The Verplex Co.

In the Matter of THE VERPLEX COMPANY and UNITED FURNITuRL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 105 (C I O ) Case No C-2126 -Decided July 115).19.19 Jurisdiction . lamp manufacturing industry Unfair Labor Practices In General employer held responsible for activities of head designer who was regarded by both management and employees as more than an ordinary employee Interference, Restraint, and Coercion anti-union statements, encouraging and condoning interruption of union meeting, ridiculing employee personally, threat to close plant Company-Dominated Union first organization domination of,- by activities of supervisory employees who participated in its formation and administration- second organization found to be a successor to the first organization which was not disestablished but superficially reorganized, similar support afforded as given to predecessor, precipitate and unquestioned recognition thereto, in contrast to outspoken hostility to "outside" union Remedial Orders : disestablishment of both predecessor and successor dominated organizations, ordered, contract with successor dominated organization. abrogated Mr. Albert J. Hoban, for the Board. Mr Julius Schneller, of Essex, Conn, for the iespondent Mr Harry 1W17einstock, of New York City, for the United. Mr Herman Sezd, of Syracuse, N Y, for the Verplex Union Mr Cecil F Poole, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a second amended chaige duly filed on January 15, 1942,' by United Furniture Workers of America, -Local 105, affiliated with the Congiess of Industiial Organizations, herein called the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated January 21, 1942, against The Verplex Company, Essex, Connecticut, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in-unfair I A charge and a first amended charge were filed on September 20, 1941, and Decem- ber 2, 1941, respectively 42NLRB,No99 472 THE VERPLEX COMPANY 473 labor practices affecting commerce; 'within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and, (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent-and the United, and'upon^ Verplex-Employees Association, herein called the Association, and Verplex Workers Union, herein called the Verplex Union, labor oiganizations alleged in the com- plaint to have been dominated by the respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent (1) on or about August 26, 1941, and at various times thereafter, questioned its employees individually concerning their membership in and activity on behalf of the United, expressed to its employees its hostility toward the United- and its approval of the Association and the Verplex Union, and urged cer- tain of its employees, including supervisors, to attend a meeting of the United for 'the purpose ^of, interfering with its conduct; (2) on of about August 26, 1941, and thereafter, dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association, and con- tributed suppoit to it; (3) on or about Septembei 6, 1941, and at all times thereafter, dominated and interfered with the forma- tion and administration of the Verplex Union and contributed sup- port to it, and, for the purpose of discouraging membership in the United and encouraging membership in the Verplex Union, on or about Octobei 1, 1941, entered into an agreement with the Verplex Union recognizing it as the exclusive baigammg representative of the respondent's employees, and (4) by these acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar anteed in section 7 of the Act The respondent did, not file an answer to the complaint. By letter dated January 25, 1942, counsel for the Verplex Union requested postponement of the hearing from February 5 to Feb- ruary 26 or 27, 1942, on the ground of prior engagements. The Regional Director denied the requested' delay, but on January 31, 1942, postponed the hearing to February 16 On February 6, 10 and 11, counsel for the Verplex Union requested further postpone- ment of the hearing, which the Regional Director denied. The Veiplex Union contends that this denial of the request for post- mentment of the hearing was a denial of due process This con- tention is without merit, and the rulings of the Regional Director are hereby affirmed.2 2 Cf National Labor Relations Board v Ancerscan Potash and Chemical Corp, 98 F (2d) 488 (C C A 9), enf'g 3 N L R B 140, cert den 306 U S 643 , Matter of Ronns Parfum Inc, and Ey-Teb Sales Corp and United Mine Workers of America, District No 50, Chemical Division, successor to Chemical Workers Local Industrial Union No 33 , affiliated wtith 0 1 O, 8 N L R B 323, enf'd 104 F (2d) 1017 (C C A 2) 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Puisuant to notice, a hearing was held at Essex, Connecticut, on February 16 and 17, 1942; before William F Guffey, Ji , the Trial Examiner duly' designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the United were represented by counsel, the iespond- ent was represented by its president, and all participated in the hearings The Veiplex Union did not actively palticipate, although its former president was present throughout the hearing 4 Full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties At the last session of the hearing the respondent for the first time iequested a 2-day postponement, which was denied by the Tiial Ex- aminer At the close of the healing, the Trial Examiner gianted a motion by counsel for the Board to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof During the heaiing the Trial Examinei made various rulings on other