Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp.

In the Matter of EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION and LOCAL 430, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. 0. - Case No. C--2022.Decided August 24,1942 Jurisdiction : radios, phonographs, and related products manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices In General: employer held responsible for activities of its working supervisors despite their admission to membership in union and agreement of parties to include them insproposed consent election ; activities of a person who was not a supervisor in distributing certain literature held attributable to employer. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: attempting to discourage employees' in- terests in union by promising wage raises and other personal gains; arranging meeting of union employees to discuss possibility of raises without the neces- sity of having the union ; demoting a supervisory employee after his refusal to remove union button; assigning difficult work to another union employee; attempts to initiate an "inside" organization ; organizing a "social club" to divert the attention of employees from the union; interference through super- visory employees with impending consent election. Company-Dominated Union: formation as a result of employer' s long campaign against the "outside" union from loosely organized group formed to combat "outside" union during election campaign when consent election was called off, and when such transformation appeared necessary for recognition, as opponent of the "outside" union-support through assistance from supervisor who: assisted in the preparation and distribution of leaflets ; wore buttons bearing "inside" union insignia ; and engaged in arguments with employees on its behalf. Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist unfair labor practices and to disestablish dominated organization. Practice and Procedure : agreements pursuant to which charges were withdrawn held not binding upon the Board. Mr. Frederick R. Livingston, for the Board. Mr. David B. Williams and Mr. Jacob Krisel, of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. Frank Scheiner and Miss Ruth Roemer, of New York City, for the Union., Muccia & Muccia, by Mr. Carrol A. Muccia; of New York City, for the Independent. Miss Marcia Hertzmark, of counsel to the Board., 43 N. L. R. B., No. 90. 613 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by Local 1206, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., which, together with Locals 434 and 430 of the same union, is herein called the Union,' the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated March 12, 1942, against Emerson Radio & Phonograph Co,r- poration, New York City, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, • accom- panied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Independent Employees Association of Emerson Radio, herein called the Independent. The complaint alleged- in substance that the respondent initiated, sponsored, and dominated a labor organization known variously as the Fleeting Hour Club, herein called the Club, and the Independent; and that the respondent expressed disapproval'of'the Union, interrogated employees concerning their union affiliation, urged its employees to re- frain from assisting the Union, urged them to assist and joint the Club and the Independent, urged its employees to vote against any union in a certain scheduled election, and kept under surveillance the activities of the Union. On March 21, 1942, the respondent filed its answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. On March 30 and again on April 9 the respondent filed at the hearing additional answers alleging an agreement between the respondent and the Union for the withdrawal of certain charges which were similar to, or the same as, the charges in this case and a further agreement, by which the Union allegedly agreed not to assert any claims regarding acts prior to May 10, 1941. The answers asserted that the Union was estopped from prosecuting its charges in this proceeding by reason of the al- leged agreements. On motion by counsel-for the Board, at the hear- ' The charge in this case ' as filed by Local 1206, which started the organizational campaign at the respondent's plant It was shown at the healing that' Local 1206 and Local 434 have since merged with Local 430 of the sane union - EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION 615 ing, these supplemental answers were stricken as irrelevant.2 On March 21 the Independent filed its answer denying the allegations of the complaint insofar as they referred to the Independent. It also alleged that it represented a majority of the workers and re- quested that it be certified as their exclusive representative. On mo- tion by counsel for the Board, at the hearing, these affirmative allega- tions were stricken as irrelevant. Pursuant to notice , a,hearing was held in New York City, from March 23 through April 18, 1942, before Tilford E. Dudley, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board, the respondent, the Independent , and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties .3 At the close of the Board's case, the respondent and the Independent moved to dismiss the complaint . The Trial Examiner denied the motions. At the close of the hearing, motions were granted to conform the allegations