The council consisted of qualified persons with long experience in the trade. It was the custom, and in fact a requirement laid down by the council, that all applicants for journeyman cards submit documentary evidence in support of their applications showing at least 10 years of experience in 768 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, the trade. It was this requirement, and the tactics resorted to by Frederick E. Cronk to secure a card, that concerns us here and as will be shown below pertinent to the issues raised by Respondent Union's answer. As indicated above the Trial Examiner's ultimate disposition of the issues herein as to Cronk depend to a great extent upon his employment history, both with the Respondent Company and prior thereto. At the time of the hearing herein Cronk was 31 years of age. His employment history as set forth in-the record shows that his first employment was with Besser Manufacturing Company in Alpeno, Michigan. While employed there he became active on behalf of a C. I. 0. union during an organizational drive amongst the employees of that company. As a result of this activity he was allegedly discriminatorily discharged for union activity. Thereafter charges were filed on his behalf by the Union. From what the Trial Examiner gleans from the record the case was settled before it came on for hearing before the Board. Thereafter he worked for various employers in the Detroit area including Tool Detail Company, Die True Instruments, Inc., Template Die Corporation, and Robbins Engineering Company, before he entered the services of the Respondent Company sometime in September 1951. Cronk testified that though he had known of Russell Leach since sometime in 1942, he had never had any close association with him until just before he went to work for Robbins Engineering Company. From what the Trial Examiner gleans from his testimony which to say the least consists of a maze of contradiction, admissions, denials of statements previously made, and downright overall confusion as amply demonstrated in the record, it was Leach who persuaded him to secure employment at'Robbins Engineering for the purpose of bolstering the Union's position there, and to assist Leach in his campaign for the presidency of the local. At any rate Cronk was closely associated with Leach at least up until sometime in early 1953. While Cronk was employed at Robbins Engineering the employees went on strike. During the course of the strike Cronk and Leach met on several occasions. It was during one of these meetings .that Leach suggested to Cronk that he enter the services of the Respondent Company. Cronk's account of this meeting and the ensuing conversation between he and Leach as regards not only the procurement of employment with the Respondent Company but of far greater importance the method of doing so is not only most interesting but quite frankly was most persuasive in the Trial Examiner's ultimate disposition of the issues herein. According to Cronk, Leach had previously suggested that he go to certain un- organized shops in the Detroit area and secure employment for the purpose of build- ing up the Union amongst the employees. In furtherance of this plan Leach suggested that he use references from nonunion shops to allay suspicion that he might possibly be a "plant" or a "stooge" for the Union. He told Cronk that he would have no difficulty in securing letters of recommendation, and at the time gave Cronk letterheads of a nonexistent and/or fictitious company, "Hoffman Combustion Company." He instructed Cronk to have a letter of recommendation typed on the letterhead containing date of employment and the like and to have it signed by a "fictitious" official of the nonexistent company, and suggested among other names that of "Swartz." He testified that he agreed to Leach's plan. Not long after the above conversation occurred, and while the strike at Robbins Engineering was still in progress, Leach suggested to Cronk that he get a job with the Respondent Company. He told Cronk at the time he made the suggestion that the Union's organization in the Respondent Company's plant was weak and needed to be bolstered or "pepped up " Shortly thereafter, sometime in September 1951, Cronk went to the Respondent Company and asked for employment. When queried as regards his past experiences in the trade Cronk presented among other references to the Respondent Company as evidence of his experience the "phoney" letter of reference from the nonexistent "Hoffman Combustion Company." Upon these documents he secured employment with the Respondent Company. Cronk's testimony, and the remarks of the General Counsel's representatives as regards the use of the "Hoffman Combustion Company" letter in his procurement of employment with the Respondent Company is in the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner most important and as will be shown hereinafter was most persuasive in his ultimate disposal of the issues herein. Pertinent excerpts from the record follow below: Trial Examiner Snxw: What I want to know, I want to know about these forged documents that gave him credentials, because he has intimated that is exactly what he did. The WITNESS: The date of that riot in the yard was approximately, it was the same day that I went to Multi-Hydromatic, because Russell says he had a plant out on Groesbeck and he asked me to go out on Groesbeck, that the MULTI-HYD110MATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 769 situation out there wasn't healthy. The way he told me was that the Union wasn't too strong. Trial Examiner SHAW: What plant is that? The WITNESS. Multi-Hydromatic. Trial Examiner SHAW. The Company here? The WITNESS: That's right. Trial Examiner SHAW: All right. Q. (By Mr. Pisarski.) What month was that? A. The ninth month, I can't just name every day. I know it was the ninth month, I am pretty positive of that. I don't know the date. I am not a walk- ing encyclopedia. I went out to Multi, he said the wages wasn't good out there. I went to work for Multi-Hydromatic. Casey Grudzinski hired me. I met Russell Leach after that. Trial Examiner SHAW: Just how he was hired, what he did, what references did he give, get all of that, put it all in the record. The WITNESS: I don't know exactly what references I gave at Multi-' Hydromatic. I don't know what was required at that particular plant. That was a Union plant. I do have-I think I could have perhaps given Robbins Engineering. I could have given that, because that was a Union plant, but he had sent me there. Trial Examiner SHAW. Let's get the facts. Mr. PISARSKI: All right. Q. (By Mr. Pisarski.) Do you remember if you used the Combustion letter at the Multi-Hydromatic? A. I am not sure of it: Q. You must have? A. I must have, yes. Leach in his testimony flatly denied that he gave Cronk the "Hoffman Com- bustion Company" letterheads, or that he urged him to use such documents in order to secure a position with either the Respondent Company or any other employer in the shops serviced by Local No. 155. He did admit however that Cronk's em- ployment with the Respondent Company was discussed in one of their conversations, and that he gave Cronk a note to the shop steward in the Respondent Company's plant in which he recommended Cronk and requested that he do what he could to secure a job for him. The Trial Examiner saw both witnesses and observed their demeanor while testi- fying. From his observations he is inclined to, and does credit Leach's denial as' regards the source of the "Hoffman Combustion Company" letterheads. In his considered opinion it matters not , a whit where Cronk secured the "phoney" letter- heads, for the simple reason that the fact remains that he not only wittingly and knowingly used them to secure his original placement with the Respondent Company but thereafter by his own admission used not only the "Hoffman Combustion Company" letter but other fraudulent and forged documents to secure a journey- man's card from the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council, of which more anon below. As noted above Cronk entered the services of the Respondent Company sometime in September 1951. His career both as an employee and as the chief steward for the Respondent Union was a stormy one to say the least. From what the Trial Examiner gleans from the record, confusing as it is, Cronk was in "hot water" so to' speak from the day he entered the Respondent Company's services up to and includ- ing the date he was laid off, April 29, 1953. Cronk worked as a toolmaker for the Respondent Company until July 1952, when he was promoted to a tool leader, as such he had about four men working under his direction and was responsible for their work. As a tool leader he received an increase in his hourly wage rate. Sometime in the summer of 1952, Cronk was appointed chief steward in the plant by Russell Leach, president of Respondent Local 155. Shortly after he received this appointment, Leach also had him made a delegate to the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council, C. I. 0. He received his card as a delegate on July 20, 1952. The record indicates that each plant represented by Local 155 or other locals of the parent union employing skilled craftsmen was entitled to a delegate on the Council in proportion to the number of craftsmen employed in the shop. For example, 1 delegate for each 50 employees. The purpose of the Council as described by Cronk in his testimony follows below: Q. (By Mr. Pisarski.) What duties did you have as a delegate? A delegate to the Wayne County Tool & Die Council? 