motions and on the admissibility of evidence The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed The rulings are heieby afhimed None of the parties argued of ally before the Trial Examinei or filed briefs with him, although given the opportunity to do so Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report dated March 2, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon th' respondent, the United, and the Verplex Union The Trial Exami- nes found-that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commeice, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom- mended that the respondent cease and desist theiefiom, that it' com- pletely disestablish the Association, and that it withdraw recognition from the Verplex Union and completely disestablish it On April 6, 1942, the Verplex Union filed with the Boaid its ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report, a brief in suppoit of its excep- tions, and a motion that the iecord be reopened foi the taking of s The respondent was not represented at the hearing by counsel Julius'Schneller, the respondent's president , appealed at the beginning of the hearing but refused to enter a written appearance of record on behalf of the respondent Schnellei was present through- out the hearing , except for the afternoon session on February 16, and participated in the heating by testifying at length, making numerous statements for the record , and calling one witness who, upon Schnellet s inquest , was examined by the Trial Examiner Schneller stated that he was not an attorney and that lie felt unqualified to present matters "in legal form" Cf National Labor Relations Board v Newberry Lumber and Chemical Company, 123 F (2d) 831, and cases cited in footnote 2 supra * Thornton H Brown was president of the Verplex Union until about Febtu'try 7, 1942, when he submitted his resignation At the time of the hearing his iesignation"had not been accepted , nor had his successor been elected Brown appealed at the hearing in response to the Board' s subpena daces tecum, but failed to produce the documents requested in the subpena and refused to answer any questions relative to the issues in the case He was present throughout the hearing but refused to enter an appearance of record on behalf of the vetplex Union and participated in the beaming only to the extent of testifying briefly and asking one question of one witness -See cases cited in footnotes 2 and 3, supra THE VERPLEX COMPANY 475 evidence on its behalf 5 Thereafter, at the request of the Verplex Union and pursuant to notice duly served on all the patties, a hearing was held before the Boaid in Washington, 'D C, on April 14, 1942, foi the puipose of oial argument The United and the Verplex Union were represented by counsel and participated in the argu- ment, the respondent did not appear. The Boaid has considered the exceptions and the brief filed by the Veiplex Union, and hereby finds the exceptions to be without merit, insofar as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below Upon the entire record in -the case, the Board makes the following - FINDINGS OF,FACT I IHE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Veiplex Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut , having its pimcipal office and a single plant at Essex,' Connecticut , wheie it is engaged in the manufacture. sale, and distribution of lamps, lamp shades, wire goods , and novel- ties The materials used by the respondent consist principally of paper, steel wire, lacquers , paints, and corrugated containers Dur- ing the pet iod from January 1 , 1940, to June 30; 1941 , the respondent used approximately $45,000 worth of such niateiials at its Essex, Connecticut , plant, approximately 90 percent of, which were imported by the i espondent from outside the State of Connecticut Duiing the same peiiod , the respondent manufactured finished products valued at appioxmnately $300,000, approximately 75 perecent of which were shipped by the respondent to points outside the State of Connecticut C II THE ORG tNIZATION S INN OLVED United Furnituie Woikeis of Anieiica, Local 105, is a labor oigan- ization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad- mitting to membership, among otheis, production and maintenance employees of the respondent Verplex Employees Association and Verplex Workers Union ate unaffiliated labor organizations, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. G The basis of the motion vv as the alleged denial of due process in the Regional Duector's iefusal to giant the postponement considered above The motion is hereby denied The findings with respect to the respondent s operations are based upon a stipulation between the respondents president and counsel for the Boaid , including a stipulation that the respondent is engaged in commerce i iIlin the meaning of the Act - 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion In August 1941, some of the respondent's employees began to mani- fest interest in the United Dorothy Ressler, one of the first em- ployees to join the United, actively solicited other employees to join. She also distributed to the employees leaflets setting forth the benefits of membership in the United, urging the employees to join, and con- taining blank applications for membership Several of the respond- ent's employees signed application blanks and thereafter conducted small meetings in pi ivate hones On August 26, 1941, as Ressler was leaving the plant, Helen Schneller, the respondent's vice president stated to Ressler that she understood