General Molds and Plastics Corp.

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The Union, at all times material hereto, has been and still is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of col- lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. By unilaterally instituting wage and other changes and by otherwise engaging in conduct in order to discredit and to • undermine the Union's status as statutory bargaining representative, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Such unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning,of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The strike of September 10 was, and continues to be, an unfair labor practices strike. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] General Molds and Plastics Corporation and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO and District 50, United Mine Workers of America , and Its Local Union 14024, Parties to the Contract. Case No. 6-CA-1056. November 21, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On December 2, 1957, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan, issued his Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (2), and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, the Respondent and District 50, United Aline Workers of America and its Local Union 14024, Intervenors and Parties to the Contract, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below. 1. We adopt the Trial Examiner's findings as to the purposes and ,scope of activities of the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board, and his conclusion that it is a labor organization dominated by the Respondent.' 2. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re- spondent unlawfully assisted and contributed financial and other support to District 50 and Local 14024. We do not, however, agree with the Trial Examiner's further conclusion that the evidence also establishes domination of District 50 and Local 14024 by the Respondent. 'N.L.R.B. v. Sharpies Chemicals, Inc., 209 F. 2d 645 (C.A. 6), enfg. 100 NLRB 20; N.L.R.B. v. Stow Manufacturing Co., 217 F. 2d 900 (C.A. 2), enfg. 103 NLRB 1280; Pacemaker Corporation, 120 NLRB 987. 122 NLRB No. 28. GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION 183 The facts are substantially as set forth in the Intermediate Report. On June 28, 1956, at a meeting of the Factory Board, officials of the Respondent told the Factory Board's employee representatives that they were aware of union activities in the plant, and urged them, and the employees to whom they were to carry the message, to go along with the Factory Board for the next 4 to 6 months instead of relying on an outside union. The next working day was Monday, July 2. About 3 p.m., Andrew Giardina, president of Respondent, received a telegram from District 50 in which it claimed to represent a majority of the employees and requested a bargaining meeting the next day. Giardina acknowl- edged the telegram that afternoon and suggested that District 50 officials come to the Leetsdale plant the following day at 1 p.m., to substantiate their majority.2 The same day, Respondent's attorney and a District 50 official each phoned the same professional arbitrator and arranged for him to be at the plant the next afternoon to check on District 50's claim. About 7 p.m., a supervisor of the Leetsdale plant drove to the Pittsburgh plant, about 17 miles away, to pick up Spagnoletti, a lead girl, in order to bring her to Leetsdale to have her assist another lead girl in some instructional work. About the time Spagnoletti finished her assignment at the Leetsdale plant, two representatives of District 50 appeared and asked for her. Spagnoletti had been asked by District 50 some months before to assist in organizing the Respondent's operations, but had refused until the Pittsburgh plant could be combined with Leetsdale. But despite the fact that she had left her shift at the Pittsburgh plant without supervision, Spagnoletti agreed to remain at Leetsdale to solicit the employees to join District 50 immediately. Josephine Schieck, Andrew Giardina's sister, and the official in charge of labor relations, was at the plant that evening and made no objection when Spagnoletti told her that she was going to solicit for an unnamed labor organization. Schieck had been told by her brother that after- noon that District 50 had claimed bargaining rights and would appear the next day to consummate a bargaining agreement if its majority had then been established. Spagnoletti then tried to solicit employees to sign the District 50 membership application cards, but since few of them knew her per- sonally, she had little success. She then requested another lead girl, Hintemeyer, who, as far as the record shows had shown no previous interest in District 50, to assist her in signing up employees.' The floorlady, an admitted supervisor, and cousin of Andrew Giardina, saw them soliciting employees at work but made no effort to stop them. 2District 50 admitted that when it sent its wire it had no more than 12 signed authorization cards from employees of the Respondent out of a total complement at the Leetsdale plant of more than 500 employees. 3 Spagnoletti and Hintemeyer were both Factory Board representatives. 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The District 50 representatives returned to the plant about 3 hours later, accepted the signed membership cards, about 160 in number, and brought them in to Josephine Schieck's office where they proceeded to count them in her presence. One representative then said that they still needed 50 or 60 more cards. The next day, July 3, shortly after the day shift began, Brozyna, another lead girl, and also a Factory Board representative, was handed a pad of District 50 cards by the floorlady and was told to start signing up employees. Later, another lead girl and a rank-and- file production employee were given pads of District 50 cards by the floor lady and told to sign up the employees at work. Employees on both shifts, mystified by this open solicitation on be- half of an outside union in view of the Respondent's open opposition a few days previously, asked officials of Respondent and other super- visors who were on the production floor whether it was all right to sign, and in all such cases were told that it was O.I. to do so, that it was the best thing to do, or that Respondent had looked into it, and this was the best union for the employees. By noon of July 3, another 170 signatures had been obtained. An hour or so later, the arbitrator arrived, checked the signatures on the cards against the payroll, and certified that District 50 represented a majority of the employees. The bargaining session then began be- tween the District 50 representatives and Andrew Giardina and his attorney. The union representatives were accompanied to the nego- tiating session by the employees who had done the soliciting. The District 50 officials had a draft agreement with them and, after some give and take, a contract was signed about 4 p.m. On the instruction of the District 50 representatives, the employees attending the negotia- tions signed the agreement as temporary officers of Local 14024. Immediately after the signing, a meeting of all employees on the first and second shifts was held on the production floor, for ratifica- tion of the agreement. The reading of the agreement generated so much excitement and discontent that the Trial Examiner was unable to find that there had been a formal ratification. However, Andrew Giardina was called on to speak, and when he urged the employees to accept the contract, the employees subsided. The total extent of District 50's organizational activities at the Respondent's plants before July 2, consisted of talking to Spagno- letti 2 or 3 times, holding a meeting at its regional offices attended by 4 of Respondent's employees (none of whom did any card soliciting on July 2 or 3) and obtaining signed cards from no more than 12 employees altogether, not all of whom worked at the Leetsdale plant. Despite this lack of organizational preparation, District 50 felt secure enough on July 2 to claim that it would substantiate its majority rep- resentation the very next day. We are satisfied that its confidence was GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION 185 .due to foreknowledge that the Respondent would actively support its soliciting campaign. The methods of this support and assistance have been detailed above. They show that Schieck and the floorladies placed Respondent's facilities and the lead girls at District 50's dis- posal, and that they and other supervisors encouraged the employees to sign up. The sudden reversal of Respondent's opposition to any outside union in itself made it obvious to the employees that their employer favored District 50 over all other competing labor organizations. In the face of its active support and identification with the campaign of District 50, we consider as without merit Respondent's contentions that the solicitation did not violate any plant rule, that it was unaware of what was going on in the plant on July 2 and 3, that the solicitation took place mainly during rest and meal breaks, that it is not respon- sible for the lead girls' activities because they were not supervisors 4 and that it did not authorize any pro-District 50 remarks which ad- mitted supervisors may have made. Through its illegal assistance and support the Respondent was the effective cause in attaining majority status for District 50, and it thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2). We do not, however, agree with the Trial Examiner that it also dominated District 50 and Local 14024. District 50 is an established labor organization with a con- stitution, a treasury of its own, and independently selected officers. The record contains no evidence to show that the Respondent at- tempted to control the organization and functioning of District 50 or of Local 14024 after the bargaining agreement was signed, or that any management representative took part in their internal affairs after the lead girls who had been appointed as temporary officers of Local 14024 had been supplanted by permanent officers elected by the employees. We do not, therefore, adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation that District 50 and Local 14024 be completely disestablished.5 3. The Respondent and District 50 have excepted to the Trial Ex- aminer's recommendation that Respondent's employees be reimbursed for all dues and other moneys collected from them under the contract. As the contract did not contain a union-security provision, the excep- tions contend that membership in District 50 was not a condition of employment, and that those employees who joined District 50, did so voluntarily. We do not agree. The cards which a majority of the employees at the Leetsdale plant signed on July 2 and 3 were obtained by District 50 with the Respondent's illegal assistance. The Respond- 4 we agree with the Trial Examiner that the lead girls were supervisors, but even if they were not, we would nevertheless find that the Respondent had authorized and ratified their activities on behalf of District 50. International Association of Machinists, etc. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 72. 5 Coast Aluminum Company, 120 NLRB 1326 ; Adhesive Products Corporation, 117 NLRB 265. 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent thereby restrained and interfered with the right of the employees freely to choose a representative of their own selection, or to refrain from being represented at all. The cards not only authorized District 50 to represent the signer, but were also applications for membership in District 50 and authorizations to the Respondent to check off dues and fees from the signer's wages for transmittal to the Union. Each employee who signed such a card joined District 50 under coercion, and his obligation to pay dues and fees was also coercively contracted. We find, therefore, that those employees who joined District 50 during the term of the contract did so only because of District 50's bargaining status, which it had achieved through the illegal assistance initially rendered by the Respondent. In order to expunge the illegal effect of the Respondent's unfair labor practices, we shall direct the Respondent to reimburse individual employees for any dues or fees which it de- ducted from their earnings pursuant to checkoff authorizations signed during the term of the agreement 6 4. District 50, its Local 14024, and the Respondent except to the Trial Examiner's denial of their motion invoking Section 10(b) as to those provisions of the complaint which allege domination and assistance to Local 14024. The original charge was served on the Respondent on August 2, 1956, and charged, inter alia, that the Re- spondent had, since on or about July 2, 1956, dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of District 50. The fourth amended charge, filed on January 11, 1957, contained for the first time an allegation that Respondent had also dominated Local 14024. The exceptions contend that the alleged violation affecting Local 14024 involves a new party and thus constitutes a substantive change, un- related to the violations originally charged. The contention is founded on a misapprehension of Section 10(b) and is rejected. The limita- tion clause of Section 10 (b) outlaws those unfair labor practices which occurred "more than six months prior to the filing of the charge and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made." The Respondent is the only person in this proceeding against whom a charge has been made. Section 10(b) is inapplicable since the violation affecting Local 14024 occurred within the 6-month period preceding August 2, 1956, the date of service of a charge upon the Respondent.' ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor 6 Coast Aluminum Company, supra; Hibbard Dowel Co., 113 NLRB 28. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Adhesive Products Corp., 258 F. 2d 403 (C.A. 2), in which the court denied enforcement to the Board's Order for reimbursement of dues because the checkoff authorizations had not been coercively obtained. 7 Coast Aluminum Company, supra; Parker Brothers and Company , Inc., 101 NLRB 872, 874. GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION 187 Relations 'Board hereby orders that the Respondent General Molds and Plastics Corporation, Leetsdale, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating, assisting, or interfering with the administration of the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organi- zation, and from contributing support to it or to any other labor organization. (b) Recognizing the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Fac- tory Board, or any successor, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. (c) Interfering with, assisting, and contributing financial or other support to District 50, United Mine Workers of America and its Local 14024. (d) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement, dated July 3,1956, between the Respondent and District 50, United Mine Workers of America and its Local 14024, or to any extension, renewal, or modi- fication thereof, or any other contract agreement between the Re- spondent and the said labor organizations which may now be in force. (e) Recognizing District 50, United Mine Workers of America and its Local 14024, as the representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em- ployment, unless and until the said labor organizations shall have demonstrated their exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the Respondent's employees. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dealing ^ with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of, employment. (b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from District 50, United Mine Workers of America and its Local 14024, as the repre- sentative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment unless and until the said labor organizations shall have demonstrated their exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board- conducted election among the Respondent's employees. (c) Reimburse all employees in the full amount of any dues or other moneys collected from them under the Respondent's agreement with District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local 14024. (d) Post immediately in its plant at Leetsdale, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to 'employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) - Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing, within ten- (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.' IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent dominated or interfered' with the administration of District 50, United Mine Workers of America and its Local 14024 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 8In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION 189 WE WILL NOT dominate, assist, or interfere with the administra- tion of the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board or with any other labor organization of our employees. WE HEREBY disestablish the General Molds and Plastics Cor- poration Factory Board as the representative of any of our em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT interfere with, assist, or contribute financial or other support to District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024. WE WILL NOT give effect to the agreement dated July 3, 1956, with District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024, or to any contract or agreement with those organiza- tions which may now be in force. WE WILL withhold all recognition from District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024, as the representa- tive of any of our employees for the purposes of collective bar- gaining unless and until said organizations shall have demon- strated their exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among our employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Retail, Whole- sale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL reimburse all of our employees in the full amount of dues or other moneys collected from them under our agreement with District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024. GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION, 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. 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and amended charges filed by Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated January 11, 1957, against General Molds and Plastics Corporation, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance, and the Respondent's answer denied, that since on or about May 16, 1956, the Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organi- zation known as the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board, herein referred to as the Factory Board, and contributed financial and other support to it; and that since on or about July 2, 1956, the Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of labor organizations known as District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024, and contributed financial and other support to them; and that the Respondent further interfered with, assisted, promoted, supported, and encouraged them on and after July 2, 1956, by granting exclusive recognition on July 3, 1956, to District 50 and by entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with District 50 at a time when District 50 did not represent an unassisted majority of the Respondent's employees and when District 50 was not the freely chosen representative of the Respondent's employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Prior to the hearing, and on February 7, 1957, the Regional Director granted a motion by District 50 and its Local 14024 to intervene in this proceeding. District 50 and its said Local thereupon interposed an answer in substance denying the com- mission of unfair labor practices by the Respondent. District 50 and its Local 114024 will hereinafter be referred to jointly as District 50. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, before W. Gerard Ryan, the duly designated Trial Examiner. The Respondent and District 50 were represented by counsel and the Union was represented by a representative at the hearing. Full opportunity was afforded at the hearing to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions. At the hearing, I reserved decision on motions by the Respondent and District 50 to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it is not supported by sufficient proof and further that the alleged violations with respect to Local 14024 and the Factory Board occurred more than 6 months before the filing and service of the amended charges. The motion to dismiss the complaint because it is not supported by sufficient proof is denied. With respect to the motion invoking Section 10(b) of the Act, the original charge which was filed on August 1, 1956, and served on the Respondent on August 2, 1956, alleged violations of Section 8(a) ('1), (2), and (3) of the Act. The first amended charge filed on September 20, specifically referred to the Factory Board as being dominated and assisted from on or about February 1, 1956, and the fourth amended charge filed on January 11, 1957, specifically referred to Dis- trict 50's Local 14024 as being dominated and assisted on or about July 2, 1956, and thereafter. The complaint alleged 8(a)(1) and (2) violations occurring on or after May 16, 1956, with respect to the Factory Board and July" 2, 1956, with respect to District 50 and its Local 14024. Thus the earliest conduct alleged in the complaint as an unfair labor practice is within 6 months of the service of the original charge on August 2, 1956. Section 10(b) of the Act does not bar issuance of a complaint based on such conduct and the motions by the Respondent and District 50 in this respect are denied.' Oral argument was waived and briefs have been received from the General Counsel, the Respondent, and District 50. The Union did not file a brief. From my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the case, I,'make the following: "1 Triboro Carting Corporation, 117 NLRB 775. GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION 191 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, General Molds and Plastics Corporation , is a Pennsylvania corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business at Leetsdale, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of molded plastic, battery controlled mechanical toys. In the year prior to the hearing, the Respondent sold and shipped from its Leetsdale, Pennsylvania , plant finished prod- ucts valued in excess of $1,000,000 of which in excess of $ 1,000,000 of the said products were shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction is not contested , and I find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent contended that the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board , unaffiliated, is not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. The Factory Board is composed of representatives of Respondent's management including the president , vice president, treasurer, general manager, chairman of the board of directors , and 12 representatives selected by the employees from the various departments . Employee representatives are required to have 1 year 's service with the Respondent. The Factory Board dealt with the Respondent on matters con- cerning grievances, wages, and other conditions of work . The Respondent's president testified that the Factory Board represented employees as the agent of the employees in dealing with the company on matters of working conditions . Section 2(5) of the Act defines the term "labor organization" to include "any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work." Applying that definition to the situation presented , the employees "participated" in the Factory Board and it exists for the purpose in whole or in part , of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, wages, and other conditions of work. Accordingly , I find that the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board, unaffiliated , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent is essentially a family corporation . Its founder and president is Andrew (Andy ) N. Giardina; his brothers, Sam and James, are vice presidents in charge of production and engineering, respectively ; his sister, Josephine Schieck, is assistant to the president and in charge of purchasing and labor relations; his cousin, Josephine Chmay, is a floorlady and his nephew, Sam Liberto, is superin- tendent of all the shifts in the molding department . B. E. Brunetti is comptroller and Cecilia Kumpfmiller is a floorlady . The floorladies are admittedly supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Kumpfmiller and Chmay are directly responsible to Sam Giardina. The Respondent operated 3 shifts at the Leetsdale plant with approximately 292 employees on the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift ; 200 employees on the 4 p.m. to midnight or second shift ; and 56 employees on the midnight to 8 a.m. or third shift. The first and second shifts are each under the overall supervision of a floorlady . Cecilia Kumpfmiller was floorlady in charge of the entire first shift and Josephine Chmay was floorlady in charge of the entire second shift. Each floorlady (also referred to as shift foreman ) was assisted on the assembly lines by pushers or assistant push- ers. The pushers are also interchangeably referred to in the record as lead girls, line girls, foremen , or group leaders . Pushers for each of the 7 production lines were in charge of and responsible for the work and production of approximately 20 to 30 employees . Kumpfmiller and Chmay had meetings of the pushers on their own particular shifts and discussed production problems with them; and the pushers or lead girls would in turn go to the employees on their assembly lines and explain the production problems and how to work them out. Rose Brozyna testified credibly that she received 2 weeks' training as a line girl or pusher from her supervisor, Kumpfmiller, at the Western Avenue plant before she actually started working at 192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Leetsdale plant as a pusher on the crane line. From the credited testimony of Pusher Ann Leto, she had authority to and did assign employees to different posi- tions on the production line and thereafter moved them as required to other positions on the assembly line. If an employee was unable to do the work after being tried out at three positions, the pusher reported to the floorlady and the employee was discharged . On one occasion , Leto recommended the discharge of an employee to Kumpfmiller who then observed the employee and when she "talked back" to Kumpf- miller she was discharged . The pushers received 10 cents more per hour than the rank-and-file employees and although the pushers did perform some production work they moved up and down the assembly line in performing their supervisory duties. Frances Katterson credibly testified that on June 8, 1956, the day she first started work for the Respondent, Chmay, at a meeting of approximately 20 new employees, introduced Beatrice Senagra to them as their line boss or pusher who would assign them to do their work and tell them what to do; and that Chmay would be there to assist Senagra. Isabelle Spagnoletti testified credibly that she was a pusher and in sole charge of the second shift in the molding department at the Pittsburgh plant beginning in June 1956. Prior to June , Sam Liberto, superintendent in charge of the three shifts in the molding department who was assisted by a pusher and an assistant pusher for each shift, remained at the plant each day until 8 p.m., and thereafter the pushers were in complete charge of their respective shifts. Contrary to the contention of the Respondent , I find that Pushers Isabelle Spagnoletti, Rose Brozyna, Madeline Hintemeyer , and Ann Leto were supervisors within the meaning of the Act . While the question is a close one, the fact that the supervisor introduced the pusher to new employees as their boss , and the responsibilities exercised by the pushers, demonstrate that they have the authority to assign employees on their respec- tive lines and responsibly to direct their work. The complaint alleged and the Respondent denied that the Respondent in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act has on and after May 16, 1956, domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration , among its employees, of a labor organization known as the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board, and has contributed financial and other support thereto. The Factory Board is composed of the officers and key personnel of the Respond- ent plus 12 representatives elected by the employees to represent the employees. There are no eligibility rules for voting by the employees but the Respondent estab- lished the qualification that nominees for employee representatives have 1 year's prior service with the Respondent . The Respondent established the nature , structure, and functions of the Factory Board in 1954 , and made it applicable to the Leetsdale plant in May and June 1956 .2 The Respondent established annual elections for employee representatives to be held in March or April. The Respondent furnished ballots to the employees which, when completed , were returned, unsealed, to the Respondent's supervisor. Monthly dinner meetings, paid for by the.Respondent to which new employees were invited , were arranged by either Josephine Schieck or Ann Waroblak.3 Josephine Schieck presided at the meetings of the Factory Board. In June 1956 , at a meeting presided over by Josephine Schieck , employees were elected to the offices of president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary. The minutes of the meetings were taken by Ann Waroblak. Supplies and stenographic service were supplied and paid for by the Respondent . The Factory Board had no treasury, dues, initiation fees, or any source of income. No meetings of the Factory Board have ever been held attended only by the rank-and-file employees . The Re- spondent's president, Andrew Giardina, testified there were approximately 200 em- ployees at the plant in Pittsburgh . It has been stipulated that there were 548 em- ployees on July 2 and 3 at the Leetsdale plant. Thus the new employees at the Leetsdale plant represented a majority of the employees but they were not given any opportunity to express themselves as to whether the Factory Board should be their representative . In June 1956 the Factory Board and its representatives were introduced to the Leetsdale employees and on June 28 and June 29 , Josephine Schieck and Andrew Giardina urged the employees to go along with the Factory Board for 4 to 6 months instead of having an outside union , as he was in no position to pay union wages. 2 No finding of any unfair labor practice is made with respect to any conduct prior to 6 months before the charge herein was served on the Respondent on August 2, 1956. Evidence with respect to events prior to said 6-month period has been received as back- ground evidence only. 3It was stipulated that Ann Waroblak was secretary -stenographer for Josephine Schieck and also worked in the cost accounting office. GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION 193 . That the Company recognized that the Factory Board represented the employees in dealing with the Respondent on matters of working conditions, holidays, wages, and other matters, is apparent from the testimony of Andrew Giardina as follows: Q. . . Didn't the Factory Board represent the employees as the agent of the employees in dealing with the company on matters of working conditions? A. Yes. We used it as a method of communication and getting along to- gether, that's right. Q. Then so far as the company is concerned, it negotiated with this Factory Board on matters pertaining to holidays and wages and other matters that came up? A. Any problems came up, we brought to the Factory Board and they would discuss it. The next thing about it, they could settle it in a lot of cases right there, and in other cases they would settle it afterwards. Andrew Giardina further testified: Q. Do you find that the Factory Board was an effective way, through its rep- resentatives, of communicating to the employees, what the company was propos- ing in the way of, maybe, benefits, hospitalization? Is that right? A. Yes. I accordingly find that the Respondent on and after June 1956 dominated, assisted, and interfered with the administration of the General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act. There is no evi- dence that the Factory Board functioned after July 3, 1956; in fact, the evidence is that it did not