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. I think the first duty of the Tool & Die Council is to gather membership for journeymen for the Wayne County Tool & Die Council. The second duty is to represent the men in their behalf in a skilled trade. The third is that you have a right to sit on this delegate board . Now, this delegate board is not the card board. The card board is made out of four men, made up of four men, excuse me. Those four men examine your papers when you bring them down for a journeyman's card. If your papers are not accepted in front of these four men, the delegate has the right to bring it before the delegate body of the Wayne County Tool & Die Council. If they are not accepted in the Wayne County Tool & Die Council by the delegate board, he has the right to bring it before the membership of the Wayne County Tool & Die Council. I think that is every- thing, your duties, exception that you do have to go if a man can't get a card, you have to represent him and take him through all the functions of the council, help secure his letters. You set in the Council, they voted on what wages they are going to have throughout the city area, what conditions that they are going to try to bring about for the tool and diemaker. There are many, many things, I can't name them, all of the Wayne County Tool & Die Council, I mean-it is quite a book. Cronk further testified that it was not necessary to be a journeyman to be a delegate on the Council, that is a card-carrying journeyman, even though the delegate as a member of the Council had to sign an employee's application for a journeyman's card. The employees in the shop knew that Cronk did not have a journeyman's card, and this factor caused him considerable embarrassment: In view of this situation he went'to Leach and asked for his assistance in securing a journeyman's card. Cronk's testimony in regard to the procurement of his journeyman's card is most important, not only because it has an important bearing in the Trial Examiner's ulti- mate determination of the issues herein as to him, but also because he feels that this incident was one of the irritating factors that led up to Cronk's expulsion from the Union, of which also more anon. Cronk testified that at the time he discussed the procurement of a journeyman's card with Leach, he pointed out to him that while he felt that he had the necessary qualifications to secure a card, nevertheless he anticipated some difficulty in securing letters of reference from some of his past employers, particularly Besser Manufactur- ing Company. Leach was sympathetic, and suggested that he use, along with the references he already had procured from former employers, the "Hoffman Combus- tion Company" letter, which has been described above. It was then discovered that when the periods of employment with the employers who had given him legitimate letters were summed up he was still short of the 10 years' experience in the trade, a necessary requirement to secure a card. According to Cronk he then altered the dates in the following letters, Tool Detail Company, Die True Instruments, Inc., and Template Die Corporation. With these alterations, the "Hoffman Combustion Company" letter, and a letter from the Re- spondent Company herein, showing his experience with it in the trade, he now had the 10 years' experience necessary to secure a journeyman's card. Cronk admitted that he personally made the alterations, and other "forgeries" on the documents and submitted them along with the "phoney" "Hoffman Combustion Company" letter to the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council in support of his application for a journeyman's card. On the strength of these documents he secured his journeyman's 'card. He paid his initiation fees and 1 year's dues as a journeyman on or about December 10, 1952, and about 2 weeks later he received his card from the Tool and Die Council. At the same time he received an increase of 10 cents per hour from the Respondent Company as provided in the contract. As indicated above Cronk testified that the above-described forgeries and altera- tions on the letters from his former employers were made and submitted to the De- troit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council with the full knowledge, consent, and in fact the assistance of Russell Leach, president of Respondent Local 155. Leach on the other hand flatly and emphatically denied Cronk's testimony in this regard. After long and careful consideration of the entire record in the case, and from his observation of both Cronk and Leach at the time they testified at the hearing herein, the Trial Examiner is convinced that Leach's version of his conversations with Cronk as regards the circumstances surrounding Cronk's employment by the Respondent Company, and his procurement of a journeyman's card, is the more reliable of the two, consequently he credits Leach's denial of his participation in Cronk's fraudu- lent conduct and discredits that portion of Cronk's testimony that puts the onus on Leach as a party to the fraud. MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 771 As indicated above Leach denied that he was aware of the fact that Cronk had used the "phoney" "Hoffman Combustion Company", letterhead in securing a job with the Respondent Company and that he had used not only this letter, but forged and/or altered letters from previous employers to secure his journeyman's card. Leach testi- fied that he first learned of Cronk's conduct in this regard sometime in April 1953, from certain employees in the plant, and named Benjamin Tarnow as one who had complained to him about the authenticity of the letters submitted by Cronk to the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council in support of his application for a journeyman's card. The record shows that around April 10, 1953, Leach accompanied by one Winter- field, a member of the "Card Board" of the Tool and Die Council, came into the shop and told Cronk that they wanted to talk to him alone about his journeyman's status. Cronk refused to do so and informed them in no uncertain terms that if they had anything to say to him that it would be before the shop committee. A heated argument ensued in which there was considerable name calling and the like. A perusal of the iecord reveals that both Cronk and Leach hurled such foul and obscene epithets at each other in the course of their conversation that even the Trial Examiner hesitates to insert them herein. Suffice it to say that they consisted for the most part of adjectives that are usually considered "fighting words" in each of the 48 States. The upshot of the "set-to" between Cronk, Leach, and Winterfield was that they did meet with the shop committee, in spite of the fact that Leach attempted to impress upon Cronk that such a procedure would be most embarrassing to him. When the shop committee was assembled, Leach proceeded to tell them about the fraudulent letters used by Cronk in procuring his journeyman's card, and pre- sented to the committee for their inspection the forged and fraudulent letters referred to above. What happened thereafter is best told in Cronk's own words: The WITNESS: He read all of my letters and then he asked me for my journeyman's card. I wouldn't give it to them, and he also told me that I had to get off the committee and he turned around to the committee and he asked them to vote against me. This created quite a discussion and they refused to vote against me, and they told me that there were many things that I had done in the plant. I walked out. I just left them, went out of the office and then finally Al Winterfield and Russell Leach left the plant. Trial Examiner SHAW : Now, this meeting was on April- Mr. PISARSKI: 10th. Trial Examiner SHAW' 1953. Now, go ahead. Q. (By Mr. Pisarski) What did you do with your journeyman's card? A. I took it to the Board on the 16th day of April. Trial Examiner SHAW. That is the Wayne County- The WITNESS: -Tool & Die Council. Trial Examiner SEIAW: All right, now go ahead. The WITNESS: I told them that if they would give my letters back that I would give my journeyman's card to them and we had a discussion. They wanted to know why I did it. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Just a minute, I will object to this unless he says who he talked to. Q (By Mr. Pisarski.) Who was present? Trial Examiner SHAW: Yes, that should all be in there. He said the Board. Who was on the Board, time of day, where it was held and everything that was said. The WITNESS: Well, when I got there.there was four men on the card Board, but when I got there there was only two men, Al Winterfield was one of them and the other fellow, I really don't know his name. I know him when I see him, though, and the office girl. Q. (By Mr. Pisarski.) Now, where was this meeting? A. In the office of the Wayne County Tool & Die Council. Q. Which is located where? A. On Woodward Avenue, I don't know exactly the name. Trial Examiner SHAW: In the City of Detroit? Mr. PISARSKI: Yes, sir, City of Detroit. Q. (By Mr. Pisarski.) Did you receive-did you turn in your journeyman's card at this meeting? A. I did, I turned the card in. Q. What did you receive from the Union, from the card Board, rather? A. I got the two letters back. Q. What letters were they? A Tool Detail 772 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As indicated immediately above, Cronk surrendered his journeyman 's card to the Council at the meeting on April 10 , 1953. What happened thereafter will be discussed below. As indicated above one of the contentions of the Respondent Union in its answer is that Cronk instigated a "wildcat strike" amongst the employees on or about February 26, 1953, and thereafter refused to assist and/or cooperate with other responsible members of the Union in ending the strike and getting the em- ployees back on the job. As the Trial Examiner sees it this is the major contention of the Respondent Union in justification of its demand upon the Respondent Com- pany to suspend Cronk from employment . In the main the Respondent Union contends that Cronk's conduct in this regard as an officer of the Union was not only in violation of the no-strike clause in its contract with the Respondent Company but placed it as an entity in a position where it was subject to a suit for damages in a district court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties as provided in Section 301 (a) et seq. of the Act. The Trial Examiner has carefully considered the host of testimony in the record as regards this incident and is convinced that this contention of the Respondent Union must be rejected for several reasons. In the first place the record clearly shows by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence when considered in the light of the whole record that the strike in question was considered at a regular meeting of the local and the minutes of the local clearly indicate that the decision to strike the plant was the result of unanimous action on the part of the membership. They follow below: Feb. 25, 1953 4:00 PM REGULAR MEETING THE CHIEF STEWARD CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. NEXT ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN. 71 MEMBERS WERE PRESENT. 9 WERE ABSENT. 8 HAD LEDGIDEMENT [sic] - ES-E MRMHERS WE4 #SEN EXCUSES-ONE MAN PAID FINE. NEXT A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIKE SPANICH TO DISPENSE WITH THE READING OF THE MINITES [sic] OF THE PREVIES [sic] MEETING IN ORDER TO HAVE TIME FOR MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS, AND TO ACCEPT THE MINITES [sic] AS WRITTEN-IT WAS SECONDED BY JOE HAMSEY. (THE MOTION WAS CARRIED) A QUESTION WAS ASKED CONCERNING THE ONE DOLLAR FINE. THE CHIEF STEWARD EXPLAINED THAT AT OUR MEET- ING OF JAN 17, 1953, THE BODY VOTED UNANIMISLY [sic] ON A MOTION TO FINE ANY MEMBER FAILING TO ATTEND A MEET- ING ONE DOLLAR PER MEETING. ALL EXCUSES WILL BE JUDGED BY THE COMMITTEE-THIS RULING WAS "OK" BY THE LOCAL HALL. NEXT THE CHIEF STEWARD GAVE HIS REPORT ON THE RE- SULTS OF THE COMMITTEES NEGOTIATION ON CLASSIFICATION AND RAISES WITH MANAGEMENT. HE STATED THAT THEY HAD REACHED A DEAD -LOCK. A DISCUSSION WAS THEN OPENED CONCERNING THE STRAIGHT- NING [sic] UP OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND RAISING THE SHOP RATES TO THE LEVEL OF OTHER SHOPS WHICH ARE DOING THE SAME TYPE OF WORK AS MULTI-HYDROMATIC. AS A RESULT A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOB RENWICK TO GIVE THE COMPANY A 10-DAY STRIKE NOTICE IF THEY DID NOT COME THRU WITH THE COMMITTIES [sic] DEMANDS. (AFTER DISCUSSION RENWICK WITHDREW) THIS MOTION. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY JIM MONGOMERY THAT COM- MITTEE SHOULD ASK FOR .20¢ PER HOUR RAISE ACCROSS [sic] THE BOARD (AFTER A DISCUSSION HE WITHDREW THE MOTION). A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY BOB RENWICK THAT THE COM- MITTINE [sic] GO IN FOR RAISES EQUAL TO RATES IN CLASSIFI- CATIONS OF OTHER SHOPS, DOING THE SAME TYPE OF WORK AS "MULTI" AND GIVE MANIGMENT [sic] UNTILL [sic] NOON (FEB. 26, 1953) OF THE NEXT DAY FOR AN AGREEMENT, ON THESE DEMANDS & WALKOUT IF NOT SETTELED [sic]-WAS SECONDED BY DON HEIGG. (THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMISLY [ sic] BY THE BODY.) MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 773 NEXT THE STEWARD EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE CLASSIFICATION, "MACHINE BUILDERS" EXPLAINING THAT A MACHINE BUILDER IS ONE WHO IS WORKING AT THE TOOL TRADE, AND DOES NOT HAVE HIS REQUIRED TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR A JOURNEYMAN CARD AS TOOL- MAKER. MOTION TO ADJOURN MEETING MADE BY AL PONSART SECONDED-PETER SLASTSKA. 6:00 PM [Emphasis supplied.] Pursuant to the decision taken at the meeting described above the employees walked out of the shop at noon, February 26, 1953. President Leach who had been advised of the strike by Crank and the Respondent Company's president, Richard P. Joy, Jr., arrived at the plant a short time before the walkout and endeavored to stop it, but to no avail. After he arrived' he got the committee together and a meeting was arranged with management, the upshot of which was that the demands of the strikers would be thoroughly discussed at a later meeting and the officers of the Respondent Union agreed to do all they could to get the men back to work. Leach instructed Cronk and the committeemen to contact the employees at their homes by telephone or otherwise and instruct the striking employees to return to work. From what the Trial Examiner gleans from the record neither Cronk nor any of the committeemen made any serious effort to carry out Leach's instructions. The record is somewhat confusing as to Cronk's role at the plant on the morning of February 27, 1953, when the first shift was expected to go into work. From what the Trial Examiner gathers from the record several of the employees reported for work at 7 a. in. but were unable to get into the plant. Some witnesses testified that the gates were locked and others that the "committee," which the Trial Examiner finds to have been the shop committee, told them not to enter the plant Regardless of this conflict however the record clearly shows that Cronk did not arrive at the plant until around 9.30 a. in. Leach arrived at about the same time. Shortly thereafter the shop committee, accompanied by Leach met with the officials of the 'Respondent Company and an agreement reached on several of the issues, particularly as regards job classifications, which as the Trial Examiner sees it was the major issue involved. While it is true as the record clearly shows that Cronk was uncooperative with President Leach in his attempt to get the employees back to woik and alleviate the injury suffered by the Respondent Company as a result of the walkout, nevertheless the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that Cronk was neither the motivating force behind the strike nor the sole cause of the delay in getting the employees back on the job. The record is to the contrary. Again, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that Leach, as president of the local, had his remedy under the constitution and bylaws of the Union and could have removed Cronk as chief steward forthwith for his misconduct, but for some reason not disclosed in the record he did not choose to do so. Moreover it was not until several weeks after the wildcat strike was settled before disciplinary action of any kind was taken against Cronk for his role in the strike by either Leach as president of the local or by the local as a body. In the circumstances the Trial Examiner is convinced that this defense of the Respondent Union must likewise be rejected for the reason that he is convinced that it does not fall within the reasoning of the Third Circuit in the Kingston Cake case. There yet remains for consideration the issue as regards Cronk's conduct in causing the suspension of certain employees from their jobs in violation of the provisions in 'the contract between the parties. As indicated above the Trial Examiner deems but one of the instances cited by the Respondent Union worthy of comment in this report and that is the demotion and temporary suspension of Foreman Stanley Kachel from his employment. The Trial Examiner has carefully considered the record as regards the Kachel incident and he is convinced that it likewise is without merit for the following reasons. In the first place Kachel's difficulties began long before Cronk was made chief steward, as the foregoing letter signed by C. Grudzinski, shop superintendent in the Respondent Company's shop at times mateiial herein, clearly demonstrates. July 9, 1952. Answer to Grievance of Night Shift Committee GENTLEMEN: After due investigation and consideration of the petition for the removal of S. Kachel as Night Foreman , I find that some of the persons signing the petition, did this without knowing all the facts, and asked that their names be removed from the petition . Others signed, stating that the only fault 774. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD they find with Mr. Kachel is his attitude in assigning and correcting their work, definitely stating that S. Kachel should not be removed. The Company takes the following position: Mr. Kachel as night foreman has certain duties to perform , which he does faithfully, and in the best interest of this Company. At times, Mr. Kachel has to show the men how to set up, run, and assemble the various opera- tions, also correct, or discipline men for faulty work, breaking company rules, etc. In view of the above facts, I believe the petition was ill -advised and without grounds, as it fails to show any violation of the contract or breach of moral obligations to the men. (Signed ) C. Grudzinski, C. GRUDZINSKI, Shop Superintendent. Contrary to the contention of the Respondent Union that Cronk was primarily responsible for the shameful mistreatment of Foreman Kachel , the Trial Examiner finds that the Respondent Union as a body was equally responsible and must share with him the onus of the whole affair: This is evidenced by the conduct of the Re- spondent Union in entertaining the proposition of whether or not they would permit Kachel to work in the shop as an ordinary worker even after it had succeeded in securing his demotion from his job as foreman . As the Trial Examiner sees it the Respondent Union must bear the responsibility for their action in this regard. The record clearly shows that the Respondent Union as a body held a special meeting to determine whether or not Kachel would even be "permitted" to work in the shop, which was in total disregard of article IX of its contract with the Respondent Com- pany; pertinent excerpts from which follow below: Article IX GENERAL Section 1 . It is recognized that the management of the Company, the control of 'its properties and the maintenance of order and efficiency is solely a re- sponsibility of management. Section 2. Nothing herein shall permit the Union, or any of its members to assume authority to officiate in a managerial or a supervisory capacity. The Union will not cause or permit its members to cause, nor will any member of the Union take part in any strike , either sit-down, stay-in, or any other kind of strike, or other interference , or any other stoppage, total or partial , of production in the Company's Plant during the term of this Agreement . The above clauses shall be adhered to until all negotiations have failed through the regular procedure. Section 3 . No supervisor or foreman shall be allowed to replace a working employee on work for the trade . If a foreman or supervisor promoted from the ranks is demoted, he shall be returned to the same numerical position he occupied at the time of promotion. Section 4. The Association agrees to give the Local a true copy of the rates paid all employees covered in this Agreement every three ( 3) months. This copy shall set forth the number of men in each occupational group and their rate, within the wage spread in the groups. Section 5. The Company shall grant payment for or in lieu of vacation in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit "B" of this Agreement. Section 6 . Employees who receive non-disabling occupational injuries requir- ing medical attention shall be compensated for necessary time lost during their regular schedule of hours while receiving medical attention. Employees receiv- ing disabling occupational injuries shall receive pay for lost time on the day of the injury. [Emphasis supplied.] Moreover, this conduct of the Respondent Union in addition to being violative of the contract was an usurpation of a prerogative of the employer to pick and choose his own employees . It is difficult to reconcile the position of the Respondent Union in its answer where it seeks to avoid the consequences herein with what amounts to an equitable remedy by its contention that Cronk induced breaches of contract which made it potentially liable under Section 301 of the Act to monetary damages if the Respondent Company saw fit to .sue it under the provisions of Section 301, with its silence on the other hand as regards its own conduct in the Kachel case. : It is axiomatic that he who seeks ,equity must do equity. That being so, the Trial Examiner MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 775, feels compelled to observe at this time that the vice of the Respondent Union's con- tentions in its answer lies in the application of this same equitable maxim to its own conduct as spread upon the record herein. In reaching this conclusion the Trial Examiner was especially impressed by the testimony of Foreman Kachel . He testified that in the course of a meeting between himself, Leach, and Cronk sometime in the latter part of March or early April that Leach told him that under the Union's constitution and bylaws, he had a right to call a special meeting of the local to consider whether or not he would be permitted to work in the shop in the event he was demoted to a rank-and -file worker by the Re- spondent Company, and that Leach then asked him if he would be satisfied to leave the shop and take a job in another plant represented by Local No. 155, in the event the unit of the local at the Respondent Company's plant voted to deny him employ- ment in the plant . In the main this testimony of Kachel 's stands uncontradicted and undenied in the record , and is fully credited by the Trial Examiner , particularly be- cause Kachel impressed him as a thoroughly reliable and honest witness . This testi- mony is important because it clearly shows that Leach himself was a party to the illegal restraint on Kachel 's inalienable right as an individual to work where and; when he chose, as long as he met the conditions set forth in the proviso to Section 8, (a) (3) of the Act, which the record shows that he had. Further evidence that the Respondent Union itself meddled in the affairs of Kachel is found in the minutes of the special meeting requested by Kachel to clear up his status as an employee in the shop . They follow below: RU-4 April 2, 1953 8: 00 Special Meeting called by Leach demanded by Stan Katchel Steward called meeting to order. Motion-Roberts . 2nd Poppeci carried all union business other than Katchel, on regular meeting day. Stan Katchel gave reason why he demaned hearing on his dismissell.- charghed that steward stated he was running for him. ( 1) Steward accused Katchel of appointing committeeman-he denied. (2) He did not notify union when he hired a new man. (Stan claimed not, in contract).-(is in contract) (Shee 3-Sect 8) ( 3) Was accused fireing man with broken foot. Steward gave his report about Katchel answering to Stan Katche. Secretary read charges. July 1-52 (1)-About pitition-claim made by Katchel that men withdrew- names (proved wrong.) Jan. 9-53 (2)-Eggart about Parrallels. Nov. 10-52 (3)-About stack Stan denied-Brantly-verified. Jan. 20 (4)-Varified by Mutes about refusal of mutes vacations cardinal, gave explaination on A.V.O. on mutes Nov. 11-52 (5)-Stan said he told them to look busy. Anderson varified. Oct. 11-52 (6)-About G. Bates.-Stan stated Bates was not willing to work._ Nov. 8-52 (7)-About screw machine . Stan said it was not his fault. Chaldekas verified complaint. March 17-53 (8)-About hireing men without committees interview-( Stan, denied claim )-varified. Leach took over as chairman for rest of meeting. 1-Stan charged steward of calling him names at meeting-not true (body- denied.) Leach expressed that meeting is to decide weather or not body wants Stan to. work at Multi. Men suggested that Stan come back in shop for trial period. Answer-not; to take card away. Question asked why nite shift men wanted to wheelbarrow Stan out of shop., Brother Cosmos answered that nite men did not want to work with him. Brurner-Said he was satissied with Stan. Cardinal explained that most of body does not know reasons why committees; putting Stan Katchel on trial. Steward explained that commeetee dose not tell very little thing as they come, out of office meetings, that is why Stans trial came to a head. Motion To vote on the issue carried. 379288-56-vol. 113-50 - 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Question asked if man is to get old job as maigement or work in shop. answer.-out of shop completely. Chairman asked three different men to speek on the Stan Katchel issue. 1. Penwick-against 4. Wholtski-for Stan 2. Smith-against 5. J. Wolski-for Stan 3. Al Whilen-for Stan 6. Cosmos-against Stan Spoke. Motion made by secret ballot (carried) Vote by secrete ballot Yes is to let Stan Katchel back No is-"not let Katchel back to work at Multi. 