that Ressler "was head of the C 10 " asked Ressler if "she could not do anything to keep the C I 0 out" of the respondent's,plant,,,and remarked that "it's too bad we could not have peace" in the plant Olive Drake, forelady in the drumpack department,-' was standing neaiby and joined Vice-piesi- dent Schneller in the expression of a desire for "peace " - During the evening of August 26, the United held a meeting at its hall in Deep River, a nearby town This meeting was attended by almost all of the 25 employees in the iespondent's wire room, by Foreman Knapko of that department, and by several employees from other departments of the respondent's plant, including Thornton H Brown, the respondent's head designer, and Foreman Hyatt, of the respondent's silk-screen department At this meeting, Brown de- fended the respondent's labor policies and the working conditions in its plant, and stated that President Schneller "told him that if the C. I 0 came around, why, he would close up the plant " Foreman Knapko spoke of the satisfactory conditions in the wire Ioom The employees from the wire room "brought up such a rumpus" that the United "could not carry on the meeting " Foreman Hyatt, who admitted that he helped create the disturbance at the meeting, testi- fied at the hearing that he and the wire room employees were "op- posed" to the C I 0, and that he and many of those who attended the meeting were not interested in joining the United, but were merely curious "to see what they had to say." Foremen Knapko and Hyatt and Head Designer Brown are clearly supervisory employees for whose conduct the respondent is iespon- 7 Helen " Schneller also "supervises the quality of work in the factory , helps along with the different foreladies , and also helps along occasionally on the designing " 'Drake ii as also secretary of the respondent until replaced by President Schneller's daughter about 2 years prior to the hearing THE VERPLEX COMPANY 477 sable a We find, as did the Tilal Examiner, that Knapko, Hyatt, and Brown attended the United's meeting of August 26, 1941, for the purpose of inteiruptingg and interfering with its peaceful conduct, and that while there they engaged in conduct, which tended to ac- complish their purpose.'° On the following day, when Ressler was giving out work to other employees, Vice-Piesident Schneller approached ,her and said "We had enough union business today I guess we will get down to work " On August 29, 1941, during the lunch hour, Ressler distiibuted to the employees one of the United's leaflets in the form of a letter to the, respondent stating that the respondent had committed ceitain unfair labor practices When work %i as resumed after the lunch period, the employees were assembled in the plant and President Schneller, hold- mg one of the leaflets in his hand, told the employees that he wanted no more union activity in the plant u On September 5, Ressler dis- tributed to the employees another union leaflet, and shortly thereafter Forelady Drake returned to her one of the leaflets bearing in long- hand the maiginal notes ",Dot-Jennie 11 if you don't like it here The respondent concedes that Olive Diake, Maiy Tucker, Harty Chodak, bled Bauei, Richard Hyatt, Louis Knapko, Helen Schneller, and F M Massey, are supervisory employ- ees It seeks to minimize the supervisory status of Drake by contending that she is a working forelady The fact that a supervisor perfoinis some of the operations lie super- vises does not detract tiom his status as a management representatrie International Association of Machinists v N L R B, 311 U S 72, 79-80 , H J Heinz Co v N L R 'B , 311 U S 514, 518-520 Brown is the head lamp-shade designer He supervises the making of samples From his designs, explains how the designs should be copied, and sees that the fist sample shade is correct He has his own office in the plant, and about twice a year needs two of three girls to assist him for a few weeks at a time He selects - the girls and, tells them what to do ,His working time is, not closely checked upon he could stay away from the plant a whole day without peimission , we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Brown sometimes acts in a supervisory capacity, that both the management and the employees consider him to be more than an ordinary employee, and that his position in the plant is such that the respondent is responsible for his conduct in matters of labor relations we further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that all the other employees named above are supei n isory employ ees_f or whose conduct the respondent is responsible International Association of Machinists v N L R B, 311 U S 72 3i The complaint alleges that the respondent urged its supei'isors and other employees to-attend this meeting for the purpose of interfeiing with' its orderly progress Jennie Bombaci testified'that, during the day of August 26r tliere was a constant and unusual "parade" of wire-roomn employees through her department, which is between the wire room and the office of the respondent s president She and Resslei testified that, following the United's meeting that esenmg, a group of employees, including Foreman Hyatt, went to a local club where Hyatt stated to the group that the wire-room employees had been called to the office and told to break up the United's meeting Hyatt denied making that or any similar statement He did, howeu er, testify that lie and the Nine-room employees "did not want" the United and that "we were pretty strong for our own union," although at that time no other union had been organized in the plant The Trial Examiner, with whom we agree, noted this conflict and found that Vie allegation of the complaint is not supported by the evidence we do, however, find that the respondent, through its super- visors, encouraged and condoned thennteiruption of the meeting ri This admonition is significant in 'view of the extensiu e activity looking toward the uformation"of an>"inside" union"which"had occurred in the'jilarit'onrthe previous day without interference from the respondent See infra' 'These names obviously referred to employees Dorothy Ressler and Jennie Bombaci 478 DECISIONS OF NA110NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD why don't you go where they have C I 0 Olive Di ake and 9/10 of the shop " At about the same time , Foielady Diake remarked to a group of employees , of w horn Resslei was one, that she "thought us girls foolish to start the C I 0 , as they were short of mate rials and they ai e going to close down anyhow " Jennie Bombaci also dis- tilbuted copies of thislleaflet to some of the employees just before working horns Immediately 'thereafter , Vice-President ' Schnellet called her to Brown 's designing room where , in the piesenee of Biown Old Vice President Schreiner , President Schnellei told Boinbaci that she was "not wanted here' and asked her why she did not quit Brown called Bombaci a "rat" and said that she "was not any good , that they did not need [her] thei e , everyone else seemed to be satisfied " Bonn- baci had been in the respondent '-, employ moi e than 6 years , there had never been any complaint about liei work, and nothing was said cou- cerning her work that moi. inng - We find, as did the Tiial Examinei , that by the above -desciibed statements and conduct of Piesiclent Schnellei, Vice -President Schnel- ler,rFoiemen Knapko ,and Hyatt. Foielady Di ake, and Head Designer Brown, the respondent interfeied with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guiiianteed lit Section 7 of the Act B Interference evzth, and doznz'lation and support of the Aasoeii- tion and the Verplex Unzon While the respondent, as stated above, was endeavoinlg to prevent the United from oiganizing its employees, the Association and, later, the Veiplex Union were organized On August 28. 1942,1 all the respondent's employees, including su- pervisors, and excepting only President Schnellei, Vice-President Schneller, and General Foiei ran Chodak, were assembled in the die' cutting room of the respondent's plant duitug^ working hours The machines' wei e stopped, and the employ ees in, the backing depai talent were instructed by. Foielady Drake to attend this meeting, which lusted about 40 minutes At the time, some of the iespondent's em- ployees were paid on a piece-work basis, others oil an hourly basis, and still others on a salaiy basis The salaried and hourly panel employee, and some of the piece-work employees, were paid for the time-spent at this meeting y 1 13 This was dust 2 days iftei Vice Piesident S(hnellei s anti-union remarks to Resslei, and the United' s meeting at Deep Rnei ' "Ressler testified that, upon her return to the backing depaitment from the meeting sae put a half hour time work on her caid , although she was then on piece late and that the other gals in hei depaitment dtl likewise , so that they all iecei'.ed the day late fm time spent at the meeting THE VERPLEX COMPANY 479+,- The meeting was conducted uncles the direction of Forelady Drake and Head Designer Brmwii Drake and Brown spoke of the high salaiies of the United's paid representatives which the employees ^+ould have to pay if they domed the United Sales Manager Mas- <ey w as present and spoke of the good working conditions in the plant, as , contra:;ted_with those in othei factories Brown suggested the formation of in unaffiliated union Filially, the employees were re- quested to indicate w hethei of not they desired to organize an unaffil- iated union by wiitrng the word -Yes" or "No" on blank pieces of raper which were distributed to them Put lug the afternoon of the same day, August 28, a petition was cii culated throughout the plant which the employees were requested individually to sign if they were interested in forming an unaffiliated organization The text of the petition was wittten in longhand by Foreman Hyatt" Among the rirst to sign the petition were Foremen Knapko and Hyatt, Sales Manager Massey, Forelady Drake, Head Designer Brown, General Foreman Chodak, and Supervisors Field and' Tucker At about the same time, a meeting of the employees, including many foremen and supervisors, was held at the local Municipal Building. Head Desiguet Brown and Sales Manager Massey orally notified some of the employees duimg working hours that the meeting was to be held Notice of this and subsequent meetings of the employees' oiganizations 'was posted, on the plant bulletin board without oblec- tion,by the respondent Super-%ilsoi Field acted-as chair man of this meeting, _and Blown occupied a prominent position at the front of the meeting room Massey opened the meeting, spoke in favor of forming a union, and helped supervise the election of officers Fore- lady Drake took an active part in the meeting, but declined to accept office General Foi eman Chodak, Foi ennen Knapko and Hyatt, and Supervisor, Tucker, were present , Brown, Supervisor Marion Field, and Fred Bauer, who hass charge of,the aespgndent's office staff, ,were elected piesident, vice president and treasurer, iespectively, of the oiganization, w bleb came to be known as Vei plea Employees Asso- c ,ation o The Association never submitted a contract to the iespondent, iron did it ever request the respondent to bargain with it as the em- ployees' representative Shortly after it was foinied, Brown notified 'sTbis document, entitled "Tempoi'aii Chaiten foi Veiplex workers,' recited that the srgneis were "foaming our ow n union that there would be a committee to handle labor difficulties , that there would be "a nominal tee of 25 cents a month to take care of benefits, pasties, etc " , and that the Union would "be run and governed by Veiplex em- ployees only and not by anv-out,ide stiangeis " Seieral employees testified that the paper 'on which this document was diawn was lamp -shade paper and that its use was a violation of the respondent's well known rule against use foi othei than plant operations of paper which conld be made into shades f 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD President Schneller that he understood the Association was illegal, that he desired to reorganize it, and that, looking to that end, he had consulted Herman Seid, an attorney, for legal advice 16 The Verplex Union was organized on September 8, 1941, at a meet- ing of the employees, including many supervisors, which w as held at the Municipal Building in Essex General Foreman Chodak, Fore- man Knapko, Forelady Drake, and Supervisors Tucker and Bauer were present Attorney Seid was also present, and he announced that. Brown had notified him that he was to act as counsel in the formation of the Verplex Union 17 No formal action was taken to dissolve the Association, but Seid announced that the Association was, illegal. Send had drafted a constitution and bylaws for the Verplex Union which, after discussion, were approved by the employees at the meet- ing Brown and Field were then elected president and vice presi- dent, respectively. Shortly after the formation of the Verplex Union, Brown and a committee of shop stewards informed President Schneller that the employees had selected it as their collective bargaining representative, and submitted to President Schneller-a proposed, contract which Seid had drafted in accordance with suggestions from the Verplex Union's officers Schneller, without requesting or receiving any proof -of the Verplex's Union's representative status, recognized it as the employees' exclusive bargaining agent and proceeded to consider the contract which had been submitted to him Two or three conferences were held, by President Schneller and representatives of the Verplex Union. After a few changes had` been made in the proposed contract, it was dated October 1, 1941. and was, signed by the respondent and the Ver- plex Union 18 ' I From the foregoing it is clear that the respondent, through its fore- men and other supervisors, fostered the formation of the Association and interfered with its administration The employees' meeting in the plant on August 28, 1941; the circulation of the, petition in the plant on the same day, and the active participation of foremen and other supervisors in its organization and administration constituted support and assistance by the respondent to the Association 19 Espe- 18 Seid, who is a personal friend of President Schneller, occupies an office with the respondent's attorney, Judge Schatz Seid represented the respondent in a patent matter, 2 or 3 years prior to the hearing, concerning a device which President Schneller and Brown had jointly created 17 Brown apparently retained Seid without consulting the Association or any of its members 18 The contract provided, tinter else, that grievances should be presented by shop stew- aids,'but that only persons an the employ of the$respondent,for at least 2 years could be stewards 19 Marion Field, vice president of both the Association and the Union, testified that "for a long time" the employes "wished a union but never had the courage to form" one The August 28 meeting, the circulation of the petition, and the participation of super- visors apparently supplied the "courage" to oigani7e the association T THE VERPLEX COMPANY 481 Kiially is this true when contrasted with the outspoken hostility toward the United evinced by the respondent's officers and supervisors The Association was never disestablished by the respondent, and it did nothing to dissipate the effect of the impetus and support it had given the Association When the Verplex Union was organized, it was, therefore, the beneficiary of the respondent's favoritism for and sup- port of the Association 20 Moreover, the Verplex Union was formed by the same supervisory employees who had foamed the Association -Head Designer Brown and Supervisor Field, who had been president and vice president, respectively, of the Association, continued to hold the same offices in the Verplex Union We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Verplex Union is but the Association, superficially' reorganized and operating under a different name The Verplex Union, moreover, has had the same support which the respondent gave the Association Foielady Drake, Foremen Hyatt and Knapko, and Supervisor Tucker are members of the Verplex Union, the latter being shop steward for the silk department Sales Manager Massey and General Foreman Chodak, while not members of the Ver Alex Union, have taken an active part in some of its meetings Notices of these meetings are permitted to be posted on the plant bulletin board, and the Verplex Union's records and files are permitted to be kept in a storage cabinet in the department of the plant in which its secretary-treasurer