function. The question is not moot as the Respondent contends. Since there has been a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, remedial steps are necessary to prevent its reoccurrence. The complaint further alleged and the Respondent and District 50 denied that the Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, on and after July 2, 1956, dominated and interfered with the formation and administration among its employees of a labor organization known as District 50 and has contributed financial and other support thereto; and that on and after July 2, 1956, did further interfere with, assist, promote, support, and encourage District 50 by granting exclusive recognition to District 50 on July 3, 1956, as the collective-bargaining agent for its employees and entering into and executing a collective-bargaining agreement with District 50 on July 3 for its employees at a time when District 50 did not represent an unassisted majority of Respondent's employees and when District 50 was not the freely chosen representative of Respondent's employees. The Events of July 2, 1956 On Monday, July 2, 1956, the first working day after the company picnic on the afternoon of Friday, June 29, District 50 sent a telegram to the Respondent which was read over the telephone to the Respondent at 3:06 p.m., stating: The majority of your employees have signed District 50 United Mine Workers of America membership cards authorizing us to be their bargaining agent and therefore we request a meeting immediately to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement covering all maintenance and production employees excluding super- visors guards professional and salaried employees. Suggest July third 11 AM Leetsdale plant. Advise. Andrew Giardina testified that on July 2, after he received the above telegram, he came to the conclusion that the unrest among the employees could be straightened out by having an outside union. He testified further that prior to the receipt of the tele- gram, he had never heard anything about District 50 among the employees. At 4:30 p.m., that same afternoon, Andrew Giardina dictated and sent the follow- ing telegram in reply: Re your telegram of July 2nd impossible to meet you at 11:00 A.M. as sug- gested. Suggest meeting at 1:00 P.M. on July 3rd, Leetsdale plant. Advise. Isabelle Spagnoletti, a pusher or lead girl and a Factory Board representative, was the only person in charge of the night shift at the Pittsburgh plant after May 1956. On July 2, after approximately 3 hours' work at the Pittsburgh plant, she was brought to the Leetsdale plant by Sam Liberto, the supervisor of the molding department, to assist Mrs. Monica Neth in teaching the employees how to run a new mold. Soon after her arrival at the plant, Spagnoletti spoke to Josephine Schieck who inquired about Spagnoletti's children who had been ill. Then Spagnoletti asked how things 505395-59-vol. 122-14 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were going and if there was still talk about a union. - Schieck replied in the affirma- tive 4 and Spagnoletti said, "Well , seems like that's the only thing that's going to have to happen in order for things to start working up good ." Schieck shrugged her shoulders and replied , "I don't know" and walked away.5 About 7:30 or 7:45 p.m., on July 2, District 50 representatives , Messrs. Shost and Kilhenny visited the Leetsdale plant and asked Spagnoletti 6 to get some District 50 cards signed by the Respondent 's employees.7 Spagnoletti took the cards, promised to get them signed and went to Schieck's office. Spagnoletti stood in the doorway and informed Schieck who was sitting at her desk, "There's two guys out there that want me to get these cards signed for a union." (Spagnoletti had the cards in her hands.) Schieck according to Spagnoletti replied, "I 'll tell you, I'm kind of dis- gusted with the whole thing . I don't care what you do. If that's what the girls want, I don 't care." Spagnoletti testified she did not tell Schieck the name of the union and Schieck did not look at the cards.8 Spagnoletti then tried to sign up some of the employees but they refused because they did not know her. She then spoke to her friend Madeline Hintemeyer who worked on one of the assembly lines and who was also an employee -representative on the Factory Board. Spagnoletti informed Hintemeyer that she had brought the cards to Schieck and told her about them but Schieck replied she did not care-that if the girls wanted to sign, it was up to them . Whereupon Hintemeyer said she would help Spagnoletti and when Hintemeyer identified Spagnoletti to the girls they signed the cards. Hintemeyer and Spagnoletti during the lunch periods and break periods obtained signed cards and some signatures were obtained during work periods. After signing District 50 cards on July 2 following Hintemeyer 's request, employee Rubottom and two other employees sought out Supervisor Chmay and asked if they should have signed. Chmay replied that it was all right ; that Andy ( Giardina) wanted all of them to sign the cards . Employee Margaret McKelvey and others at her work table knew that the employees were signing District 50 cards. One of the girls at the table said , "Here comes Jo Schieck . I'm going to ask her if we should sign." When Schieck came nearer, she asked , "Jo, what shall we do? Shall we sign?" Schieck replied, "Yes, sign." Following that, McKelvey and the others at the work table signed the cards when Hintemeyer brought the cards to their table. When Schieck passed the work table where employee Dorothy Ostrander and others were working, Schieck was asked if it was all right to sign the cards. Schieck smiled at them and replied that the company wanted to survive , everybody wanted to eat, and the only way they could survive was to have a union . Later that evening, Ostrander asked Schieck if she really wanted them to sign the cards and Schieck answered, "What was good for Andy ( Giardina ) was good for her." Ostrander signed the card. Messrs. Shost and Kilhenny returned to the plant as prearranged with Spagnoletti around 11 p.m., and Spagnoletti gave the signed cards to them . Spagnoletti and Hintemeyer had obtained 164 cards signed during approximately 3 hours in the 4 Andrew Giardina testified that he discussed the matter with Josephine Schieck after receiving the telegram from District 50 and that she was present when he called his attorney and "was in on everything." 5 Page 11 of the General Counsel 's brief mistakenly attributes a statement by Schieck to Spagnoletti that the Respondent had decided an outside union was necessary in order for the Respondent to survive. That statement was made not to Spagnoletti but to Dorothy Ostrander by Schieck at page 85 of the transcript. 9 On or about April 27, 1956 , John Shost, field representative for District 50 had spoken with Spagnoletti at the Respondent's Western Avenue plant in Pittsburgh regard- ing the possibilities of organizing the employees . She told him to wait until the plant moved to Leetsdale. On May 21, 195G , he again talked to Spagnoletti who told him the plant would move to Leetsdale about a month from then. 7 Application for membership and authorization for dues checkoff and initiation fee were part of one card. 8 Josephine Schieck testified on direct examination that Spagnoletti stood in the door- way to her office and said , "Jo, I've talked to two men and I have some cards here. They are from the UDMW " ; that Schieck replied she was so upset with production prob- lems she did not care what Spagnoletti did, adding that was something for Spagnoletti and the other girls to decide-that Schieck could not decide that for them. GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION 195 presence of and with knowledge of the shift supervisor. There was no deduction from their pay for such activity. Upon obtaining the cards, Shost and Kilhenny accompanied by Spagnoletti and Hintemeyer went to Schieck's office where the cards were handed to Schieck, who thumbed through them and said, "Well , if that's what the girls want that's their business." Shost then said that 50 or 60 more cards were needed .9 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of Spagnoletti, Ru- bottom, McKelvey, and Ostrander . Chmay did not testify and there was no showing that she was unavailable as a witness. The Events of July 3, 1956, and Thereafter Employee Rose Brozyna began her work as usual at 8 o'clock in the morning of .July 3, and 30 or 45 minutes later, Supervisor Kumpfmiller gave her a pad of District 50 cards and instructed her to start "signing these girls up." Brozyna inquired what .it was and Kumpfmiller replied, "It's for a union." When Brozyna protested that she did not want to sign anything , Kumpfmiller replied, "Go ahead. It's O. K." Brozyna asked who had picked her for that and Kumpfmiller answered, "Jo .Schieck." James Giardina , vice president and in charge of engineering , told employee Garnet Schindler and other employees at her work table that Rose Brozyna would be around with some papers for them to sign and further added, "I want to see that you girls sign them." Brozyna after her talk with Kumpfmiller walked up and down the work lines, during working hours, getting applications signed by the employees. When Brozyna reported to Kumpfmiller that some of the employees protested that they did not want to sign ; that they wanted to take them home and let their husbands or fathers read the cards , Kumpfmiller replied, "There's no time for fooling around, you have to go to a meeting . You have to get the cards signed to go to a meeting at twelve o'clock." That was the first knowledge that Brozyna had that she had to go to a meeting at noon that day. Brozyna thereupon secured signed cards from the employees . When Brozyna reported to Kumpfmiller that employee Jo Sieus still refused to sign a card , Kumpfmiller said, "It's okay. Sign it. The company wants you to." Brozyna then spent the next 2 or 21/z hours obtaining signatures to the District 50 cards. Kumpfmiller told Vivian Saveno and another employee to sign the cards or there would be no work in the morning ; that the company had looked into it and found District 50 was one of the cheapest unions they could belong to. Saveno returned to her work table, repeated to the other employees there what Kumpfmiller had said and they then signed the cards. Saveno testified she signed the card "voluntarily " because she wanted to work. When Ann Leto -told Kumpfmiller the girls did not want to sign the cards, Kumpfmiller told Leto in the presence of Brozyna to walk down the work line and tell the girls that if they did not want to sign the cards they would have no job on Thursday. Leto thereupon did as she was instructed and all the girls on her work line signed District 50 cards. Employee Josephine Kelly received an emergency telephone call on the morning of July 3 which required her to leave the plant. After receiving permission from Kumpfmiller to leave, Kumpfmiller told her to sign the paper that Brozyna had before she left the plant . Kelly went to Brozyna and inquired what there was to -sign. Brozyna showed her a District 50 card and told her it was Schieck 's orders to sign. Brozyna told her she had no choice and to sign or there would be no work. Kelly thereupon signed and left the plant . Employee Hildegarde Sasse sought out Schieck on July 3 when Schieck was alone and asked her if she wanted Sasse to sign for the union. Schieck replied, "Yes, Hildegarde , I want you to sign . This will be the best for all of us." Sasse testified "I couldn't believe she [Schieck ] wanted me to sign for a union . Three days before she asked us, `Please don't sign, don't take a union in."' Sasse signed her card on July 6 because Schieck had told her she wanted her to sign and Sasse believed it would be best for her since Schieck had said so. The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of Brozyna , Sieus. Saveno, Leto, Kelly, and Sasse . Vice president James Giardina and Supervisor Kumpfmiller did not testify and there is no showing that they were unavailable as witnesses. Josephine Schieck testified but was not questioned concerning the events of July 3. Through the solicitations of Brozyna , Leto, and Gronsky, buttressed by the directives , support and threats of Vice President James Giardina and Supervisor Kumpfmiller , 172 additional signed cards were obtained from the employees by 0 General Counsel's brief at n . 12 mistakenly attributes to Schieck the statement that : 50 or 60 more cards were needed. 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD noontime on July 3, 1956, thereby accomplishing more than a numerical (but not an uncoerced, unassisted) majority. No deductions from their pay were made for this activity. In the early afternoon on July 3, the Respondent met with representatives of District 50. B. Meredith Reid, of Pittsburgh, an attorney and mediator, had been employed by the Respondent to conduct a card check. Reid compared the names on the cards with the names on the payroll and certified that out of 548 eligible employees there were 334 valid cards and 3 cards were void. Reid had no knowl- edge of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the cards. After Reid's report, the Respondent negotiated and signed a collective-bargaining agreement with District 50. The contract was signed in the presence of Respondent's representa- tives, including Andrew Giardina and Josephine Schieck, on behalf of the Local by Spagnoletti, Hintemeyer, Brozyna, and Joseph Gronsky all of whom were Factory Board officers, after they were directed by District 50 representatives to sign as temporary officers of the Local. Messrs. Shost and Neely signed as representatives of District 50. A ratification meeting of 400 or 500 employees took place with Respondent's consent on Respondent's premises about 4 o'clock that same afternoon at which Andrew Giardina, Cecilia Kumpfmiller, and Payroll Supervisor Willoughby were present. The testimony is conflicting as to what occurred at the meeting. Shost testified the contract was read in its entirety to the assembled employees. Others testified it was not read in its entirety and because of the noise and confusion it was decided to adjourn the meeting to another time and place. Still others testified the contract was ratified by voice vote; others testified no vote was taken. At the meeting District 50 representatives and Andrew Giardina urged the employees to accept the contract. One employee, Vivian Saveno, asked Andrew Giardina at the meeting if he was responsible "for the intimidation of our signatures." He denied the accu- sation. When Mary Bukovacki heard the contract was with District 50, she attempted to leave the meeting but found the door locked. Kumpfmiller ordered her to go back to the meeting, saying, "Mary, you are to go back to the meeting. You are being paid by the company for your time. Get back to the meeting." The foregoing findings are based on the credited, uncontradicted testimony of Saveno and Bukovacki. The General Counsel contends the contract was not ratified. The Respondent and District 50 contend that it was ratified. The Respondent made the contract effective July 3, 1956, including the provisions for deductions of dues and initiation fees. I find it unecessary to find on the state of this record that it was or was not ratified. In view of my findings, infra, that District 50 did not represent an un- coerced and unassisted majority of the Respondent's employees, any contract arrived at on such a basis would be entirely nugatory. Any purported ratification by the employees would be subject to the same disabilities as the claim to a majority would present' On the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire record, I find, as the complaint alleged, that since July 2, 1956, the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, dominated and interfered with the formation and administration among its employees of a labor organization known as District 50 and has contributed financial and other support thereto; and that since July 2, 1956, interfered with, assisted, promoted, and encouraged District 50 by granting it exclusive recognition on July 3, 1956, as the collective-bargaining agent for its employees and by executing a collective-bargaining agreement on said date and thereafter continuing it in effect when District 50 did not represent an unassisted majority of the Respondent's employees and when District 50 was not the freely chosen representative of Respondent's employees; thereby interfering with, restrain- ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. GENERAL MOLDS AND PLASTICS CORPORATION V. THE REMEDY 197 Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent dominated , assisted, and supported the Factory Board, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from such conduct, and that it withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the Factory Board as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, and that the Respondent refrain from recognizing the Factory Board or any successor thereto for any of the foregoing purposes. Having found that the Respondent dominated , assisted, and supported District 50, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from such conduct. Having found further that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act by recognizing District 50 as the bargaining representative for its production and maintenance employees , although District 50 had not been designated and selected as such representative by an unassisted and uncoerced majority of the employees, and entering into on or about July 3, 1956, and thereafter maintaining in effect an agreement with District 50 covering all its production and maintenance employees, I shall recommend that the Respondent withdraw and withhold recog- nition from District 50 as the collective -bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees , and, insofar as the aforesaid agreement applies to such employees, that it cease giving effect thereto , or to any modification , extension, supplement, or renewal thereof, or to any further superseding or implementing agreement. Nothing in this recommendation , however, shall be deemed to require the Respondent to vary those wages, hours of employment , rates of pay, seniority, or other substantive provisions in its relations with its production and maintenance employees that the Respondent may have established in the performance of said agreement or to prejudice the assertion by such employees of any right they may have thereunder. Nothing in the recommendations will prevent the employees , after the unfair labor practices have been remedied and the conditions for a free choice established, from adopting representation from their own ranks or any other kind of representa- tion, if such be their genuine desire unfettered by employer domination. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. General Molds and Plastics Corporation is, and at all times relevant hereto was, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The General Molds and Plastics Corporation Factory Board , unaffiliated, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 5. By dominating, assisting, supporting, and interfering with the administration of the General Molds and Plastics Factory Board, as heretofore described, the Re- spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 6. By dominating, assisting, supporting and interfering with the administration of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local Union 14024, as heretofore described, the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 7. By such conduct the Respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 8. 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.]