79 members voting. Results Votes 42-yes 36-no 1 blank Results Stan Katchel will return to work Meeting adjourned [So in original.] Even though the Trial Examiner has rejected the contention of the Respondent Union as regards Cronk's conduct in the Kachel incident this is not to say that he has disregarded other evidence in the record as regards his conduct in the affair. There yet remains for discussion the testimony of Foreman Kachel concerning Cronk's threatened assault upon him during the course of the above-described difficulties. Kachel testified that sometime in February 1953, Cronk accompanied by Wyatt, a member of the shop committee , came into the plant one Saturday night in a drunken condition and told him that they were going to throw him out of the plant. He called the McComb police who arrived at the plant shortly thereafter. How- ever, before they arrived Cronk and Wyatt disappeared. Later on, Nick Koppinger, the night manager of the plant, came to Kachel and asked him about the incident. Kachel's testimony in this regard follows below: The WITNESS: Yes, and later on Nick Koppinger, which is the working man- ager came in and said , "What is going on here?" I said, "I don't know." He said, "Cronk told me to be here. He said come on in the office with me." I had went in the office with him and Frank Koppinger walked in. He was the .day superintendent at that time, and then later on Cronk came in with Dave Wyatt and went into the office and he was so drunk that he couldn 't even stand up and all he could say, all he could say is, "You fire that man today or we are pulling the night shift out." But it was on a Saturday night so we only worked until twelve o'clock. It was almost twelve o'clock, so by the time they got through talking with him there they decided to go to a bar some place, well, the night was over. So the following Monday I am working in the afternoon, you know, but the following Monday before dinner, Nick Koppinger calls me. He said, "you better look for another job, because Cronk said he is pulling the whole shop out if you come back to work," and he said, "You might as well resign." I said, "Well, go ahead , I will put in my resignation . I will resign, but I will go back on the floor." He said, "Well, according to Cronk you can't go back on the floor. If you do he said he is still going to pull the shop out." So, I said, "Okay, forget about it." I didn't say I was going to come or I didn't, see, I was going to check up on the Local about that , so in the after- noon of that Monday, Nick calls me again . He said, "Come on in the shop, I want to see if I can place you some place ." So I-he said he didn't want to -say anything on the telephone . He said, "Come on in." He wanted to see me. I came in there the same day, Monday afternoon, and he said that Cronk had so much grievance against me and he wanted to find out whether it was true, see, so he said, "I am going to put you on supervision on days," and he said, "I don't care what Cronk wants. If he wants to pull the shop out, let him go ahead and pull the shop out." So he said he was going to put me on days, so I had everything fixed to come in the following Tuesday to work. Well, no more than I got home, he calls me again, Nick Koppinger calls me again. He said, "I approached Cronk on that and Cronk said no more he enters this plant he is pulling the shop out." So he changes his mind completely again. He said, "You better go look for another job ." He offered me a job at Briggs for supervision, see, but I never even bothered going down there. I thought to my- self I will go down and see Leach first. I went to the Local Union and Leach wasn't there but I talked to one of the-to the girl, and the girl seen some fellow. I don't know what his name is, I can't remember their names, and he ,called up_Multi-Hydromatic Company. We wanted to talk to Cronk, which he MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 777 did, and Cronk told him as far as he is concerned I could go to any other Union shop and work and he wouldn't bother me, but as long as I don't come back to Multi-Hydromatic Company. Though Cronk was called to testify on rebuttal by the General Counsel, the Trial Examiner fails to find any testimony relative to the above incident except that Cronk denied that he had ever gone into the plant in an intoxicated condition. This one question constitutes the entire inquiry of the General Counsel on rebuttal that even by the wildest stretch of one's imagination might be considered relevani.to..Kachel's testimony as regards the incident. In the circumstances the Trial Examiner credits Kachel's testimony as regards the above-described incident in its entirety and finds that Cronk intimidated and abused Foreman Kachel in the mode and manner de- scribed above. While there is no question but what the Respondent Company could have dis- charged both Cronk and Wyatt forthwith for their conduct it did not do so. Why it did not choose to do so may puzzle some and perplex others, but not the Trial Examiner who heard the case and has carefully analyzed the record Therein lies the answer. Consequently the Trial Examiner deems further comment unnecessary and undesirable. He shall dispose of the incident hereafter in that section of this report styled "The Remedy." Shortly after President Leach and Winterfield of the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council met with Cronk in the shop and engaged in the above-mentioned argument concerning Cronk's journeyman's status, Leach placed charges against Cronk before the Respondent Union Local 155. On April 17, 1953, Cronk received the following letter from the Union: Local 155, International Union UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O. MR. FRED CRONK 929 Browning Hazel Park, Michigan 2113 Gratiot Avenue Detroit 7 April 17, 1953 DEAR BROTHER: The following charges have been placed and a Trial Com- mittee will be elected at the Joint Council meeting of May 21st, 1953 at 8 p. m. You may feel assured that the International Constitution will be followed to the letter in processing this case. Please find enclosed a copy of the International Constitution. The charges are as follows: "I hereby wish to prefer charges against Brother Fred Cronk of the Multi- Hydromatic Unit of Local 155 for violation of his oath of office on five counts as follows: 1. Chief Steward Cronk colluded with management in the discharge of Brother Bruner of the Multi-Hydromatic Union of Local 155. 2. Chief Steward Cronk has threatened members of the Multi-Hydromatic Unit for speaking against the alleged dictatorial policies of said Chief Steward Cronk. 3. Failure to cooperate with Local 155 Officers to terminate a wildcat strike conducted in violation of the International Constitution of the UAW-CIO. 4. Misrepresenting his journeyman's status to the Officers of Local 155 UAW-CIO. 5. Denying Stanley Kachel the right to work in accordance with the Company- Union contract and in violation of Article 48, Section 2 of the International Constitution, UAW-CIO, resulting in the loss of ten days work by the afore- mentioned brother." The charges were preferred by Brother Russell Leach, President of Local 155. Fraternally yours, WK:bg liu72cio -enc- (Signed ) William Koger, WILLIAM KOGER, Recording Secretary, Local 155, UAW-CIO. 778 ^"``(_DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD In the'interim there had been considerable interunion discussion and criticism of Cronk's conduct as chief steward in regard to certain discharges in the shop. Since the Trial Examiner considers these matters as strictly internal affairs of the Union he deems it unnecessary to encumber this report with a recitation of the testimony in this regard. On or about April 17, 1953, the date that Cronk received the notice that Leach had placed charges against him, the Respondent Local 155 held a meeting to discuss the charges. Cronk attended the meeting and attempted to state his position in the matter but was not permitted to do so by Leach, who ordered him out of the meeting. Since the Trial Examiner considers the testimony in the record in this regard as likewise strictly internal affairs of the Union , he sees no necessity to burden this report with other than the above. Suffice it to say that the matters discussed lead up to Cronk's suspension from his employment by the Respondent Company. As indicated Cronk resigned as chief steward on April 18, 1953. On or about this same date Leach came into the plant and told Cronk that the executive board of the Respondent Union had voted to suspend him from membership in the Union and ordered him out of the shop. Cronk refused to leave, or "pick up his box" as he described the incident in his testimony. Thereafter on April 27, 1953, Leach as president of Respondent Local 155, wrote Cronk as follows: Local 155, International Union UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. 1. 0. 2113 Gratiot Avenue Detroit 7 April27, 1953. MR. FRED CRONK 929 Browning Hazel Park, Michigan DEAR SIR: This will serve to officially notify you that you are not eligible to hold any office in the UAW-CIO at least until a verdict has been rendered by the Trial Committee in your case, of which you have already been informed. This action is being taken in accordance with Section 6, Article 48, Page 93 of the International Constitution of the UAW-CIO. I would further like to advise you that the membership voted overwhelmingly that you not be permitted to work in any UAW shop at least until the time a verdict has been handed down by the aforementioned Trial Committee. Yours truly, LOCAL #155 UAW-CIO, (Signed ) Russell Leach, (Typed) RUSSELL LEACH, President, On the same day, April 27, 1953, Leach sent the following letter to the Respondent Company: Local 155, International Union UNITED AUTOMOBILE, 'AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , C.I.O. 2113 Gratiot Avenue MR. NICK KOPPINGER, Personnel Director Multi-Hydromatic Welding & Mfg. Company 23171 Groesbeck Highway East Detroit, Michigan DEAR SIR : This will serve to officially inform you that Fred Cronk , former Chief Steward in your plant , has been suspended as a member of the UAW-CIO and shall retain such status until after a determination has been made by a Trial Committee on charges that have already been preferred. We wish to point out to you this means that he can hold no office, at least until after a determination by the aforementioned Trial Committee which is in accordance with Section 6 of Article 48, Page 93 of the International Constitu- tion of the UAW-CIO. MULTI-HYDROMATIC 'WELDING AND -MANUFACTURING Co. 779 Further, the membership voted by 'an overwhelming majority that he should not be permitted to work in your shop until the time that he may be vindicated,, by the Trial Committee. [Emphasis supplied.] Yours truly, LOCAL No. 155 UAW-CIO, (Signed ) Russell Leach, RL:bg ' RUSSELL LEACH, President. 1iu72cio MULTIHYDROMATIC WELDING & MANUFACTURING CO. RECEIVED NOTED J APR 29 1953 On April 30, 1953, the Respondent Company sent the following memorandum to Cronk: TO: F. Cronk Date 4-30-53 We have received- a letter for Local 155 , signed by R. Leach informing us that you have been suspended as a member of the UAW-CIO until such time as your status has been cleared by the Trial Committee. Therefore in accordance with Art. I-Section 3 of our contract , you are being laid off until your status is de- termined by the Local. FROM N. KoPPINGER. On the morning of April 30, 1953 , Cronk reported for work and found that his timecard had been pulled from the rack. He then went to Frank Koppinger, per- sonnel director, and asked him where his card was. Koppinger told him that the Company had received a letter from the Union stating that he was no longer a mem- ber in good standing and that it was necessary for the Company to discharge him. Cronk then picked up his box and left the plant. Thereafter the trial committee of the Respondent Union Local 155 considered the charges against Cronk. On June 23 ; 1953, it sent him the following telegram. WESTERN UNION DEA 192 SSD302 DE.LLT326 LONG PD-DETROIT MICH 23 1256PME- FRED CRONK - REPORT DELIVERY PERSONAL DELIVERY ONLY 929 BROWNING HAZELPARK MICH- THE TRIAL COMMITTEE HAS FOUND YOU GUILTY OF ALL FIVE CHARGES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED AGAINST YOU AND HAVE RENDERED THE FOLLOWING DECISION: YOU ARE REINSTATED AS AN EMPLOYEE AND UNION MEMBER OF THE MULTI-HYDROMATIC PLANT HOWEVER YOU ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO ATTEND ANY UNION MEETING LOCAL OR SHOP UNIT AND YOU ARE DENIED THE RIGHT OF VOICE OR VOTE WITHIN ANY UAW LOCAL UNION AND YOU ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO RUN FOR ANY UNION OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF FIFTEEN YEARS. THIS FINDING BY THE TRIAL COMMITTEE WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE JOINT COUNCIL OF LOCAL 155 UAW CIO. YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED THAT YOU ARE REINSTATED AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE MULTI- HYDROMATIC PLANT AS OF THIS DATE- WILLIAM KEGER RECORDING SECRETARY LOCAL 155 UAW-CIO On June 23, 1953, the Respondent Union sent the following letter to the Respondent Company: LOCAL 155, INTERNATIONAL UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O. 2113 GRATIOT AVE. DETROIT 7 . MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING & MFG. CO. June 23, 1953. 23171 Groesbeck Highway, East Detroit, Michigan GENTLEMEN: Please be advised that FRED CRONK is reinstated as an em- ployee of your Company as of this date. Very truly yours, WK:bg liu 72cio (Signed) William Keger, WILLIAM KEGER, Rec. Sec. Local #155, UAW-CIO. 780 - -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD- Upon receipt of the letter Richard P. Joy, Jr., the president of the Respondent Company, made the following notation on the Union's letter: Mr. Schmidt Pat [sic] Cronk back on the seniority list as per their letter and then file the letter with other papers pertaining to this matter. (Signed) R. P. JOY, JR. On or about August 6, 1953 , the Respondent Company wrote Cronk as follows: MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 23171 GROESBECK HWY E DETROIT, MICH REG. MAIL August 6, 1953. Mr. FREDERICK CRONK 929 E. Browning Ave. - Hazel Park, Mich DEAR MR. CRONE: We have been advised by counsel and by the representative of the NLRB that suspension of your membership in Loc. 155, UAW-CIO, for reason other than failure to pay initiation fees and periodic dues is not a proper ground for suspending or terminating your employment with this company. You are therefore unconditionally reinstated to our employ, with full seniority as if your lay-off effective April 29, 1953, had not occurred. At present, our work force has been reduced and men with more seniority than you are laid off. Consequently, you should not consider this notice to, return to work with this Company. When your seniority entitled you to recall, you will be so notified. We have been advised by Loc. 155 that you procured your journeyman's tool and die maker card through forged documents and that your card has been revoked. Therefore, if, as and when recalled you will no longer receive the 100 hourly premium payable to those holding such cards. If you desire a current distribution of your vacation pay, please advise us. Very truly yours, (Signed) RICHARD P. Joy, Jr. cc: Mr. Cronk 25 E. 3rd St. Franklin, Ohio cc: NLRB, 7th Reg. 1740 Natl. Bank Bldg. Detroit 26, Mich. Att: Mr Bradley The record indicates that Cronk has been employed elsewhere since he was sus- pended from his employment by the Respondent Company, and that he has made no effort to seek reemployment with it in any capacity. The record also shows that since Cronk was suspended from his employment there has been a reduction in force in the Respondent Company's plant from around 125 at the time the events herein occurred to around 25 or 30 at the time of the hearing herein in November 1953. B. Overall and concluding findings Since the Respondents individually and collectively have conceded that Frederick E. Cronk was laid off and/or suspended from his employment on or about April 29, 1953, by the Respondent Company at the demand and request of the Respondent Union for reasons other than the nonpayment of his initiation fees and periodic dues the Trial Examiner has no alternative but to find, and he does, that by the above-described conduct the Respondent Company violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (3) and collectively Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent Company's violation stems from-its acquiescence to the Respond- ent Union's demands that it lay off or suspend Cronk. The fact that it was com- pelled to do so in face of economic threat of reprisal by strike action if it failed and refused to meet the demands of the Respondent Union is no defense. Its remedy was elsewhere either in the Act itself or in the courts. Consequently the Trial Examiner will recommend hereinafter that it cease and desist from certain proscribed conduct and to take certain affirmative action which he deems necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 781, Now as to the Respondent Union. As indicated and thoroughly discussed above its answer raises a unique and insofar as the Trial Examiner can ascertain a ques- tion of first impression. As he sees it the question is whether or not the conduct of Cronk was of such a nature that it was compelled to request and demand his discharge, layoff, or suspension in order to protect itself and escape potential liability in monetary damages in the event the Respondent Company exercised its rights under Section 301 of the Act? In other words does Section 301 of the Act permit it to escape liability for its conduct in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (b) (2) of the Act? In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner the answer is no. Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 8 (b) (2) make it very clear that failure to tender dues and initiation fees are the only _grounds upon which a union can legitimately cause an employee's discharge.4 In reaching this conclusion the Trial Examiner has carefully weighed the facts found here in the light of the Kingston Cake case, supra, and he is convinced and finds that the reasoning of the Third Circuit in that case is not applicable to those found here. In the Kingston Cake case there was no evidence that the respondent union there had engaged in a course of conduct parallel to that of the charging party as found here. Hence since the relief sought here by the Respondent Union is equitable in nature,it must come in with "clean hands," for he that seeks equity must do equity. Consequently the' Trial Examiner must reject the Respondent Union's defense by way of confession and avoidance in its entirety. Having so found the Trial Examiner deems it unneces- sary to engage in extensive rationale and a "bog of logomachy" as to whether or not such a defense would be valid under a different set of facts or whether or not there is a conflict between Sections 301 and 8 (b) of the Act. It is presumed that the Congress weighed this matter when the legislation creating these sections of the Act was under consideration Indeed it would be most presumptuous for the Trial Examiner to reason otherwise. In the circumstances the Trial Examiner will recom- mend hereinafter that the Respondent Union likewise cease and desist from certain proscribed conduct and take certain affirmative action which he deems necessary to effectuate the policy of the Act in that section of this report styled "The Remedy." Having found as above we now come to Cronk. Unquestionably his conduct merited discharge and expulsion from the Union. What shall be done as to him? That is the question that remains for disposal. It must be remembered that causes before the Board are not in the nature of private litigation. They are on the contrary in the public interest. The mere fact that Cronk was the motivating force behind the charges that led to the issuance of the complaints matters not a whit since they alleged matters that were and are in the public interest. The stated purpose of the Act is to decrease industrial strife and encourage industrial peace. With this in mind the Congress gave employees certain rights and proscribed certain practices by both employers and labor organiza- tions, which it found interfered with, restrained, and coerced them in their exercise of such rights, and vested the Board with powers to effectuate its policy which run to the public and not to individuals as such. For example, the Board's sole authority to order reinstatement and make whole discriminatorily discharged employees stems from its authority to effectuate the policies of the Act. It is well settled that it may withhold or exercise its powers in this regard at its discretion. Its remedy in the nature of monetary awards for back pay and/or losses suffered by individual dis- criminatees is not in the nature of money damages, or penalties against those that have caused such losses, but are awarded solely to effectuate the policies of an act of Congress. In such circumstances we shall look to that section of this report styled "The Remedy" as to Cronk. There is no question in the Trial Examiner's mind that Cronk engaged and partici- pated in reprehensible conduct. Such as his abuse of Foreman Kachel, and his admitted forgeries, and alterations of his references to-secure a journeyman's card from the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council. Also his use of a "phoney" letter from a nonexistent company to not only assist him in securing a journeyman's card but to also secure employment in the first instance with the Respondent Com- pany is so reprehensible that the Trial Examiner deems further comment unnecessary. Again, Cronk came before the Trial Examiner in bad grace by pleading as an excuse for his admitted conduct that he was persuaded by President Leach to resort to such tactics which even if true (and the Trial Examiner has found to the contrary) was no defense at all for the simple reason that he was about 30 years of age at the time, and sui juris, so to speak, and without question legally and morally re- ' See N. L. R B v Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc., and Local No 13, Intl. Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL, 211 lip 2d 937 (C. A 3), enfg. 103 NLRB 596. 782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sponsible for his conduct in this regard. It must be remembered that by use of at least one of the documents referred to above he secured a job with the Respondent Company in the first instance, and thereafter by use of all of them secured an increase of pay as a journeyman. At first blush one might conclude that the issue as to Cronk could be'disposed of by the application of the "clean hands" doctrine, but such is not the case, since that doctrine is not applicable to administrative bodies. The reasoning behind this rule is that since they are creatures of the sovereign, such as the Board here, the sovereign obviously cannot apply such a doctrine to itself. But this is not to say that either the Board (or any other administrative body) must stand idly by and "wink its other eye," so to speak, when its processes are abused. Its answer to such a situation is the withholding of its remedial powers from those who come before it with "unclean hands." The Board's position in such a situation is well stated in the Kingston Cake case, supra. There the court through Staley, Circuit Judge, said inter alia: The benefits of the board's remedial processes run to the public. The fact that an individual employee may also benefit is a means to the more important end of industrial peace. We are convinced, however, that reinstatement of Williams with back pay would . set a patte,n of profiting by one's own wrong, which is just as immoral and inequitable in labor as in any other human relations. [Emphasis supplied.] So is it here. In the circumstances the Trial Examiner will recommend herein- after that the Board withhold its remedial powers as to Cronk. Though little has been said above as to the position of the Respondent Company, as was the case at the hearing where it, remained silent for the most part, the Trial Examiner is convinced from'its answer, the testimony of its president, Richard P. Joy, Jr., and statements of its counsel at the hearing, that in the main its position was well stated at the hearing herein by its president, Richard P. Joy, Jr., in the course of his testimony before the Trial Examiner. There he testified in answer to a query by counsel as regards what action was taken by the Respondent Company after it received the letter from the Respondent Union demanding Cronk's suspension, as follows: Q. (By Mr. Fitt.) At the time that you received the letter which is repre- sented by General Counsel's Exhibit Number 8, the letter dated April 27, 1953 from Russell Leach, what action if any was taken by the Company? A. With reference to that letter and the action taken by the Company, Mr., Cronk was laid off by Mr. Kopplinger, the Works Manager. I believe I am correct. Q. And what was the reason for his layoff? A. Mr. Cronk was laid off because the Company feared that there would be a strike if he was retained in the active employ of the Company. Mr. Firr: I have no further questions. Though the position of the Respondent Company is understandable, particularly in view of the record as a whole, nevertheless the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that it is no defense to its acceding to the demands of the Respondent Union. Consequently he will recommend hereinafter that it likewise cease and desist from such conduct. The Trial Examiner has not overlooked the amendment to the complaint offered by the General Counsel at the hearing as regards the practice of the Respondent Union in processing the applications for journeyman cards and the Respondent Company's verbal agreement with it to promote only those employees to a journey- man's status whose cards were processed through it and cleared and issued by the Detroit-Wayne County Tool and Die Council, CIO, as an additional violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. He has carefully con- sidered the facts at the hearing in this regard, and recognizes the fact that the parties conceded that such was the practice under the contract in effect at times material herein, and now set forth and embodied in the new contract between the parties. However, he is convinced that since under the terms of the agreement in effect at times material herein that all employees were required to become members of the Respondent Union 30 days after their employment in any event, and the further fact that there is no substantial evidence that the requirement or practice was abused that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to find that this verbal agreement standing alone was a separate and distinct violation of the Act. Consequently he will recommend that this allegation in the complaint be dismissed. MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 783 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the activities of the Respondent Company described in section 1, 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 Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondents conceded and the Trial Examiner has found that they entered into a collective-bargaining agreement covering the Company's employees on or about October 4, 1950, which contained the following union-security provision: Section 3. The Company agrees to keep in its employ, Members in good standing in the Union only. All new employees shall have not more than 30 days from the date of hiring to become members in good standing in the Union. Though the record shows that the parties eliminated this provision insofar as it provides that "The company agrees to keep in its employ, members in good stand- ing in the Union. ." from the contract that was entered into in May 1953, never- theless the Trial Examiner has found above that this provision was in full force and effect at times material herein, and that it was illegal for the reason that it contravenes the proviso in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, in that it required old employees, that is employees in the appropriate unit who were working for the Company at the time the agreement was entered into to become and remain mem- bers of the Union without according to them their statutory right to refrain from joining the Union for at least 30 days. Since the parties have eliminated this illegal provision from the present agreement, the Trial Examiner is convinced that there is little, if any, danger of their repeating this particular illegal conduct in the future, and consequently he would refrain from recommending a broad cease and desist order in this regard if it stood alone, and was the only issue involved herein. How- ever, such is not the case, since he has also found above that the Respondents engaged in far more serious conduct, which he is convinced does present danger of repetition in the future. Consequently he will recommend such an order below. The Trial Examiner has found above that- the Respondent Company laid off and/or suspended Frederick E. Cronk from his employment with it as a journey- man toolmaker on April 29, 1953, at the demand and request of the Respondent Local 155, for reasons other than his nonpayment of periodic dues or initiation fees. The Respondents have conceded that such was the case. The Trial Examiner has found that by this conduct the Respondent Company violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3), and the Respondent Union violated- Sections 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. It is this conduct that has persuaded the Trial Examiner to recommend that a broad cease and desist order issue since the record indicates that there is a danger that the Respondents may engage in similar conduct in the future as regards other employees. For example, the threat of the Respondent Union to deny Foreman Stanley Kachel employment in the plant, after his demo- tion to a rank-and-file employee. Again, the record clearly shows by the official minutes of the Respondent Local 155, that it presumed to exercise control over the hire and tenure of employees, and that the Respondent Company acquiesced to its assumption of this prerogative in spite of the provisions in the agreement between the parties, and the plain language of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. In such circumstances the Trial Examiner is convinced that a broad cease and desist is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. For reasons which have been thoroughly discussed above the Trial Examiner will not recommend that the Charging Party herein, Frederick E. Cronk, be re- instated to his former or substantially equivalent employment, nor will he recom- mend that he be made whole for any losses he may have sustained as a result of his illegal layoff, and/or suspension from his job as a journeyman toolmaker in the Respondent Company's plant. It is his considered opinion that in the circumstances found and described above it would be contrary to public policy to recommend that the Board make such an award. As he sees it, should the Board issue such an order then it not only would lend color to Cronk's fraudulent conduct but con- done it as well, which is clearly contrary to the public interest For this reason he shall refrain from so recommending. 784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner has indicated above that the oral agreement between the Respondents to the effect that all employees receiving journeyman pay must first receive clearance from the Respondent Union before securing their journeyman's cards and resulting hourly wage increases was not in and of itself violative of the Act. He bases his reasoning in this regard on the theory that since all em- ployees are required to become and remain members of the Union within 30 days after their employment, then, as he sees it, promotion to or the granting of journey- man's status is nothing more than a matter concerning wages, hours, and other conditions of employment , such as for example, the adjustment of an employee's job classification Clearly these are matters of everyday collective bargaining. The Trial Examiner sees no difference between the situations . Others may disagree, but in his opinion the facts here do not justify a finding that this conduct was violative of the Act . It must be remembered that complaints lodged by rank-and -file em- ployees led to the disclosure of Cronk's fraudulent conduct in securing his journey- man's card . Such evidence indicates that the rank-and-file employees can be trusted to nullify any abuses by the officers of the Respondent Union in handling requests for employees desiring journeyman 's status. For these reasons the Trial Examiner will recommend that this allegation in the complaint be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the whole record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 155, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By executing and including in their agreement of October 4, 1950, section 3, which provided. "The company agrees to keep in its employ, members in good stand- ing in the Union only. All new employees shall have not more than 30 days from the date of hiring to become members in good standing in the Union ," and what by its terms was in full force and effect at all times material herein , the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of the proviso of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, in that it required old employees covered by the aforesaid agreement to become and remain members of the Respondent Union without according to them the statutory 30 days' waiting period. By this conduct the Respondent Company violated Section 8 (a) (1), '(2), and (3) of the Act, and the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Frederick E. Cronk, acceding and/or acquiescing to the demands of the Respondent Union that said Frederick E. Cronk be discharged, laid off, and/or suspended from his em- ployment for reasons other than the nonpayment of his periodic dues and/or initia- tion fees, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By causing the Respondent Company to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Frederick E. Cronk in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 6. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2), and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 7. By restraining and coercing employees of the Respondent Company in the exercise of their right to refrain from any and all of the concerted activities guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 8. By, the Respondent Union processing the applications for journeyman status and/or cards for its members in the Respondent Company's plant neither it nor the Respondent Company violated the Act. 9. The conduct of Frederick E. Cronk, which has been fully described above does not warrant the Board to either order his reinstatement by the Respondent Company to his former or substantially equivalent employment or to require either of the Re- spondents to make him whole for any losses he may have sustained as a result of the discrimination against him , for reasons which have been fully described and discussed above. MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING CO. 785 10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re- lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 155 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW- CIO), or any other labor organization of our employees, by refusing to hire and employ properly qualified applicants or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any terms or con- ditions of employment, except to the extent authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL. NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, 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, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING 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. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 155, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO), AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MULTI-HYDROMATIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discrimi- nate in any manner against employees, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants for employment with Multi-Hydromatic Welding and Manufacturing Company, its successors or assigns, in the exercise of their right to refrain from any or all of the concerted activities guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. LOCAL 155, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO), Labor Organization. By ------------------------------------------------------ (Title of Officer) Dated ----------------- ---------------------------------------------- (President of Local No 155) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.