is employed • All this, in addition to the re- spondent's precipitate and unquestioning recognition of the Verplex Union and its execution of the contract of October 1, 1941, especially when considered in the light of the respondent's outspoken hostility toward the United, as noted above, clearly demonstrates the respond- tnt's support and domination of the Verplex Union lire find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Associa- tion and the Verplex Union and contributed support to them, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce 101 ep il'estunghouse Electric d Mfg Co V National Labor Relations Boau d, 112 F (2d) 357, atf d, J12 U S 660 472814-42-vol 42-31 1 482 DECISIONS OF NOTIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V THE REMEDY Since we have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent dominated and intei fered with the formation and administration of the Association, and contributed support to it The Association, although now inactive, has never been disestablished We shall theiefoie order the respondent completely to disestablish the Association as the repiesentative of any of its'em- ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining We have also found that the iespondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Verplex Union and contributed support to it Because of the iespondent's illegal conduct, the Veiplex Union is incapable of serving the iespondent's employees as a genuine collective baigaiiirg agency, and constitutes a continuing obstacle to the free exei cise by the i espondent's employees of the rights guaranteed to them in the Act We shall therefore oider the respon- dent to withdiaw all recognition from Veiplex Union as the collective bargaining representative of any of its employees, and completely to disestablish it as such representative The contract of October 1, 1941, between the respondent and the Verplex Union, which by its terms is still in effect, was and is part of the respondent's plan to fiustrate self-oiganization and to defeat collective bargaining by its employees Moieovei, it provides for exclusive iecognition of the Veiplex Union, although at the time the conti act was entered into that oiganization had not been designated by an uncoeiced majority of the employees covered by the contiact as their iespiesentative foi the purposes of collective baigaining We shall, theiefore, ordei that the iespondent cease and desist fiom giving effect to this or any other contract with the Verplex Union respecting rates of pay, wages, hours of woik, of other conditions of employment Nothing in oui Oider, however, shall be deemed to iequiie the respondent to vaiy or abandon the wage iates or conditions of employment which the respondent may have established in confoimity with the contract, as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded 21 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire recoid in the case, the Board makes the following "National Licorice Co v A' L R B, 309 U S 350, enf'g as mod Matter of iational Licorice Company and Bakriy and Confectionery Workers International Union of 9mriIra, Local ITnion l4Oi, Cieater New York and Vicinity, 7 N L R B 537 , N L R B v Stackpole Carbon Company 105 F (2d) 167 (C C A 3) enf'g as mod 6 N L R B 171, ceit den 30S U 8 605 THE VERPLEX COMPANY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 483 1 United Furniture Woikeis of America, Local 105, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, Verplex Employees Associa- tion, and Verplex Woikers Union aie labor oiganizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfan labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3 By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- ti ation of Verplex Employees Association and Verplex Workers Union and contributing support to them, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act - 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices aie unfaii labor practices affecting commeice: wiithin the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Boaid hereby ordeis that the respondent, The Veiplex Company, Essex, Connecticut, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors,- and assigns, shall. 1' Cease and desist from (a) Dominating or interfering with the administiation of Verplex Eniplovees Association or Verplex Workers Union, or with the forma- tion or administiation of any other labor organization of its employees, and fiom contributing financial of othei support to Veiplex Em- ployees Association or Verplex Workeis Union, of to any other labor organization of its employees, (b) Giving effect to or performing the contract of October 1, 1941, with Verplex Woi kei s Union, or any extension or renewal thereof, or any other agreements, understandings, of arrangements entered into «ith Verplex Workers Union respecting rates of pay, wages, hours or "oik, or other conditions of employment; - (c) In any othei inannei interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exeicise of the right to self-organization, to form. loin, or assist labor oiganizations, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Completely disestablish Verplex Employees Association as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employment, (b) Withdraw all recognition from Verplex Woikers Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employment, and com- pletely disestablish Verplex Workers Union as such representative; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the_ respondent has taken to comply herewith