in the pleadings to the proof . Motions were again made by the re- spondent and the Independent for the dismissal of the complaint. These motions were denied in the Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other mo- tions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju- dicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. On May 21, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were served upon all parties , finding that the re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (2) 2 The respondent's amended answer of March 30, 1942 , alleged that following the filing of a charge by the Union on August 13, 1940, the parties entered into an agreement for a consent election on March 19 , 1941, and that the Regional Director had advised the respondent by letter dated Maicli 22, 1941, that pursuant to the terms of the settle- ment the charge had been withdrawn with pieludice by the Union. It alleged further that the charges in the present pioceeding , filed on April 10, 1941, are similar to the previous charges , and that the Union is estopped fi oni litigating any of the charges ieferied to in the prior case. The supplemental answer, filed on April 9 ,'1942 , alleged that, in consideration of the respondent's enteiing into an agreement with the Union on May 10, 1941 , the Union agreed to withdraw the piesent charges and agreed not to prosecute them nor assert any claims with respect to acts occurring- , prior to May 10, 1941. It also alleged that in view of these facts the Union is estopped from prosecuting the charges upon which the present proceeding is based , and asked that the complaint be dismissed we shall dispose of these contentions after our discussion herein of the unfair labor practices. After all parties had completed the presentation of testimony , the Trial Examiner requested the respondent to produce certain witnesses and documentaiy evidence con- ceining pay rolls The respondent refused to accede to the request and the Trial Exam- iner issued subpoenas , in response to which one witness testified . The respondent, in protest against the action of the Trial Examiner in calling for witnesses and requesting evidence, withdrew and did not participate in the final day of the hearing 0 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom, that it withdraw all ' recog- nition from and disestablish the Independent, and that it make whole William Santora for loss of pay by reason of two discriminatory lay-offs. The respondent and the Independent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and briefs in support of the exceptions, and requested permission to argue orally before the Board. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for,the purpose of oral argument was held on July 9, 1942, be- fore the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent, the Independ- ent)/and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has considered the briefs and exceptions and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, con- clusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT . Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corporation, a New York corpora- tion with its principal office in New York City, is engaged in the,manu- facture, sale, and distribution of radios, phonographs, and related' products., It purchases processed materials consisting of condensers, coils, and chassis pans. During the year 1941 its purchases and sales each exceeded $5,000,000. Seventy-five percent of its processed mate- rials was purchased outside.the State of New York and seventy-five percent of its finished products was sold and shipped to places outside the State of New York. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, and Locals 430, 434, and 1206 thereof, affiliated with the Congress of In- dustrial Organizations, and Independent Employees Association of Emerson Radio, unaffiliated, are labor organizations which admit to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion In the fall of 1939 employee Anne Glaser commenced talking with other workers in the respondent's plant about improving their work- ing conditions. On about October 23, 1939, Glaser joined the Union. EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION 617 She mentioned this fact to several employees, including Lillian Clinch and.Grace Costa, working supervisors whose status will be discussed hereinafter. On Monday, November 6, Glaser was requested by her foreman to go to the office of John J. Catalano, the respondent's plant manager. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Glaser, which we credit, Catalano, in.a friendly manner, told Glaser that he under- stood that she was quite dissatisfied with things in the plant. Glaser replied : "That is very funny. I have been working here for a little over five years and you have never noticed my dissatisfaction be- fore.... Don't tell me that it is a secret that I joined the C. I. 0." Catalano suggested that they "put that aside for a while" and stated, "Perhaps there is some way we can-fix this. We don't need any unions to fix it; we know each other well enough to discuss this by our- selves . . . I think I, can arrange to see that you might get a raise." Glaser replied that "if the worst came to the worst we needed some sort of organization," but that if the company wanted to avoid outside, influence, she thought something could be worked out. Later that day, her foreman sent her back to see Catalano who repeated that. he thought something could be worked out. When Glaser told him that'there were approximately one hundred girls in her category, who had worked at least 4 years and could not receive more than 40 cents an hour, Catalano said that' if Glaser would forget those people, he would see that they received a raise, and asked if she would then "forget everything else." Glaser said that she would not give Catalano any promise but that if things could be straightened out, they would "let everything else go at that." During the first part of 1940 a number of additional employees ,joined the Union, among them Robert Vlack, Winchard Dee, William Santora, and Domeneck Farraro. Vlack testified, without contradic- tion,' and we credit his testimony, as did the Trial Examiner, that on July 25, Catalano called him into the office, conversed with him briefly about his work, and asked Vlack if it was true that Vlack was trying to organize the shop against him. Vlack replied that he was trying to organize the shop to get better wages. Catalano asked why Vlack had not seen him about the wages, and then inquired about the Union and about the number of employees who had joined it, volunteering that he-had heard-the Union was "going strong in the shop" and had a "definite membership." He asked if Vlack could get together the union people from the test department, where Vlack worked, so that Catalano could talk with them and see if he could not work out some- thing with them. Vlack replied that he would do his best. Catalano added that if an outside union came in, it would take control of the 'Except as otherwise indicated , the findings hereinafter made are based upon uncon- troverted testimony , which we credit, as did the Trial Examiner. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shop and the employees trying to organize the Union would find themselves "out in the street." He suggested that Vlack reconsider before going any further' with his union activity, s' id that the Union was not necessary in the shop and he would like to ."squash" it, that he could perhaps work out some means of increasing the wages of the employees in the test department without the necessity of having a union, and asked Vlack to mention this possibility to the "boys" when lie suggested the meeting. 4 That afternoon, while Vlack was working at his bench, Catalano came to hifn and asked if he had arranged the meeting with the union employees. When Vlack replied that he had not had a chance to see all thepeople, Catalano suggested that Vlack see them by the follow- ing lunch period and try to arrange a meeting for the evening of the next day, Friday. On Friday morning Catalano again approached Vlack about the meeting and was informed that the men did not want to speak with Catalano. Friday afternoon Vlack was approached by John Avezzano, whose job at the plant was variously characterized by the respondent's offi- cials as safety director, chief monitor, and recreational advisor.5 Avezzano told Vlack that he was "a very good friend" and was going to give Vlack "a straight tip about some things." He mentioned, ac- cording to Vlack's uncontradicted testimony, that Vlack was wasting his time trying to organize the shop and that he might get a better job at the plant, paying up to $30 a week, if he ceased his union activ- ity and listened to what Catalano had to sty. He added that a job might even be made for Vlack, that he realized Vlack was not satis- fied with his superior, Shannon, and that he [Vlack] might be able to get a department of his own. Avezzano added that Vlack should look out for himself, rather than worrying about other people, and that he would get nothing for his effort to organize the ship. , Prior to that time the Union had been distributing outside the plant various mimeographed leaflets, entitled "Plain Talk," all of which were unsigned. However, on that day, the Union distributed a leaflet entitled "Plain Talk-Extra" which was signed by Vlack as chairman, pro ten, and by six other employees. This leaflet an- nounced that the Union had a majority in the respondent's two key departments, test and final test, and urged all employees to join. On the following Monday, July 29, Avezzano asked.Vlack to form a union in the shop which would have no outside connections. Vlack re- IAvezzano was on a salary basis, "was in change of the safety measures that had to be taken in the place, . . . saw to it that the aisles were kept clear [and] told the line foreman about anything that may be jutting out into the aisles and jeopardizing the safety of people walking in the aisles " He also arranged games and other athletic and social activities for the respondent's employees we find that Avezzano occupied a' position in which he represented the respondent in its relations with employees. EMERSON RADIO & PHO N OGRAPH CORPORATION 619 plied that he did not believe an inside union would be any good; that it'-would be wasting time and effort to organize such a union "if the boss had his fingers in it." Shortly thereafter, Bernard Frank, the respondent's assistant fac- tory manager, sent employee William Santora, who was at work in the final test department and whose name was carried on the union leaflets distributed on July 26 , to see Catalano . Santora went to Catalano's office where Catalano said to Santora, "Bill, I hadn't real- ized you were here so long. I looked up your record and you have a pretty good record . . . What do you want to do in life? .. . What are 'our ambitions? Santora said his ambitions were rather vague. Catalano then went on: "Did you ever go to college? .. . Are you interested in engineering?" Santora replied that he had not gone to college but-that he was interested in engineering. Cata- lano said that he might see Santora later. Although he did see him later , there was no further conversation of this nature . We find that Catalano's conversation with Santora was for the purpose of holding out to him promise of personal advancement as an inducement to abandon the Union. At about the same time Mario Thomas "Bellavia, a department foreman, spoke to employee Frances Santora , the wife of William Santora, as she was leaving work for that day, and according to her testimony, said that she was well dressed but that the union button she was, wearing did not, "suit" her. Santora replied that she "loved" it and was "crazy" about it. Bellavia testified that at that time he did not know whether it was legal for the employees to wear union buttons and that he talked with his employees about a "lot of things," including union affairs. Although he denied expressing "any opinion" regarding unions and denied telling any girl "to take off a C. I. O. button," he was not asked about the statement attributed to him by Santora . The Trial Examiner found Santora to be a credible witness, and we find that Bellavia made the statement at- tributed to him. One morning during July or August a sheet of paper was circulated among the employees by Josephine Usenza, a working supervisor, and her brother-in-law, Dominick Usenza, who was an assistant to the foreman, for the purpose of obtaining signatures of those who favored an inside union. After lunch on that day, Josephine Usenza told employee Florence Weiss that "they were thinking about making a company union," or an inside union, without any "outside influ- ences," and that she wanted Weiss to sign a paper to indicate that she was in favor of a company union. Usenza said she knew that Weiss was a friend of the Santoras and that they were active in the Union, but that Weiss should nQt be influenced by what they told her and 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that she would come back the next day for. the signature . Weiss also testified without contradiction that after she had joined the Union on August 6, Mario Catalano , John J. Catalano's brother, a working supervisor who "was running a cabinet line," assigned Weiss to dif- ficult. work rarely given to girls . When Weiss complained about the assignments , Mario Catalano asked why she was angry and also teased her about a large white button she wore which bore the inscrip- tion "Emerson Organizing Committee." Weiss demonstrated the difficulty of her job, showed Catalano how both her arms were very badly scratched, and told him that she had been placed there to be punished because she had joined the Union. Catalano walked away but returned in a few minute 's and said that Weiss should transfer that afternoon to' different work at the packing table . During the after- noon Catalano told Weiss that he was surprised to know that she had joined the Union, that he did not think she would get anything through the Union, and that he hoped she would get out of it,. He also told her to take off the button she was wearing. About July 1940 Anne Glaser was made a , working supervisor under Mario Bellavia. Shortly thereafter, Lillian Clinch, another work- ing supervisor , told Glaser she could 'not understand the sudden out- burst of C. I. O. activity in the-plant and asked Glaser how she felt about it. Glaser answered that she did not have much to say. Clinch then asked Glaser to "listen in" on the girls that worked under her, watch the ones that belonged to the Union, and see how many were signing up. Glaser replied that she would do so. Subsequently Glaser told Clinch that she did not think it advisable for either of them, to speak to the girls about the Union since they were both in supervisory categories and that she thought any conversations that were ,held should be in the girls ' homes rather than in the ,plant. As noted above, Glaser had been a union member since 1939. One day in August 1940 she procured a large C. I. O. organizing committee button and wore it into the plant. Her foreman, Bellavia, said that she would have to take it off. When Glaser refused , Bellavia said, "You know I am going to get in trouble over this . . . Wait here, I will be right back." He returned about 10 minutes later and said : "Look, Anne, I have strict orders to get that button off you or you won't be able to be working here any more . You will have to be sitting down at an operation ." Glaser still refused to remove the button. The next morning Bellavia told Glaser that, upon orders from John Catalano, Glaser should thereafter work for Clinch, and stated that somebody else would take her place as a working , super- visor. A few days later Clinch commented to Glaser, who was then an ordinary worker, that she was "really getting scared " because the employees were signing up for the Union and that she believed the EMERSON RADIO & PHO\OGRAPH CORPORATION 621 respondent would' either go out of business or move its operations elsewhere if the Union ever came into the plant. Glaser said that she did not think that the respondent was ready to go either out of busi- ness or out of town. Clinch replied : "Well , I am just telling you and wait and see . . . I have heard it from a good source." Employee Lillian Weiss likewise started to wear her , union button at the plant in August. When she first did so, Clinch said that she was very surprised to see that Weiss was a member, asked Weiss why she had joined, and told her that the plant would move from the city rather than have the C. I. 0., and that she and iilany others would then lose their jobs. Commencing in July or August and continuing for several months, Clinch spoke repeatedly along the same line to employee , O'Connell , telling her that if the Union came in the em- ployees would have to pay dues and would work for only 6 months; and that Catalano and Abrams, the respondent's president; would see to it that employees who "were mixed up in the union would be got- ten rid of." About the end of August Clinch asked O'Connell if she would be satisfied with a 2-cent raise. O'Connell received the raise 2 weeks later. During this campaign by the Union and the counter-drive by the respondent's supervisors and working supervisors, a different kind of button appeared at the plant. It was about 2 inches in diameter and bore the designation, "I Am Neutral." Working Supervisors Costa, Potenza, and others wore this button while at work. In September, Mario Catalano asked employee Domeneck Farraro if he had heard about the Union and about a statement of President Roosevelt that employees were to have some protection through unions. When Farraro answered in the affirmative; Catalano said "We don't, want that union. We want our own union." He-then asked Farraro to sign a piece of, paper for an independent organization. Farraro at first refused but later signed the piper when some of his coworkers said that there was "nothing to it." Soon thereafter Mario Catalano told Farraro: "Well, Domeneck, we started John Avezzano's social club . . . We want you to sign it . .. John Avezzano [is] a good man; he is good for [the] company, he is honest." Catalano said that the dues for the club were 10 cents and that it provided dancing and sick benefits. Farraro refused to join. During that month Avezzano organized a social club, named the Fleeting Hour Club, in connection with his duties as recreational advisor. He testified that he had had it in mind a long time. The Club rented some quarters near the plant and acquired some second- hand furniture. There it held meetings, parties, and dances, and offered continual opportunity for drinking and various social func- tions. People who were not employees of the respondent were per- 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mitted to join, 'as well as all of the employees. The Club was fre-- quented by supervisors and working supervisors, as well as by non- supervisory employees. We, find that the Fleeting Hour Club, although not a labor organization, was formed by a representative of the respondent to divert the attention of employees from the Union. In September or October of 1940, Frank Leslie, foreman in charge of the final test department, asked William Santora why lie insisted on causing a "lot of commotion." Santora said that he was not inter- ested in causing commotion but was interested in forming a legitimate organization by which the employees could improve their conditions. Leslie said that most of the people in the plant did not want a union, that he had belonged to a musicians' union at one time, and that all unions were rackets. At various times thereafter, Leslie wore buttons or signs saying "Committee" or "Disorganizer" in caricature of union buttons. In March 1941, Louis Russo, an'assistant to Foreman Bellavia and a working supervisor, told employee Debra Shapiro that he had defi- nite information that if the Union succeeded in getting into the plant, the respondent would move.' He said that Abrams, the respondent's president, was then out of town looking for i new location. At about the same time, Clinch asked employee Carmella Bullara what the girls in the C. I. O. wanted. Bullara told her that the girls wanted better conditions. Clinch replied that she thought they had very good con- ditions and that she did not see why Bullara had joined the Union. On February 27, 1941, the Union filed a petition with the Board's Regional Office asking for an investigation and certification as exclu-. sive representative of the- respondent's production employees. On March 19 the respondent, the Union, Wand International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W., which had filed a petition for certification in October 1940, signed an agreement by which they consented to the coi duct of an election by the Board's Regional Director on April 2, 1941. On about March 19, Jack Lankes, a working supervisor, ordered some buttons from a firm recommended to him by Avezzano. The buttons so ordered were 21/8 inches in diameter, with an orange background and black letters thereon. Each button bore in large capital letters the words "Vote for Neither." Underneath this caption there was a slogan which varied as between buttons. The different slogans were : "No Out- side Union Influence," "Raises Without Strikes," "I Can Think For Myself," "A Steady Job is My Security," and "Don't Double Cross Our Jimmy." Lankes distributed the buttons among various employees, including working supervisors, asking each person to sell the buttons throughout the plant for 10 cents each. He explained that he did not want either the Union or the I. B. E. W. to get in the plant and pre- EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION 623 ferred, in case any union was necessary, an inside group consisting only of employees of the respondent. Several hundred buttons were thus distributed. Among those who sold or wore them were about 18 supervisors and working supervisors. When Clinch asked employee O'Connell if she would wear one of the i buttons, and O'Connell hesitated, Clinch said that if the Union won the election, the respondent was going to move out of New York City to Brookline, Massachusetts, and that those employees who wore the buttons would be given raises and better jobs while those who refused would be "pushed around" and eventually "they would get rid" of them. O'Connell nevertheless refused. When employee Brannigan likewise refused, Clinch said to her : "Well, if you do not wear the button the manager and the Company will think that you are in the Union." Clinch also told Brannigan that if the Union won the elec- tion, the respondent would move away and the employees would all lose their jobs. Potenza, a working supervisor, left her place on the subassembly of Unit No . 1 and went into the cabinet department of that unit, where she asked those employees to buy buttons. While she thus sold her buttons and collected the money , Foreman Blumenfeld was standing about 10 feet'away in the center aisle. When working supervisor Joe Piagintini asked employee Kiernan to wear a button, he told Kiernan ,, "We do not want to see any out- siders or C. I . O. come in here," and asked Kiernan if lie wanted to "see the C. I. O. in." When employee Medici was given a button one morn- ing by a coworker and commenced to wear It, Mario Catalano told her to take it off "because they had designated a certain time in the after- noon at which 'ev'er'yone was going to put their buttons on." Medici did as requested. That afternoon Catalano and about 20 other em- ployees in the department simultaneously started wearing their but- tons. When Russo was selling buttons, employee Shapiro, a member of the Union, called him over and said she wanted to buy one. Russo said he could not sell her any because she belonged to the C. I. O. Also in March , after some of the "Neither" buttons had been dis- tributed, Tom Chiavolino, an employee in the stockroom and Ben- jamin Rothstein, a working supervisor, had some leaflets multigraphed on orange paper in order to attract the interest of the people wearing the orange "Vote For Neither" buttons. Rothstein paid for them personally, but was partially reimbursed by Lankes out of funds realized from the sale of the "Neither" buttons and contributions re- ceived as a result of a' request made in one of the leaflets . The leaflets were distributed outside the plant at different times by Rothstein, Lankes , Russo, Potenza , Mario Catalano, and other working super- visors, as well as by ordinary employees. 624 1 DECISIONS I OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, The leaflets so 'distributed consisted of anti -union propaganda 6 They raised the fear of excessive union dues , assessments , and strikes, and suggested that the respondent's employees already received unusu- ally steady employment , and enjoyed good working conditions, auto- matic raises , training , and special work for those who became in- capacitated . They repeated some of the phrases on the orange but- tons, urged the employees to vote "Neither ", in the coming election, and said : "Contact your `orange ' button salesman or salesgirl and make further small contributions in order to spread the truth." During the late afternoon of April 1 , representatives of the Union, the I. B . E. W., and the Board's Regional Office met in the office of the respondent's president to arrange the details of the election to be held on the following day. A few minutes after 5'o'clock , during the regular working time for the factory, Vlack and Barnett, the repre- ^entatives of the two unions , left the office to go to the men's room near the unit - supervised by Foreman Blumenfeld. While en route they saw a group of girls, wearing the orange "Neither" buttons, hastily leaving the plant . The girls left their work- without punching the time clock. The union representatives returned to the meeting in Abrams' office and reported _the occurrence to Abrams and to the Board representative . Abrams thereupon excused himself from the meeting and did not return . The representatives of the unions and the Board then went downstairs to the street where they saw the girls, whom the union representatives had previously observed leaving work, in the process of distributing to the departing employees copies of the above-described orange leaflets containing anti-union propa- ganda: They returned to Abrams' office where the -Board's representa, tive telephoned the Board's Regional Director . - After informing her of the events just witnessed , he told the union representatives that the election was being called off. It is clear from the record, and we find, that the respondent had excused these girls from work to allow them to arrive early at the exit and distribute the "Vote Neither" propaganda described above. At about 7 : 50 on the morning of April 2, