The Englander Co., Inc.

THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 707 to send members of this Brotherhood to your Company to erect this work. This International Brotherhood has had signed agreements with your Company for several years to erect their work in the field and you men know that some, of the members of Lodge #13 have worked in the shop from time to time during the slack period in the field and now this same Company has the audacity to state that they do not want you to affiliate with this Brotherhood and on the other hand will shout to the high heavens as to the good relations they have with this Brotherhood in erecting their field work. Mr. Robert Benwell who wrote the letter date February 20,1957, to you, is the same man who sat in on the negotiations between the C. H. Wheeler Company and this Brotherhood in July 1956 and agreed to give the members of Local 13-a thirty-five cent an hour increase ef- fective with the new agreement-August 1, 1956. Now you men should stop and think of the conditions and wage rates Mr. Benwell has offered to you and then decide if your company is being fair with you. Now you can realize why the C. H. Wheeler Company does not want you organized by this International Brotherhood. After all the years that you men have been fighting trying to get good working conditions and good wage rates-take this opportunity to improve your wage rates and working conditions and vote "YES" on Monday, March 4,1957-YOUR VOTE IS SECRET-NO ONE BUT YOU YOURSELF KNOWS HOW YOU VOTED, BE- CAUSE THIS REPRESENTATION ELECTION IS CON- DUCTED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Very truly yours, (Signed) John A. Kennedy, JonN A. KENNEDY, Representative. The Englander Company, Inc. and Upholsterers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and Local 5 of Upholster- ers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Washington-Oregon District Council of Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and ' Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO and Washington-Oregon District Council of Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 19-CA- 1306,19-CA1307, and 19-CB-416. July 17,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On October 16, 1956, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 118 NLRB No. 84. 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in,certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents Sled exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support of their exceptions. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed .2 The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions : 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Em- ployer violated Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act.by: (a) Vice President Sparrowk's referring of job applicants to the Respondent Union on January 11, 1956, for the purpose of discussing membership in that organization and, as part of such referral, furnish- ing some applicants with the address of the Respondent Union. (b) Foreman Moore's statement to Griffin on February 14, 1956, that the latter would "first have to get it straightened out with the Teamsters" (Respondent Union) as a condition of employment and that she would have a job if she joined the Respondent Union. (c) Foreman Henry's remark to McDonald on February 21 that the latter would have to clear through the Respondent Union as a pre- condition to receiving a job. (d) Foreman Moore's statement to McDonald on February 23 that the latter would have to join the Respondent Union if he wanted a job with the Respondent Employer and when McDonald refused, Moore's saying, "Well, I guess we can't do any business." 2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union entered into a collective- bargaining contract at a time when the number of employees at work was not representative of the Respondent Employer's. anticipated work force. By such conduct, the Respondent Employer rendered further unlawful assistance to the Respondent Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Boardhas delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair- man Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean]. 2 The Respondent Employer contends that it was prejudiced by the Trial Examiner's rul- ing permitting the General Counsel to amend the complaint to include an allegation respect- ing the discriminatory refusal to employ Robert A. McDonald. The Trial Examiner gave the Employer an opportunity to apply for additional time to prepare its case against the McDonald allegation . The Employer did not do so. All of the issues were fully litigated at the hearing . In these circumstances we find no error in the Trial Examiner's ruling. Premier. Worsted Hills, 85 NLRB 985, enfd. 183 F. 2d 256 (C. A. 4). THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 709 The.eontract also contained a union -security clause which was op- erative. By agreeing to and maintaining such a clause with an un- lawfully assisted union, the Respondent Employer violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) and the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. Our finding that the Respondents entered into a collective- bargain- ing contract prior to February 14, 1956, which was before a representa- tive number of employees had been employed, rests on the following evidence: (a) In the autumn of 1955 and again on January 9, 1956, Dillon, a representative of the Western Conference of Teamsters, told the Respondent Employer's Vice President Sparrowk that the Teamsters expected to have the Seattle operation under contract, the same as elsewhere in the country. (b) At a plant meeting on February 13, 1956, that included representatives of the Charging Union, the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union, Evans, a representative of the Furniture Workers, remarked that Teamsters' Representative Williams was apparently acting as the Respondent Employer's "personnel man- ager." Factory Manager Hunt replied that Williams had the right to ask job applicants to come to the plant inasmuch as the Teamsters held an agreement with the Respondent Employer. (c) Vice President Sparrowk testified that, on February 6, 1956, Vice President Pink telephoned him from the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, headquarters to say that a ,contract signed by representatives of the Respondent Union was in the office. (d) On January 26, 1956, Sparrowk told Truman, a representative of the Brotherhood of Carpenters, that the Respondent Employer had a "master agreement" of nationwide scope with the Teamsters Inter- national, that he did not want to jeopardize good working relations with the Teamsters by signing a contract for the Seattle plant with another union, and that he feared reprisals if he did so. Also, on February 3, Sparrowk refused Truman's request for a consent repre- sentation election to be conducted by the Board because of a "master agreement" with the Teamsters. (e) On February 10, 1956, Bombadier, a representative of the Respondent Union, telephoned applicant Testerman to ask her if she wished to go to work. Bombadier told Testerman that "they had a contract at the plant." (f) As early as February 13, 1956, applicants for employment appeared at the Respondent Union's office and were asked to sign a document which recited that the signatory agreed to accept "all work- ing conditions contained in the contract in effect between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Englander Com- pany...." 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (g) The absence of any evidence of contract negotiations between the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union together with the fact that the contract in evidence is little more than a duplicate of the one covering the Respondent Employer's Los Angeles plant, even to the extent of bearing execution date, October 1, 1955, and effective date, December 1, 1955-dates prior to the acquisition of the Seattle factory. 3. Finally, we agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons stated in the Intermediate Report, that the Respondent discrimina- torily refused employment to Robert A. McDonald in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that : 1. The Respondent, The Englander Company, Inc., Seattle, Wash- ington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : (a) Cease and desist from: (1) Contributing support to International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ware- housemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, or to any other labor organization. (2) Giving effect to its contract with the Respondent Union (which agreement refers to that labor organization as the General Teamsters,. Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local 117) or to any modification, extension or renewal of the said agreement, unless and until the Respondent Union shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees at the Seattle, Washington, plant, and then only if the agreement otherwise conforms to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. (3) Recognizing International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit of its employees at its Seattle, Washington, plant, for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and until the said Respondent Union shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in such unit. (4) Encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor organi- zation by discriminating in any manner in regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment of employees. (5) Entering into, maintaining, renewing, applying, or enforcing any agreement which requires employees or applicants for employ- THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 711 ment to be members of, to join, or to maintain membership in, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, unless such agreement conforms with the requirements of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (6) Making any statement to, or otherwise informing, any em- ployee or applicant for employment that employment by it is condi- tioned upon approval or clearance by the said Respondent Union, or any other labor organization. (7) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con- dition of employment, as authorized in 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) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Respondent Union, whether known by the name of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, or by the name of General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local 117, or by any other name, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- ployees at the Seattle, Washington, plant, unless and until the said labor organization shall have been certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations Board. (2) Offer to Robert A. McDonald, as set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," immediate employment in the position he would have held, but for the discrimination against him, or in a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole in the manner prescribed in the said section. (3) Post at its plant in Seattle, Washington, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of such notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Employer' s repre- sentative, be posted by the said Respondent Employer immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said Respondent Employer to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree by a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words; "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD (4) Notify the said Regional Director in writing, within ten (10): days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. 2. The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: (a) Cease and desist from: (1) Giving effect to its contract with The Englander Company, Inc. (which contract refers to it as the General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local 117) or to any modification, extension or renewal of the said agreement, unless and until the Respondent Union shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining agent of Englander's Seattle, Washington, employees in an appropriate unit, and then only if the agreement to be given effect conforms to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. (2) Entering into, maintaining, renewing, applying, or enforcing any agreement which requires employees or applicants for employ- ment to be members of, to join, or to maintain their membership in, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, unless such agreement conforms with the requirements of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (3) Causing or attempting to cause The Englander Company, Inc., to discriminate against any employees or applicants for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (4) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in 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) Post in conspicuous places, including places where notices to members are customarily posted, at its usual membership meeting place, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix B." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an of- ficial representative of the Respondent Union, be posted by it immedi-. at.ely upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 4 See footnote 3, supra. THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 713 Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (2) Forthwith mail signed copies of the said notice marked "Ap- pendix B" to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region for posting by The Englander Company, Inc., if it so agrees, at the places where it is required to post copies of the notice marked "Appendix A." (3) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, of the steps it has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT contribute support to International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union. No. 117, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT give effect to our contract with the said Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, or to any modification, extension, or renewal of the said agreement, unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees. WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, as the representative of employees in our Seattle, Washington, plant for the purposes of collective bargaining un- less and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of our employees. WE WILL NOT discourage or encourage membership by any of our employees or applicants for employment in any labor or- ganization by discriminating in any manner in regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment of employees. WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, renew, apply, or enforce any agreement which requires employees or applicants for employ- ment to be members of, to join, or to maintain membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD No. 117, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, unless such agreement conforms with the requirements of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT make any statement to, or otherwise inform, any employee or applicant for employment that employment by us is conditioned upon approval of or clearance by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the ex- tent that such rights 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. WE WILL offer Robert A. McDonald immediate employment in the position in which he would have been employed but for our discrimination against him, or in a substantially equivalent posi- tion, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and priv- ileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered as a result of our discrimination against him. THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC., 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 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREI-IOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, WAREHOUSEMEN'S LOCAL UNION No. 117, AFL-CIO, AND TO EMPLOYEES OF THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby give notice that: WE WILL cease giving effect to our contract with The Englander Company, Inc., or to any modification, extension, or renewal of said agreement unless and until we shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive represent- ative of the employees of The Englander Company, Inc. WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, renew, apply, or enforce any agreement which requires employees or applicants for em- THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 715 ployment to be members of, to join, or to maintain their member- ship in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO, unless such agreement conforms with the requirements of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause The Englander Com- pany, Inc., or any other employer, to discriminate against any employees or applicants for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights 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. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP- ERS OF AMERICA, WAREHOUSEMEN'S LOCAL UNION No. 117, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 12, 1956 , Upholsterers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (also referred to herein as the Upholsterers International ), and Local 5 (also described herein as the Upholsterers Local ) of the Upholsterers International filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (designated below as the Board ) in Case No. 19-CA-1306 against The Englander Company, Inc. (also referred to herein as Englander or the Respondent Company). On the same date, Washington-Oregon District Council of Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO (also desig- nated herein as the Furniture Workers District Council ) filed a charge with the Board against Englander in Case No. 19-CA-1307. An amendment to that charge was filed on February 20, 1956. The Furniture Workers District Council also filed a charge with the Board on March 27, 1956, in Case No. 19-CB-416 against International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO (also referred to herein as the Teamsters Local or the Respondent Union). On April 25, 1956, the General Counsel of the Board duly entered an order consolidating the cases in which the several charges had been filed. Based upon the charges , and the amendment mentioned above, the General Counsel of the Board issued a complaint on April 25, 1956, alleging that the Respondent Company and the Teamsters Local had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136-163), also referred to below as the Act. The Respondent Company and the Teamsters Local have been duly served with copies of the charges , including the amendment, respectively applicable to them, and with copies of the complaint and order of consolidation. With respect to the claimed unfair labor practices , the complaint, as amended at the hearing in this proceeding, alleges, in substance, that: Shortly before January 16, 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1956, Englander acquired a plant .located in Seattle, Washington, from another company; Englander took possession of the plant on or about January 16, 1956, but "did not acquire the normal complement of its employees until on or about February 15, 1956"; beginning on or about January 11, 1956, and before the acquisition of its "normal complement" of employees, Englander informed applicants for employ- ment that it had a "national agreement" with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (also referred to below as the Teamsters International), which required all persons selected for hire by Englander to become members of a union affiliated with the Teamsters Interna- tional, or to pledge allegiance to, or support of, such union as a condition of hire; Englander instructed each such applicant to go to the office of the Teamsters Local to comply with such conditions precedent to hire as the Teamsters Local imposed; on or about January 16, 1956, Englander and the Teamsters Local entered into a collective-bargaining agreement which accords the Teamsters Local exclusive recog- nition by Englander as the bargaining agent for all the production and maintenance employees of Englander's Seattle plant, and contains a provision that all such employees shall become and remain members of the Teamsters Local not later than 31 days following the beginning of their employment; since on or about January 16, 1956, Englander has assisted the Teamsters Local "in arranging the occasions" when the latter has informed applicants for employment at the Seattle plant that "alle- giance to, support of, and membership in," the Teamsters Local was required as a condition precedent to such employment by Englander; on February 23, 1956, Englander offered employment to one Robert A. McDonald upon the condition that he become a member of the Teamsters Local, and denied McDonald employ- ment upon his refusal to acquire such membership; by reason of the terms and conditions of the said collective-bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Local, and of its conduct toward applicants for employment, described above, Englander has violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act; and by force of the terms and conditions of the agreement, and of its conduct toward applicants for employ- ment, described above, the Teamsters Local has violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the said Act. Englander and the Teamsters Local have filed separate answers. In its answer, each of the Respondents denies the commission of any of the unfair labor practices imputed to it in the complaint. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing was held before me, as duly designated Trial Examiner, on May 22, 23, and 24, 1956, at Seattle, Washington. Each of the parties, with the exception of the Upholsterers Interna- tional and the Upholsterers Local, appeared and was represented by counsel at the hearing and participated therein. The parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence, file briefs, and submit oral argument. After the close of the evidence, I reserved decision on a motion by each Respondent to dismiss so much of the complaint as is applicable to it. The motions are hereby denied for reasons reflected in the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below. Englander has filed a brief which has been read and considered. The other parties have not filed briefs. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. NATURE OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY'S BUSINESS; JURISDICTION Englander is a Delaware corporation, has its principal office in Chicago, Illinois, engages in the manufacture of upholstered furniture and bedding, and maintains and operates manufacturing facilities in a number of States, including a plant in Seattle, Washington. Products manufactured by Englander at its various plants are shipped by it "throughout the United States." The gross sales value of such ship- ments annually exceeds the sum of $3,500,000. Between the middle of February 1956 and the hearing in this proceeding, the aggregate sales value of products shipped by the Respondent Company from its Seattle plant to points in other States has exceeded the sum of $50,000. The Respondent Company is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Board has jurisdiction of this proceeding. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Upholsterers International, the Upholsterers Local, the Teamsters Local, the Furniture Workers District Council, and Local Union 3197, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (also referred to below as Local THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 717 3197), an affiliate of the Furniture Workers District Council,' respectively represent employees for the purposes of collective bargaining , and are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefatory statement Englander divides its operations into geographical divisions. One of these is known as the Western Division and includes the Pacific Coast tier of States. The plants in that area are supervised by John Sparrowk who bears the title of vice president of the Western Division and is Englander's chief executive in the area. The responsibility for negotiating collective-bargaining agreements for Englander in the Western Division is vested jointly in Sparrowk and another official of Eng- lander named Sidney R. Korshak who has his headquarters in Chicago and holds the title of general labor counsel. Prior to January 1956, Englander operated two manufacturing plants in the Western Division, one located in Los Angeles, California, and the other in Oakland, California, where Sparrowk has his headquarters. At each of these plants a col- lective-bargaining agreement between Englander and one or another local or affiliate of the Teamsters International has been in effect for some time. Each of the two agreements covers terms and conditions of employment of production and mainte- nance personnel employed in the plant to which the agreement applies. During the latter part of 1955, Sparrowk made efforts to locate a factory site for Englander in Seattle , Washington. In the course of his search, he learned of the availability of a plant then operated by a firm named Craftmaster, Inc. of Wash- ington (also designated below as Craftmaster) which had been engaging at the factory site for a substantial period of years in the manufacture of furniture and bedding. In the early part of January 1956 Sparrowk and other representatives of Englander entered into negotiations for a lease of the plant and the purchase by it of some of Craftmaster's inventory and equipment. On January 10, 1956, Craftmaster terminated the employment of all but a few of its employees and substantially ceased its manufacturing operations (presumably in anticipation of the occupancy of the plant by Englander, although the record does not concretely establish that that was the reason for the termination of the em- ployees and the cessation of production). The few employees retained on the Craftmaster payroll consisted of several supervisors and a number of individuals who variously performed shipping or maintenance duties or worked on an inventory related to the contemplated sale of some of Craftmaster's assets to Englander. During the period of Craftmaster's manufacturing activities, and at the time the firm discontinued production , there were three bargaining units at the plant, each apparently consisting of different occupational categories. One unit was represented by the Upholsterers Local, another by Local 3197, and the third by the Teamsters Local. Each of the three unions had collective-bargaining and contractual relations with Craftmaster at the time the latter ceased its manufacturing activities, and had had such relations for some unspecified period prior thereto. As of the date produc- tion was discontinued, approximately 35 of the employees were members of Local 3197, which is affiliated with the Furniture Workers District Council and had been represented by the latter organization in bargaining negotiations and contractual relations with Craftmaster, and some 71 held membership in the Upholsterers Local. The record does not establish the precise number represented by the Teamsters Local, but as the evidence indicates that Craftmaster had little more than 100 per- sons in its employ in January 1956, it is a fair inference that the Teamsters Local represented only a few of the individuals employed by Craftmaster during that period, or, in any event, a substantially smaller number than those represented by the other unions in the plant. On January 9, 1956, William F. Evans, executive secretary of the Furniture Workers District Council, received information, as Evans put it in his testimony, that Craftmaster was "planning on selling the plant" to Englander. On January 11, 1956, on behalf of his organization, Evans wrote a letter to Englander, trans- mitting therewith a copy of the agreement between the Furniture Workers District Council and Craftmaster; expressing the view that the contract was binding on "successors" of Craftmaster; stating that termination notices had been given to employees by Craftmaster on January 10, 1956, "without any notice or discussion I It may be that the full name of Local 3197 has been stated imprecisely above because the exact name cannot be determined from the record. I have based an estimate of the full name on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6. 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the proper Union officials"; and requesting an early meeting with representa- tives of Englander "to discuss this matter." Englander received the letter but made no reply to it. Evans discussed the subject of picketing the plant with a business representative of Local 3197 on January 12, 1956, and that organization posted a picket line at the premises the following day. The Upholsterers Local also picketed the plant, posting its pickets on January 12, 1956, the day after Sparrowk inter- viewed a number of former Craftmaster employees with respect to their future employment by Englander. (These interviews will be discussed in greater detail at a subsequent point.) The plant was picketed for approximately a month by each of the two unions. The negotiations between Craftmaster and Englander culminated in a lease of the plant to Englander on January 16, 1956, and the purchase by it on that date of a portion of Craftmaster's inventory and equipment. Englander did not assume any contractual obligations of Craftmaster. As will appear in great detail later, Englander thereafter hired a substantial num- ber of the individuals, 'including several supervisors, who had formerly been em- ployed by Craftmaster. One of the supervisors is named "Red" Henry. Englander hired him as shipping department foreman on January 18 or 19, 1956. Another former Craftmaster supervisor named William Moore was hired by Englander as factory foreman on January 23, 1956. Since the date of his employment by Englander, each of the two foremen has made recommendations to Sparrowk for the hiring of employees, and the latter has attached considerable weight to such recommendations. At one point or another (on a date not specified in the record) the Company vested all authority to hire employees in Moore. On February 1, 1956, Englander hired J. E. Hunt, another former Craftmaster supervisor, as factory manager. At all times material to this proceeding since the dates they were re- spectively hired by Englander, Henry, Hunt, and Moore have been vested by the Company with authority responsibly to direct the work of employees at the Seattle plant; have exercised such authority; and have been, and are, supervisors within the meaning of the Act. B. The alleged assistance by Englander to the Teamsters Local Sparrowk testified that in the autumn of 1955, upon his return to his Oakland office from a trip to Seattle where he had been searching for a plant site, he told Joseph Dillon, a representative of the Western Conference of Teamsters , a regional affiliate of the Teamsters International , of the purpose of his trip to Seattle; and that Dillon thereupon said, "We expect to have your Seattle operation under contract on the same basis that we have it elsewhere ." What reply, if any, Sparrowk made does not appear. According to Sparrowk, also, on January 9 , 1956, while he was in Seattle in connection with the negotiations for the Craftmaster plant, he met Dillon by appointment at the latter's request, and on that occasion, Sparrowk testified, Dillon introduced him to W. L. Williams, secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters Local, and substantially reiterated what he had told Sparrowk on the previous occasion. Sparrowk testified that he replied that Englander was merely searching for a plant, had not as yet found one, and did not know then whether it would have a plant in Seattle. Sparrowk spent some time in the plant preceding the execution of the lease, occupying himself with such matters as an inventory which Craftmaster was taking in contemplation of the sale of a portion of its property to Englander. While at the plant on January 11, 1956, Sparrowk interviewed between 15 and 20 individuals who came to the plant in search of employment . A substantial number of these, if not indeed all, had formerly worked for Craftmaster. Among them were indi- viduals whose employment had been terminated by Craftmaster the day before. Some came for their interviews at the invitation or suggestion of Foreman Moore, who then was still on Craftmaster's payroll, while others came upon their own initiative. One of those interviewed was Jeanette Testerman who was called as a witness by the General Counsel . She had worked for Craftmaster for approximately 4 years, had served in its plant as a shop steward for Local 3197, and came to the plant for her interview at Moore's suggestion . According to Testerman , during the interview, after some discussion of her duties for Craftmaster, and a prediction by Sparrowk that "there probably would be work" after completion of the inventory, Sparrowk told her that she would have to see Williams and "clear through" the Teamsters Local. Testerman stated that she did not ask Sparrowk to explain what he meant, and that she "just walked out." Another former Craftmaster employee, Marvin Bale, who was called by the General Counsel, testified that during the course of his interview on January 11, THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 719 after he had told Sparrowk of the type of work he had performed for Craftmaster, Sparrowk asked him whether he had "joined the Teamsters Union"; and that upon receiving a negative reply, Sparrowk said that he should join that organization if he "wanted to work" at the plant. According to Bale, he replied that he was a member of "the Wood Workers" (meaning, apparently , Local 3197), and that he would rather retain his membership in that union . Then, Bale testified, Sparrowk referred again to the requirement for joining the "Teamsters Union," and gave Bale the address of the Teamsters Local , writing it on a slip of paper at Bale's request, because, as Bale put it , he is "short on . . . education." A third former Craftmaster employee, Donald Granger , also called by the General Counsel, testified that: He came to the plant for his interview on January 11 at Moore's suggestion ; following a discussion on that date with Sparrowk concerning such matters as pay and working conditions , Sparrowk told him to see Williams and that he would "have to go down and clear through the Teamsters before [he] could go to work"; and Sparrowk gave him the address of the Teamsters Local, stating that Englander "had some kind of agreement with the Teamsters." According to Granger, Sparrowk also told him that the Teamsters Local would not require him to pay any initiation fees. Sparrowk gave testimony to the effect that he made substantially the same state- ments to each employee he interviewed on January 11. Summarizing what he claims he said on that occasion , Sparrowk testified : "I explained to them that we were in a position where we were talking to the Craftmaster principals with regard to acquir- ing some of the facilities here, that we would probably be in the business of manu- facturing items comparable to what Craftmaster had been making . I also informed them that we were told by the Teamsters Union that inasmuch as they had contracts with us in other plants in the country that they would expect to be recognized in this plant. I indicated to them, told them , rather, that I was not in a position to tell them what they could or could not do from a union standpoint, that they were familiar with the contracts in the unions that they had been members of, and I suggested that they see Mr. Williams of the Teamsters Union and that he would be glad to tell them what they had to offer ." Sparrowk also gave testimony to the effect that after he had made these statements "to a couple of people," he was asked for Williams' address (by whom or whether by one or more interviewees does not appear in Sparrowk's account), and that thereafter, during the course of the inter- views, he ascertained the address from the telephone book for the purpose of supply- ing it to interviewees . In all, Sparrowk testified, he referred between 15 and 18 jobseekers to Williams on January 11. Sparrowk denied that he told them to "clear through the Teamsters Union" or to "sign up with the Teamsters." From what has been stated above, it is evident that there are material conflicts in the testimony on the subject of Sparrowk's remarks on January 11, notably on the question whether Sparrowk in substance told former Craftmaster employees when he interviewed them that clearance by, or membership in, the Teamsters Local would be a condition of their empolyment by Englander . A resolution of the material issues raised by the testimony of Sparrowk , Testerman, Granger, and Bale will be made at a subsequent point in this report following a recital of other pertinent features of the record. On January 26, 1956, John W. Truman, a representative of the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, with which the Furniture Workers District Council and Local 3197 are affiliated, visited Sparrowk at the plant, and told the latter that the Furniture Workers District Council still represented the individuals who had been employed in various departments of Craftmaster's plant, and inquired whether Englander had "taken over" the contract between the Furni- ture Workers District Council and Craftmaster. Sparrowk replied in the negative. During the discussion that followed, Sparrowk told Truman that "nation-wide" Englander "was under agreement to the Teamsters through a master agreement" which had been negotiated by Korshak and "a Mr. Pink," on behalf of Englander, with a representative of the Teamsters International . Truman stated that the organization he represented has "jurisdiction in these types of plants all through the West Coast," that he knew of none in which "the Teamsters have jurisdiction," and that "we were in a position to furnish him [Sparrowk] qualified men for the type of work that he needed." Sparrowk replied that he "appreciated that very much," but that "he was bound by the master agreement with the Teamsters Inter- national." Sparrowk also stated that Englander had "good working relations" in the "plants covered by the Teamsters ' agreements," that he did not "want to jeopard- ize them [such relations] by signing this plant to another organization," and that he felt that if he did so, Englander "would be subject to reprisals by Teamsters in other locations." 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Truman met with Sparrowk again on February 3, 1956, and on that occasion reiterated the claim of representation of former Craftmaster employees; offered to discontinue the picketing by Local 3197, provided Englander hired individuals formerly employed in the plant's millroom by Craftmaster; and proposed that Englander consent to a representation election to be conducted by the Board. Sparrowk rejected the election proposal, advancing the reason that Englander had a "master agreement" with the Teamsters International. However, at one point or another during the discussion, Sparrowk expressed the view that an arrangement could be made whereby the Furniture Workers District Council could represent millroom employees, and the Teamsters Local all other employees. Truman then offered to remove the pickets provided Englander "would go to an NLRB election or sit down and come to some agreement with us and negotiate a contract." Sparrowk replied that the picket line should not be removed; that he was leaving for California to meet someone (whom, he stated, he was unable to identify); that he believed that "the whole matter could be cleared up" upon his meeting with this individual; and that he would call Truman from Oakland in that connection, but that if he did not do so, Truman should call him at his hotel upon his return to Seattle a few days later. Truman called Sparrowk in Seattle on February 6, and Sparrowk told him that he was about to leave for a meeting with Williams, and inquired of Truman whether he had heard from Williams. Truman replied that he had, and that Williams had asked him to come to the office of the Teamsters Local that afternoon. Truman asked Sparrowk whether the latter knew the purpose of that meeting, and Sparrowk replied that he "thought it better" that Truman secure the information from Williams. Truman and a representative of Local 3197 kept the appointment with Williams. In the course of the meeting, Williams described an accord he asserted had been reached between the Upholsterers International and his organization concerning the representation of upholsterers at Englander's Seattle plant, and he offered "to let" Local 3197 retain its "jurisdiction in the millroom" if he, in turn, were permitted to select the other job categories in the plant to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Teamsters Local. In substance, Truman declined to accept the offer .2 As of February 10, 1956, Englander had only eight nonsupervisory employees on its payroll at the Seattle plant, and had not as yet begun production at the factory on any substantial scale. On February 10, a representative of the Teamsters Local named Bombardier (also spelled Bombadier in the record) telephoned Testerman at her home and asked her if she wished to go to work at the plant on the following Monday, February 13. She inquired "if the labor dispute was straightened out," and Bombardier replied that "they had a contract" at the plant and that the picket line "wasn't legal." Testerman reported the telephone conversation to Evans and Carl Kissick, the financial secretary of Local 3197. Early on the morning of February 13, shortly before Englander's plant opened, about 60 former Craftmaster employees came to the plant in search of employment. Approximately half of these were members of Local 3197, and about an equal number were members of the Upholsterers Local. The members of Local 3197 were present at the instance of representatives of their union who had "notified" them to come to the plant after the receipt of reports such as Testerman's. Truman, Evans, and Kissick were at the plant on the occasion in question, as were Ralph Royer, business agent of the Upholsterers Local, and Williams and some 7 or 8 companions (described by Truman in his testimony as "seven or eight Teamsters"). When the doors to the plant opened, the jobseekers and the union representatives entered, Truman leading the members of Local 3197. After Truman and Williams entered the plant, they went to Sparrowk's office at the latter's request. Hunt, the factory manager, was also present. In the office, Sparrowk imputed responsibility to Truman for the entry of jobseekers into the plant that morning, rebuking Truman for it, and stating, in effect, that the hiring of employees was Englander's function and prerogative. At about this point, Evans, who was stationed outside the office and had heard the "loud talking" (as he termed it), entered the office and, addressing himself to Sparrowk and Hunt, stated that "there was a misunderstanding because, if anybody was responsible for the members of Local 3197 being down there to go to work that morning, it was the Teamsters, and specifically Mr. Williams and others of his staff whom I don't know." Evans also expressed the view that "apparently Mr. Williams is acting as your personnel manager." Hunt replied that Williams had a right to ask job applicants to come to the plant because his organization had 2 Findings made above with respect to Truman's conversations with Sparrowk on January 26 and February 3 and 6, and his meeting with Williams on February 6, are based on Truman's uncontradicted testimony. THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 721 a contract with Englander. That appears to have ended the discussion in the office .3 .. . , At one point or another after his conversation with Truman , Sparrowk left the office and addressed the jobseekers briefly, telling them in effect that the plant was ready to open for production . Englander hired 6 employees on February 13, bringing its roster of nonsupervisory employees to 14. Shortly after the discussion in the office, the Upholsterers Local held a meeting of its members who had formerly been in Craftmaster's employ. Williams attended and spoke to the group , describing his organization 's pension and insurance pro- grams. An official of another local of the Upholsterers International , who was at the meeting, reported to those present the contents of a telegram that had been received from the president of the parent body to the effect that members of. the Upholsterers Local were to "go to work under the Teamsters' agreement, . . . but still remain members" of the Upholsterers Local. Williams left the meeting at some point thereafter, and the membership voted to work at the plant "under the Team- sters' agreement." Local 3197 also held a meeting either on the same or the next day of members who had worked for Craftmaster. (There are variances in the record as to the date of the meeting.) Truman advised the former Craftmaster employees present to seek employment at the plant and to apply for membership in the Teamsters Local if that were necessary to secure employment at the factory. S The respective versions of Evans, Truman , and Sparrowk are in substantial accord on the subject of Sparrowk 's rebuke to Truman , but there is conflict in the testimony with respect to Hunt's remarks. Neither Hunt nor Williams testified . Evans quotes himself in his ac- count as addressing. his remarks to Hunt and Sparrowk , and imputes a statement to Hunt to the effect described above. Evans' testimony suggests the possibility that Sparrowk left the office before Hunt's remarks to talk to the jobseekers . Truman's testimony is to! the effect that a statement such as Evans imputes to Hunt was made, but he expresses some uncertainty whether Hunt or Sparrowk made it, stating that "at or about that time" Spar- rowk left the office to address the jobseekers . Sparrowk's testimony makes no reference to Evans ' presence . Sparrowk, however, denied that Hunt said anything in his "presence" about Williams "doing the hiring in the plant." Sparrowk testified that he has since "substantiated the fact" that he did not leave the office until "after the union officials left the room." Upon observation of Sparrowk , I gathered the impression that he has no cer- tain independent recollection that he was in fact in the office at the time of the remarks imputed to Hunt by Evans. The Respondent Company offered no explanation of its failure to call Hunt who is, after all, the one to whom Evans attributes the remarks in question . Moreover, there is good reason to believe from the undisputed evidence of what Sparrowk told Truman on January 26 and February 3 that there had been in effect-for. some time prior to the office discussion an understanding (not fully articulated in the record, although termed a "master agreement" by Sparrowk ) between Englander and the Teamsters International governing the representation of employees in the Company 's plants on a; "nation-wide" basis . It is also noteworthy that, according to Sparrowk 's own testimony, the Teamsters Local sometime prior to February 13 signed and submitted a proposed agree - ment to Englander's Chicago office . Although Sparrowk claims that he signed the docu- ment on February 15 or 16, after reaching the conclusion that the Teamsters Local rep- resented a majority of employees in the plant upon "proof" submitted to him by Williams, it may be noted that Sparrowk neither negotiated the agreement nor even read it in full, and that it is little more than a duplicate in form and substance of the contract in ,effect at Englander ' s Los Angeles plant . In any event, bearing in mind the unexplained failure to produce Hunt as a witness, and in the light of Sparrowk 's statements to Truman on January 26 and February 3 concerning the "master agreement " between Englander and the Teamsters International, and of Sparrowk's somewhat pro fovina approach to the execu- tion of the contract with the Teamsters Local , notwithstanding Sparrowk 's claim (which will be evaluated at a later point ) that he did not sign the contract until February 15 or 16, I am persuaded that Evans ' testimony concerning Hunt's remarks is credible, and have made corresponding findings. 4 The description of both meetings is based on evidence received without objection. What was said on both occasions is obviously not binding upon the Respondent Company, and I base no finding that the firm has engaged in unfair labor practices upon what was said at either meeting . Similarly, the events at the meeting of Local 3197 , as well as the discussion at the meeting of the Upholsterers Local after Williams left, is not binding upon the Teamsters Local . The events at both meetings are actually immaterial to the issue whether Englander has abridged the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act, and has rendered unlawful assistance to Englander . I have described the meetings as part of the chain of events depicted in the evidence , although it may be noted that, as 450553-58-vol. 118--47 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A substantial number of former Craftmaster employees who were present at the meeting of Local 3197 then went to the office of the Teamsters Local, made applica- tion there for. membership in that organization, and signed a document (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9) which provided , among other matters, that the signatories agreed to "accept ... all working conditions contained in the contract in effect between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Englander Company" and to become members of the Teamsters Local "immediately upon going to work for the Englander Company." Englander began production on a substantial scale on February 14, hiring' 60 employees on that date, an additional 18 on February 15, and 4 more on the follow- ing day, bringing the total number of nonsupervisory employees on the payroll as of February 16 to 96. The General Counsel contends that not only Sparrowk but Foremen . Henry and Moore made unlawful statements to individuals who applied for employment at the plant, and called several witnesses in support of the claim. One such witness, Fred Rober, who had been `employed by Craftmaster and had served as "picket captain" during the picketing of the plant by Local 3197, testified that: He spoke to Henry and Moore together on February 13 and asked them for employment; they told him that a job was available for him but that he would "have to clear through the Teamsters"; on the following day, after attending a meeting of Local 3197,5 he and 10 others who had been at the meeting went to the Teamsters Local where they signed a document (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9, which has been described above); and he then proceeded to the plant where he resumed the same type of work he had performed for Craftmaster. Another witness, Josephine Griffin , who had not previously been employed by Craftmaster, but was a member of Local 3197, testified that: She spoke to Moore on February 14 concerning her application for employment; he told her that a job was available for her, "but first you have to get it straightened out with the Team- sters"; upon her inquiry whether "it isn't settled yet, it is not going to be Furniture Workers," he replied that "it isn't settled yet one way or the other"; she asked Moore whether she would be employed if "I join the Teamsters "; Moore replied in the affirmative; she reported the incident to Kissick later that morning, and upon his advice proceeded to the office of the Teamsters Local the same day and signed an application for membership in that organization ; and she entered Englander's em- ploy on February 16. Robert A. McDonald , a former Craftmaster employee, testified that: He applied to Henry for employment on February 20; Henry told him that no job was available for him; Henry telephoned him the following evening and said that a position was available and that he "would have to clear through the Teamsters"; he replied that he "would like to think it over" and made an appointment with Henry for February 23; when he came to the plant on that date he did not speak to Henry but talked to Moore; after an explanation by Moore of the duties he would be required to per- form, Moore told him that he "would have to join the Teamsters"; he (McDonald) refused, stating, "Why join the Teamsters when the Carpenters & Joiners have the furniture plants"; Moore then asked him why he should be "the only one not to join the Teamsters when everybody else has"; he (McDonald) repeated his refusal "to join the Teamsters"; Moore then said, "Well, I guess we can't do any business, that will be about it"; and with that the interview ended. McDonald did not enter Englander's employ. Henry did not testify, but the Respondent Company called Moore as a witness. The latter denied that he told "any employee or prospective employee that he had to join the Teamsters Union," or that he made any suggestion that any such individual do so. The credibility issues raised by the testimony of Moore, McDonald, Rober, and Griffin will be resolved at a subsequent point in this report. At one point or another (as will appear, the date is uncertain), Englander and the Teamsters Local entered into a contract affecting employees of the Seattle far as the Teamsters Local (although not Englander) is concerned, the references to the "Teamsters' agreement" in Williams' presence at the meeting of the Upholsterers Local may be taken as evidence, in the context of the whole record, that a contract was in effect on February 13 between the Teamsters Local and Englander. I shall advert to this matter again at another point below. 6 This was apparently the meeting, described above, at which members of Local 3197 were advised to join the Teamsters Local if that were necessary to secure employment at the plant. As indicated earlier,,I base no findings of unfair labor practices on the testimony of Reber and others describing the meeting. THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 723 plants Korshak, Sparrowk, Williams, and Dillon signed the agreement on behalf of their respective principals. (It may be noted in passing that Dillon signed on be- half of the Western Conference of Teamsters, although the agreement states that it is "entered into" between the Teamsters Local and Englander.) The contract and the one applicable to Englander's Los Angeles plant are identical except for a few insertions in each and appear to follow a common form, as is evidenced not only by the language common to both contracts but by identically situated blank spaces provided for insertions such as, for example, the location of the Englander plant affected and the number of the local of the Teamsters International involved. By the terms of the agreement applicable to the Seattle plant, Englander recog- nizes the Teamsters Local "as the exclusive bargaining agent for all production and maintenance employees" (with some exceptions not relevant here). The contract provides, among other things, that it is to remain in effect until December 1, 1958, and to continue in effect thereafter unless either party serves a specified written no- tice of cancellation or termination upon the other; and that "as a condition of con- tinued employment, all employees employed by the Employer in the unit which is the subject of this Agreement shall become and remain members of the Union not later than the thirty-first (31st) day following the beginning of their employment or the effective date of this clause, whichever is the later." (For convenience of refer- ence the clause relating to union membership will be referred to below as the union- shop provision.) There is no evidence that the contract was the product of bargaining negotiations. Sparrowk, who is the only Englander representative stationed in the Western Divi- sion who has authority to negotiate collective-bargaining agreements for the Com- pany, testified that he did not negotiate the agreement, and that he "doesn't know of any negotiation." Dillon, Korshak, and Williams (who was present at the hear- ing) did not testify, and there is no information in the record as to the respective dates upon which they signed the contract. The only evidence pertaining to the execution of the agreement appears in Sparrowk's testimony. In that connection, he testified that he received a telephone call at his Oakland office from Chicago, on or about February 6, 1956, from his superior, Chester Pink, vice president in charge of Englander's manufacturing operations, who told him that "there was in the Chicago office a contract that had been signed by Joseph Di1= Ion and W. L. Williams and sent or given to some one in Chicago applying to the Seattle plant." According to Sparrowk, Pink also said that he wished to send the contract to Sparrowk but that he did not want the latter to sign the agreement or any other collective-bargaining contract until Sparrowk was convinced that the union involved represented a majority of the employees. Sparrowk also testified that: Late in the afternoon of February 13, while he was in Seattle, Williams called him and told him that a "majority of the labor pool that we [Englander] were interested in" had signed applications for membership in the Teamsters Local; he replied that he would "like to have proof of that"; Williams requested him to come to the office of the Teamsters Local to examine the proof; that evening he (Sparrowk) ex- amined the applications for dates and names and counted in excess of 60; upon his examination, he was "convinced" that the Teamsters Local represented a majority of the production and maintenance employees hired by Englander up to that point for the Seattle plant; and on the morning of February 15, Williams came to the plant, showed him a document (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9) containing signa- tures (some 87 at that time, according to the sense of Sparrowk's testimony), and told him that these "represented the signatures that he had of the people who had made application [for membership in the Teamsters Local] to that date." According to Sparrowk's account, after his conversation with Williams on February 15, he re- turned to Oakland by plane and found upon his arrival at his office there that the contract he had discussed with Pink on the telephone some 10 days earlier had arrived from Chicago. Sparrowk also testified that: He read only the first 2 or 3 paragraphs of the document and a few handwritten insertions because of informa- tion from Pink that the contract was similar to that in effect at the Los Angeles plant; he signed the contract on February 15 or 16 and then sent it to the Chicago office; Korshak's signature was not on the document at that time; he does not know when Korshak signed it; and Englander gave effect on February 15, 1956, to a provision in 'The name of the contracting labor organization is set forth in the agreement as "General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local 117." There can be no doubt that this is the Respondent Union, although it is elsewhere identified in the record as "In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO." 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the agreement dealing with contributions by the Company , for employees of the Seattle plant, to a pension fund of the Western Conference of Teamsters. C. Discussion of the issues and concluding findings Turning first to the question whether Sparrowk made statements to job applicants on January 11 to the effect that clearance by, or membership in, the Teamsters Local was to be a condition of employment at the plant, the credibility issue is not easily resolved because the testimony on both sides of the question is not wholly reliable. Sparrowk left me with the impression at a number of points that he was not a forthright witness. One example may be found in his disclaimer of any knowledge of the circumstances that brought job applicants to the plant on January 11. In that regard, he testified that he "would say" that those whom he interviewed came to the plant "voluntarily seeking employment," and that he had no knowledge prior to the interviews •"of how it happened" that the job applicants came to the plant. Yet this is contradicted by Moore who stated that he asked a number of former Craft- master employees to come to the plant for interviews with Sparrowk, that before he did so he informed Sparrowk of his intention, and that Sparrowk "suggested that it might be a good idea that some of them come in and talk to him." I do not be- lieve Sparrowk's disclaimer of any prior knowledge of Moore's request to former Craftmaster employees to come in for interviews , and upon my observation of Sparrowk's demeanor, I am of the opinion that his disclaimer was rooted in a dis- position to avoid or hedge on facts which , in his judgment, might compromise him. A more important example of a lack of forthrightness in Sparrowk's testimony is to be found in the justification he advances for referring between 15 to 20 job applicants to the Teamsters Local on January 11. His explanation for his action is that he had been "advised by representatives of the Teamsters that they expected to have the Seattle operation as they have it elsewhere in the country," and that he therefore "invited the people [those interviewed ] to ascertain what they [the Team- sters Local ] had to offer so when the decision was made they would know the entire content of what all three of the unions could offer." The interviewees, it may be noted, had not asked to be "invited " to the Teamsters Local; there is no evidence that any of them were dissatisfied with their own unions or expressed any dissatisfaction with them to Sparrowk; and it is evident even from Sparrowk's own testimony that it was he who injected the name of the Teamsters Local into the interviews, with knowledge that those he interviewed were members either of Local 3.197 or the Upholsterers Local. Be that as it may, Sparrowk's explanation strikes an implausible note, and I am persuaded that it is no more than an afterthought calculated to conceal the real .reason for the referral of the job applicants to the Teamsters Local . The real moti- vation may be found in the undisputed evidence of what Sparrowk said to Truman on January 26. On that occasion , it will be recalled, Sparrowk told Truman that: Englander had entered into a "master agreement" of "nation-wide" scope with a representative of the Teamsters International ; he "was bound by the master agree- ment" ; Englander had "good working relations " in its "other plants covered by the Teamsters' agreements"; he did not want to jeopardize such relations "by signing this plant to another organization"; and he felt that if he did so, Englander "would be subject to reprisals in other locations." Significantly, also, during their conversation on February 3, Sparrowk rejected Truman's reasonable proposal for a Board- conducted election to determine the representation wishes of the employees, basing his refusal on the existence of the "master agreement." 7 I think it plain that Eng- lander was predisposed at the time of the interviews , if not indeed under some sort of obligation to the Teamsters International, to recognize the Teamsters Local as the representative of its production and maintenance employees at its then con- templated manufacturing facility in Seattle, and that , in furtherance of that pre- disposition, Sparrowk referred substantially all those interviewed on January 11 to the office of the Teamsters Local as a means of assisting that organization in securing the adherence of former Craftmaster employees to the Teamsters Local instead of to the other unions to which they then belonged . The sum of the matter is that I 7 At one point Sparrowk testified that he does not know where the term "master agree- ment" originated and that he knows that Englander does "not have such a thing." Yet Sparrowk's own version of what he told a large group of jobseekers at the plant on January 16 includes testimony that he "referred to" the agreement in talking to the group. More- over, as pointed out above , Truman's account of his conversations with Sparrowk on January 26 and February 3 is uncontradicted. THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 725 am unable to place any credence in Sparrowk's self-serving description of his motive in referring the interviewees to the Teamsters Local. Sparrowk admittedly referred practically all those he interviewed to the office of the Teamsters Local. Bearing in mind the setting in which the interviews occurred,, and the fact that the referrals were unsolicited and made upon his initiative, I do not think it unnatural that job applicants should interpret his statements as meaning that clearance by, or membership in, the Teamsters Local was to be a condition of employment at the plant . Yet, notwithstanding the appraisal of Sparrowk's testimony given above, I entertain a substantial doubt that Sparrowk expressly voiced such a condition. In that connection , it should be borne in mind that the burden of establishing that Sparrowk made statements in the terms imputed to him by Granger, Testerman, and Bale is upon the General Counsel. Although Granger in his testimony quotes Sparrowk as telling him that he would "have to go down and clear through the Teamsters " as a condition of employment at the plant, an affidavit purportedly describing the interview , given by Granger to a representative of the General Counsel only a few days after the interview , does not quote Sparrowk as prescribing clearance by the Teamsters as a condition of employ- ment.8 Because of the discrepancy, I am unable to place any reliance on Granger's claim that Sparrowk voiced such a condition , although I have no doubt that Sparrowk told Granger to see Williams at the office of the Teamsters Local. It may be, as Granger claims, that Sparrowk told him that he would not be required to pay any initiation fees to the Teamsters Local , but in view of the discrepancy noted above, and the absence of any evidence that Sparrowk expressed himself to a similar effect to any other interviewee , the weight of the evidence will not support a finding that Sparrowk made the statement on the subject of initiation fees imputed to him by Granger. Testerman, it may be noted, unlike Granger and Bale, does not quote Sparrowk, in terms, as prescribing membership in, or clearance by, the Teamsters Local as a condition of employment . I have no doubt that Sparrowk told her to see Williams, as she asserts, but I have some reservation that he told her, in terms , that she would have to "clear through" the Teamsters Local . There is some indication in Tester-: man's testimony of a tendency by her to place an interpretation on things she heard Sparrowk say which differs somewhat from the actual content of what was, said. She imputes a statement to Sparrowk at the plant on January 16 to a large, group of jobseekers (some 75 or 80, according to the evidence ) that as far as he knew "this master agreement . . . with the Teamsters . would cover the Seattle plant, too." This is not quite in accord with the version given by Granger, the only other employee called by the General Counsel on the subject of Sparrowk 's remarks. on that occasion. On the subject of the "master agreement ," Granger quotes. Sparrowk as saying that Englander has "a master agreement . with the Teamsters throughout the country in the rest of their plants." Sparrowk did allude to a "master agreement" on the occasion in question , but I believe that he did so in terms of a statement, as Sparrowk described it, that Englander had been "told by the Ware- housemen's Union that they would have this plant [in Seattle] inasmuch as they have Englander factories elsewhere in the country . .. It is not improbable that Testerman drew the inference from Sparrowk 's allusion to the "master agreement"' that what he was saying was that the "master agreement " would "cover the Seattle plant, too." Similarly, I am of the opinion that Testerman interpreted Sparrowk'si proposal that she see Williams to mean that she would have to "clear through" the Teamsters Local. In sum, I am unconvinced that Sparrowk told her, in terms, to "clear through" the Teamsters Local in the course of his proposal that she see Williams. Bale describes Sparrowk as asking him whether he had "joined the Teamsters- Union," and as stating that he should join that organization if he "wanted to work" at the plant. No other interviewee quotes Sparrowk as inquiring into his union affiliation, nor as stating expressly that he should join the Teamsters Local as a condition of employment. (Granger quotes Sparrowk as telling him to "clear through the Teamsters" as a condition of working at the plant, and not as stating that employment was conditioned upon membership in that organization.) Bearing in mind that Sparrowk interviewed some 15 to 20 persons on January 11, one must take into account the fact that Bale was the only interviewee produced by the General Counsel who attributes an inquiry by Sparrowk into union affiliation, and s The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as follows : "He [ Sparrowk] said that I should go to the Teamsters Union Hall at 522 Dennyway and see Bill Williams who would take care of me. I asked him about initiation fees . Mr. Sparrowk said that initiation, fees had been taken care of and that I wouldn't have to pay any ; then I left." 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD expressly imputes a statement to Sparrowk to the effect that membership in the Teamsters Local was to be a condition of employment. In that posture of the record, notwithstanding my conviction that Sparrowk was not a forthright witness and also, as will appear, did not accurately describe what he told at least some of the persons he interviewed, I do not believe that the evidence preponderantly establishes that Sparrowk expressed the employment condition Bale imputes to him.9 Although the weight of the evidence will not support a finding that Sparrowk told any job applicant on January 11 that he or she would have to "clear through" the Teamsters Local or that clearance by, or membership in, that organization was to be a condition of employment, I am convinced, on the other hand, that Sparrowk's version of what he said to those he interviewed goes substantially beyond what he actually told them. In effect, he imputes to himself the expression of a position of neutrality toward the question of representation of the employees. The substance of his testimony in that regard is that after he told the job applicants that the "Teamsters Union" expected "to be recognized in this plant," he informed them that he "was not in a position to tell them what they could or could not do from a union standpoint." No other witness who testified on the subject of the interviews quotes Sparrowk to that effect, and this applies to two job applicants called by the Respondent Company. One of these, George Mertel, was asked on his direct examination whether Sparrowk made any "reference at all to the Teamsters Union," and he replied "not that I know of." This, it may be noted, is not quite in accord with Sparrowk's testimony, for the sense of Sparrowk's version is that he did refer to the "Teamsters Union" in all the interviews.10 Be that as it may, Daniel A. Walters, another witness called by the Respondent Company, denied during his direct ex- amination that Sparrowk ever told him that he "had to become a member of the Teamsters Union." At a subsequent point in his testimony, describing what Sparrowk told him "about the Teamsters" on January 11, Walters stated: "He [Sparrowk] just gave me the address of the place and said to go up there and talk it over with the Teamsters about application for membership in the union." The witness also testified that he did not ask Sparrowk for the address of the Teamsters Local, and that Sparrowk "just wrote the address on a slip of paper." Walters, who is 74 years of age and was among those terminated by Craftmaster on the day preceding the interview, went directly from the interview to the office of the Team- sters Local and there signed an application for membership in that organization.ii Perhaps Sparrowk did tell some of those he interviewed that he "was not in a position to tell them what to. do from a union standpoint," but I am persuaded that at least in the cases of those job applicants who testified concerning their interviews he made no such statement.12 Moreover, the expression of neutrality which Sparrowk attributes to himself is open to substantial doubt, to say the least, in the light of his statements to Truman on January 26 and February 3, and of the fact, as will appear, that Englander and the Teamsters Local entered into their contract at a time when they had no lawful right to do so, all warranting an inference that Englander had a preference for the Teamsters Local at the time of the interviews, and that Sparrowk referred the job applicants to that organization in furtherance of that preference. 0 Even if Sparrowk did ask Bale whether he had joined the "Teamsters Union," it is un- necessary to pass on the question whether this isolated inquiry violated the Act. It may be noted that the complaint does not allege any unlawful interrogation of employees. 11 Mertel described a conversation with Sparrowk concerning the Teamsters which, ac- cording to Mertel, took place shortly before the interview while both he and Sparrowk were "out on the shipping room floor." Mertel quotes Sparrowk as telling him on that oc- casion that "everything is Teamsters," that "I don't know which way it is going to go," and that "you may have to and you may not" (presumably meaning that Sparrowk did not know whether Mertel would be required to join the Teamsters Local). 11 In his direct examination, Walters gave no details of any interview on January 11, and he stated that he was not at the plant on that date. During his cross-examination, he was shown a copy of his application for membership in the Teamsters Local, which is in evidence and is dated January 11, 1956, and his recollection was thereafter refreshed as to the circumstances in which he signed the application. He then proceeded to describe his interview with Sparrowk, stating, in substance, that it took place on January 11, shortly before he signed the application on that date. 12 According to Kissick, he was stationed, among a group of jobseekers, outside the open door of the office in which the interviews took place and overheard portions of what Spar- rowk said. In his testimony, Kissick denied that he heard Sparrowk tell the interviewees to "make their own decisions" regarding their union affiliation, and describes Sparrowk as giving them the address of the Teamsters Local and teling them to go there for their "affiliation." THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 727 In. sum, putting together those portions of the testimony which I regard as reliable, including testimony given by Sparrowk and the witnesses called by the General Counsel, what credibly emerges from the record on the subject of what Sparrowk said in connection with union affiliation during the interviews is that he proposed to a substantial number of job applicants on January 11 that they go to the office of the Teamsters Local to discuss the subject of applying for membership in that organization; and that he supplied the address of the Teamsters Local to interviewees, in one case at least (that of Bale) writing the address on a slip of paper at the job applicant's request, and in other instances furnishing the address without any request for it. The question is presented whether Sparrowk's conduct in referring the job appli- cants to the Teamsters Local, as found above, constituted unlawful support of that organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. I am unable to view Sparrowk's conduct as privileged by the terms of Section 8 (c) which provides, in part, that the "expressing of any views, argument or opinion . shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice ., if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." What Sparrowk told Walters, for example, did not constitute the expression of "any views, argument or opinion." It was a verbal act, namely, that of telling Walters "to go up there and talk it over with the Teamsters about application for membership in the union," and was implemented by another act, that of furnishing Walters with the address of the Teamsters Local on a slip of paper.13 "It has repeatedly been held that an employer may not intrude in matters concerning the self-organization of employees. He must refrain from all inter- ference. He must maintain a neutral attitude. Especially is this so where the adherence of the employees is being sought by rival labor organizations" (Harrison Sheet Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 194 F. 2d 407). This language of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the cited case is particularly applicable to the question under consideration. Sparrowk admittedly was aware that those he inter- viewed were at the time members either of the Upholsterers Local or Local 3197. It is evident that none of the job applicants had expressed any dissatisfaction with those unions or sought the "advice" which Sparrowk gave them; and that he gratuitously referred them to the Teamsters Local for a discussion of their affiliation with that organization, injecting a subject into the interviews which had no relevancy to the purpose for which the job applicants had come to see him. The setting in which Sparrowk did this was one in which these individuals were seeking work from him and were dependent upon his approval for an opportunity to resume their employment at the plant in the event that Englander undertook its operation, as it actually did only a few days later.14 In that setting, it would be only natural for the job applicants, as it is evident some of them, at least, did, to construe Sparrowk's ungermane and unsolicited proposal that they go to the Teamsters Local to discuss applications for membership in that organization as meaning that Englander preferred the Teamsters Local over the other unions, and that clearance by, or membership in, the Teamsters Local was to be a condition of employment' at the plant. Although various job applicants did not take Sparrowk's advice, but instead reported it to their own unions, a revealing glimpse of the impact that conduct such as Sparrowk's can have upon a job applicant is afforded by the fact that Walters,. an elderly man in search of work, who at the time of the interview was a member of Local 3197, plainly lost no time in going to the office of the Teamsters Local to sign an application for membership in that union. The sum of the matter is that Sparrowk's conduct was anything but neutral, particularly if one takes its setting into account, and that it was an intrusion by him "in matters concerning the self-organization of employees." In the light of the whole record, including the fact, as will appear, that Englander entered into the contract with the Teamsters Local when it had no lawful right to do so, I find that Sparrowk's 13 Cf. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, 81 NLRB 557 ( and cases cited), enfd. 179 F. 2d 323 (C. A. 8). 14 Although the transaction with Craftmaster was not concluded until January 16, the evidence warrants the inference that at the time of the interviews, Englander anticipated that it would soon occupy the plant. In that regard it may be noted that: (1) Craftmaster ceased production and terminated its employees on January 10; (2) Sparrowk interviewed job applicants on January 11 ; (3) he spent much of the week preceding the execution of the lease in the plant in connection with the inventory ; and (4) lie admitted that he told some of the applicants that he "hoped" that Englander would begin work at the plant on January 16. 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purpose in referring the job applicants to the Teamsters Local was to provide that organization with an opportunity to wean the job applicants away from other unions, in a climate of implied approval by Englander, with the ultimate end in view, of recognition by Englander of the Teamsters Local; and that as a result of Sparrowk's conduct, Englander contributed support to the Teamsters Local in violation of Section 8 (a) (2), and interfered with the exercise by employees of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the statute.15 Turning to the claim that Foremen Henry and Moore made unlawful statements to job applicants, it may be noted that Henry, although still employed by Englander, was not called as a witness, nor is there any explanation by the Respondent Company of its failure to call him. Thus McDonald's testimony that Henry told him on the telephone on the evening of February 21 that a position was available and that he "would have to clear through the Teamsters" is uncontradicted. Another factor to bear in mind is that both Griffin and McDonald gave circumstantially detailed accounts of their respective. discussions with Moore, while the latter gave no description of any conversation with either Griffin or McDonald. Substantially all that appears in Moore's testimony in that connection is a blanket denial that he told "any employee or prospective employee that he had to join the Teamsters Union" or that he made any suggestion to that effect; and that he does not recall McDonald "specifically." In view of Moore's position and the important role he played, according to the sense of Sparrowk's testimony, in the recruitment of employees for Englander's new plant, I think it wholly plausible that both Griffin and McDonald had conversations with him concerning employment at the plant; yet fog. 'all that appears in Moore's testimony, Griffin and McDonald did not even discuss the subject of employment with him. I believe that they did, and Moore's failure to give details of any conversation with either Griffin or McDonald detracts from the force of his testimony. Moreover, as will subsequently appear, the contract between Englander and the Teamsters Local was in effect on February 14, the date when Griffin asserts she spoke to Moore, notwithstanding Sparrowk's claim that he did not sign it until February 15 or 16. Although the union-shop provision contains a grace period before employees are required to become members of the Teamsters Local, the existence of the provision contributes plausibility to the testimony of Griffin and Moore concerning their respective conversations with Moore. In the light of the factors outlined above, I credit their testimony, and find. that Englander interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7, thus violating Section 8 (a) (1), and contributed support to the Teamsters Local, in violation of Section 8 (a) (2), as,a :result of Moore's statements to Griffin on February 14 that as a condition of employment, she would "first have to get it straightened out with the Teamsters" and that she would have a job at the plant if she joined that organization; as a consequence of Henry's remark to McDonald on February 21 that he "would have to clear through the Teamsters"; and as a result of Moore's statement to McDonald on February 23 that the latter "would have to join the Teamsters," and the remark, "Well, I guess we can't do any business, that will be about it," with which Moore closed the interview with McDonald. The statement with which Moore ended the discussion with McDonald amounted to a denial of employment to the latter, although a job was available for him, because of his refusal to join the Teamsters Local. In addition to the violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2), resulting from Moore's statements to McDonald, as a consequence of the denial of employment to the latter, Englander unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of Section 8 (a): (3) of the Act. 15 In one of his versions of his remarks to a large group of jobseekers on January 16, Spar- rowk gave testimony to the effect that he told the group that if by suggesting "to some of the people" (presumably meaning interviewees a few days earlier) that they "find out the content of what could be offered to them" by the Teamsters Local, there was "some misunderstanding as to union affiliation I wanted them to know that I definitely was not in a position to tell them what to do." This testimony affords no basis for a holding that Sparrowk dispelled the unfair labor practices found above. For one thing, another version by Sparrowk of his remarks on January 16, given earlier in his testimony, does not contain statements to the effect set out above. For another, it is not established that all the job applicants referred to the Teamsters Local on January 11 were present at the plant on January 16. Walters' testimony suggests that he was not there on that occasion. It may also be borne in mind that Walters had visited the office of the Teamsters Local, upon Sparrowk's advice, and had already applied for membership in that union, before Spar- reek's remarks on January 16, whatever their content. THE ENGLANDER COMPANY , INC. 729 Notwithstanding these findings, I am unconvinced by Rober 's account of his alleged conversation with the two foremen . Early in his testimony , Rober imputed a statement to Henry on February 13 , without any mention of Moore, that he would "have to join with the Teamsters " before he could be employed. At a subsequent point in his testimony , Rober quoted both Henry and Moore as telling him that "there would be a job on the shipping floor but I 'd have to clear through the Teamsters." One is left in some doubt by Rober's testimony whether he intended to quote two separate conversations , one with Henry alone , in which the latter allegedly made the statement initially described above, and the other with both foremen, or whether it was the intendment of Rober's testimony that the statement he initially attributed to Henry was made during the alleged conversation with both foremen. In any event, Rober's imputation of a joint statement to both foremen has an artificial flavor, and upon my observation of Rober, I think it quite possible that he coupled Moore's name with that of Henry, in a statement he imputes to both, as an afterthought following the initial description by Rober of what he claims Henry said to him . In short, Rober's testimony lacks sufficient quality to warrant a finding that either Henry or Moore made the statements he imputes to them. The remaining question is whether Englander and the Teamsters Local had a lawful right to enter into the agreement affecting the Seattle plant. In its brief, the Respondent Company bases its position that the agreement is lawful upon a claim, as the brief puts it, that "the agreement was not entered into until it was signed by Mr. John Sparrowk on behalf of the employer , on or about February 15, 1956, at which time the Teamsters had a majority of the then employees and prospective employees." 16 One may assume that a majority of the 92 nonsuper- visory employees on the payroll of the Seattle plant on February 15 had designated the Teamsters Local as their bargaining representative by that date,17 but that does not of itself establish the legality of the agreement , for there is good reason to conclude that the contract came into existence at some point prior to February 13, at a time when the parties thereto had no right to enter into it, notwithstanding Sparrowk's claim that he signed the agreement on February 15 or 16. A number of factors, set forth below, persuasively support that conclusion. In that regard , one may first consider the document (General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 9) which Sparrowk asserts Williams submitted to him on February 15 in connection with the Teamsters Local's claim that it represented a majority of the employees at the plant . Each page of the instrument contains a typed paragraph followed by signatures . The document was maintained at the office of the Teamsters. Local and submitted by that organization for the signatures of individuals, mainly former Craftmaster employees , who were seeking employment at the plant. The typed paragraph consists of the following: We the undersigned former employees of Craftmaster, Inc. do hereby agree to revoke any other Union representation in which I formerly participated as a member and do hereby accept as a new employee of the Englander Com- pany, all working conditions contained in the contract in effect between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Englander Company and do hereby agree to become a member of Warehousemen 's Union Local 117 im- mediately upon going to work for the Englander Company. "The assertion that the contract was "entered into " when Sparrowk signed it is not quite in accord with Sparrowk 's testimony that "normally " Englander does not regard a collective-bargaining contract as "binding" until it is signed by Korshak, and that Korshak 's signature was not on the agreement with the Teamsters Local at the time Sparrowk signed it . As indicated earlier neither Englander nor the Teamsters Local produced any evidence as to the date of execution of the contract by Korshak. 1a Actually, the evidence does not probatively establish that the Teamsters Local repre- sented a majority of the 92 nonsupervisory employees as of February 15. At the hearing, the Teamsters Local offered in evidence approximately GO signed applications for member- ship "that resemble" those Sparrowk states he examined on February 13. No evidence as to the authenticity of the signatures was offered , and they were excluded upon objection of the General Counsel. There is in evidence a document (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9) containing 90 signatures appended to a statement to the effect that the signatories agree to become members of the Teamsters Local upon entering Englander's employ . This was offered in evidence by the General Counsel and received without objection. Without ex- ploring details of the number of signatures identified in the testimony, it may be noted that only a small proportion of them , far less than half, are authenticated in the evidence. The General Counsel, however, has advanced no claim that the signatures are not authentic. 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There can be no doubt that the document , which is undated, was in existence at least as early as February 13, for various individuals signed it on that date. Significantly, it refers to "the contract in effect between the International Brother- hood of Teamsters and the Englander Company" [emphasis supplied]. Thus it appears from the document at least that as of February 13 Englander was a party to an agreement affecting employees at the Seattle plant. To be sure, the quoted language literally refers to the "International Brotherhood of Teamsters ," as being the other party to "the contract in effect ," but the record, viewed as a whole, points to the conclusion that the contract to which the instrument has reference is the one between Englander and the Teamsters Local. On that score, in the first place, it is well to bear in mind that individuals concerned with union matters often loosely refer to local unions and their parent international organizations in such interchangeable and abbreviated fashion that one must frequently look to the full context of a given statement or situation to determine whether the reference is to a local or its parent. There is ample evidence of this practice in the testimony of some of the witnesses. One may note, incidentally, that the Respondent Union refers to itself in its contract with Englander as the "General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local 117," whereas its name, as evidenced by other portions of the record, including its answer, is actually "International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen's Local Union No. 117, AFL-CIO." There is no evidence that "International Brotherhood of Teamsters" is the name of any labor organization, but the quoted name is a part of the name of both the Respondent Union and its parent, the Teamsters International. .If it be asserted that the relevant language of the document has reference to the Teamsters International, it is well to bear in mind that no claim is advanced in this proceeding either by the Respondent Union or the Respondent Company that there is, or ever has been, a contract applicable to the Seattle plant between Eng- lander and the Teamsters International or, for that matter, between the Company and any organization named "International Brotherhood of Teamsters ." The only agreement in evidence , affecting Englander's factory in Seattle, is that between the Company and the Teamsters Local, and that contract recognizes the Teamsters Local, and not any organization named "International Brotherhood of Teamsters," as the "excusive bargaining agent" of the employees. Second, there is undisputed evidence that Bombardier, a representative of the Teamsters Local, told Testerman on February 10, when he asked her if she wished to come to work on February 13, that "they had a contract" at the plant. I have no doubt that Bombardier's meaning was that his organization , the Teamsters Local, had a contract with Englander affecting the plant. Bombardier's statement supports the conclusion both that the agreement between Englander and the Teamsters Local was in effect as early as February 10, and that that is the contract to which the document signed by former Craftmaster employees has reference. Third, it will be recalled that Williams was present at the meeting of the Upholsterers Local on February 13 when members of that union were told that a telegram had been received from the president of the Upholsterers International to the effect that the members were "to go to . work under the Teamsters' agreement, . . but still remain members" of the Upholsterers Local. From the context of the description of the meeting, one may safely conclude that Williams said nothing there to negate the existence of "the Teamsters' agreement." The reference to "the Teamsters' agreement" at the meeting, standing alone, has, to be sure, a fragmentary character, but it takes on meaning when viewed in the full context of the record, including the evidence of the document signed by former Craftmaster employees and Bombardier's statement to Testerman on February 10, and the absence of any claim either by Englander or the Teamsters Local that the Company has ever had a contract applicable to the Seattle plant other than the one with the Teamsters Local. In short, I am convinced that the document signed by former Craftmaster employees for the Teamsters Local, the statement made by Bombardier, and the summary of the telegram given in Williams' presence at the meeting of the Upholsterers Local, all had reference to the same contract; and that the agreement thus referred to is the one between Englander and the Teamsters Local. Needless to say, the document maintained by the Teamsters Local , Bombardier's statement to Testerman, and what was said at the meeting of the Upholsterers Local are not binding upon Englander and cannot be taken as evidence against it. How- ever, as found above, on February 13, during a discussion at the Seattle plant, in reply to a remark by Evans to the effect that Williams was apparently acting as Englander's "personnel manager," Hunt, the factory manager at the Seattle plant, THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC . 731 made the statement that "Williams had the right to call these people inasmuch as the Teamsters held an agreement with the Englander Company." This may not be dismissed lightly, notwithstanding Sparrowk's testimony that Hunt has no authority with respect "to matters involving negotiating with labor organizations," and irre- spective of Sparrowk's assertion that Hunt's functions for Englander were still limited at the time of the hearing because of his work in "winding up Craftmaster." Whatever temporary limitations there may be on Hunt's work for Englander, one may assume from the fact that he has the title of factory manager that he occupies a position of substantial importance in the supervisory hierarchy at the plant. In that regard, it is well to bear in mind, also, that he was the only supervisor, in addition to Sparrowk, present during the discussion with the union representatives on February 13. Hunt's statement takes on substantial importance as a guide to decision when viewed in the light of the whole record. A singular silence pervades the evidence as to the origin of the agreement. One would assume that the signatories to a con- tract would be the individuals who are best in a position to know the facts of its origin . Yet Sparrowk, despite his position with Englander and the authority vested in him by the Company, testified that he "doesn't know of any negotiation of the contract"; and none of the other signatories were produced as witnesses either by the Teamsters Local or Englander. Substantially all that appears in the record on the subject of the origin of the agreement is hearsay testimony by Sparrowk, in which the latter quotes Chester Pink as telling him on the telephone from Chicago on February 6 that a contract signed by Dillon and Williams "applying to the Seattle plant" was in Englander's Chicago office, and that it had been "sent or given to someone" there. Pink, it may be noted, was also not produced as a witness. In sum, there is no evidence that the contract was ever the subject of collective- bargaining negotiations, at least in the accepted sense of participation in bargaining meetings and a discussion of contract terms. The absence of such evidence; the unexplained failure of either of the Respondents to call Dillon, Korshak, Williams, or Pink; the fact that the contract is little more than a duplicate of the one affecting the Los Angeles plant, even to the extent of bearing a date, October 1, 1955, some months prior to Englander's lease of the Seattle factory; Sparrowk's statements to Truman on January 26 that Englander has a "master agreement" of "nation-wide" scope with the Teamsters International, that he (Sparrowk) "was bound by the master agreement," that he did not wish to jeopardize "good working relations" in other Englander "plants covered by the Teamsters' agreements" by "signing this plant to another organization," and that he felt that if he did so, Englander "would be subject to reprisals by Teamsters in other locations"; and Sparrowk's refusal on February 3 to consent to an election because of the "master agreement," all point to the conclusion that the execution of the con- tract between the Teamsters Local and Englander was a mere formality, pursuant to some prior understanding between the Company and the Teamsters International, and without regard to the question whether the Teamsters Local actually represented a majority of the employees at the Seattle plant. In the light of the factors enumer- ated above, I attach more weight to Hunt's spontaneous statement, made in a setting of dispute and controversy, than to Sparrowk's self-serving description of his alleged telephone conversation with Pink, of the claimed examination of the membership applications and the document signed by the employees, and of the date of his execution of the contract. In sum , viewing the evidence as a whole, I find that the agreement under consideration was entered into at some point prior to Hunt's statement on February 13, and that it was in effect on that date. As of February 13, Englander had only 14 nonsupervisory employees on its pay- roll at the Seattle plant; there had as yet been little or no production at the factory; the Company contemplated a substantial expansion of its complement of employees; and the number then employed was but a small fraction of the anticipated work force. Bearing these circumstances in mind, it is immaterial that Sparrowk was "convinced" on February 13, as he claims, that the Teamsters Local represented a "majority of the labor pool that we were interested in" (plainly, from the context of the record, consisting for the greater part of individuals not yet in Englander's employ on February 13), or that the Teamsters Local on that date actually represented a majority of the relatively few individuals then employed. The decisive fact is that the contract was entered into and was in effect at a time when the number of in- dividuals employed by Englander was far less than the number it anticipated hiring for its production needs. The Board has repeatedly held that a collective-bargaining agreement between an employer and a union as the representative of the employees, 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in a bargaining unit is ineffective if the agreement is made at a time when the number of employees is not representative of the employer's anticipated work force.'B In such circumstances, recognition of the union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit constitutes unlawful assistance to the union.I9 Applying these principles, and bearing in mind that the agreement was entered into at some point prior to February 13, I find that the contract is ineffective; and that by entering into and maintaining it Englander has contributed, and is contribut- ing, support to the Teamsters Local in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees, and is inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing them, in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thus violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the statute. By the terms of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, a union-shop provision such as that contained in the contract can be valid only if the labor organization involved was not "established, maintained or assisted by any action defined in Section 8 (a) of this Act as an unfair labor practice" and "if such labor organization is the repre- sentative of the employees as provided in Section 9 (a) in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made." For the reasons stated above, the union-shop provision in the agreement under consideration here does not meet the requirements of the statute and is invalid. Thus I find that by agreeing to the provision and maintaining it, Englander has discriminated, and is discriminating, in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees, in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (3), has contributed, and is contributing, support to the Teamsters Local, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (2), and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees, and is interfering with, restraining , and coercing them, in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7, thus violating Section 8 (a) (1); and that by agreeing to the union-shop provision and maintaining it, the Teamsters Local has attempted, and is attempting, to cause Englander to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), thus violating Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, and has restrained and coerced employees, and is restraining and coercing them, in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the said Act 2° IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The respective activities of the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It has been found that the Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8 (a) (1), (2 ), and (3 ) of the Act, and that the Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the said statute. In view of the findings, I shall recom- mend that each of the said Respondents cease and desist from its unfair labor prac- tices and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent Company denied employment to Robert A. McDonald on February 23, 1956 , and that its conduct in that regard violated Sec- tion 8 ( a) (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it offer the said Robert A. McDonald immediate employment in the position in which he would have been em- ployed, but for the discrimination against him , or in -a substantially equivalent posi- tion, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges , and that the m Daniel Hamm Drayage Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 458, enfd. 185 F. 2d 1020 (C. A. 5) ; Guy F. Atkinson, 90 NLRB 143, enforcement denied on other grounds, 195 F. 2d 141 (C. A. 9) (the court approved the principle set forth above) : and The Englander Company, Inc., .1.14 NLRB 1034 (involving another plant of the Respondent Company). 19 The Englander Company, Inc., supra. 20 Among other cases, see The Englander Company, Inc., supra.; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 81 NLRB 1052; and Acme Mattress Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 1010, enfd. 192 F. 2d 524 (C. A. 7). THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 733 Respondent Company make the said Robert A. McDonald whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him , by payment to him of -a sum of money equal to the amount of wages he would have earned, but for the said discrimination , between February 23, 1956, and the date of a proper offer of employment to him as aforesaid . Loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from the date of the denial of employment, as found above, to the date of a proper offer of employment. The quarterly periods shall begin with the respect 1st days of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from -a sum of money equal to that which Robert A. McDonald normally would have earned, but for the discrimination, in each such quarter or portion thereof, his net earnings,21 if any, in any other employment during that period. Earnings in one quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. The Respondent Company will be required to preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon request, for examination and copying , all payroll records, social- security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and determine the amount of back pay due and his right of employment under the terms of the order recommended below. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and of the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Englander Company, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 2. Upholsterers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Local 5 of Upholsterers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Washington-Oregon District Council of Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Warehousemen's Local Union No. 1,17, AFL-CIO; and Local Union 3197, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees, as found above, in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. By contributing support to the Respondent Union, as found above, the Re- spondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. 5. By discriminating in regard to the hire of Robert A. McDonald , as found above, thereby encouraging membership in the Respondent Union and discouraging mem- bership in other labor organizations , the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 6. By agreeing to and maintaining the terms of the union-shop provision of its agreement with the Respondent Union, as found above, the Respondent Company has discriminated and is discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees, thereby encouraging membership in the Respondent Union and dis- couraging membership in other labor organizations , and has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 7. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, 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. agreeing to and maintaining the terms of the said union -shop provision, as found above, the . Respondent Union is attempting and has attempted to cause the Respondent Company to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,:and has thus engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 .(b) (2) of the Act. 9. The aforesaid unfair , labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting 'commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, for the applicable construction of "net earnings."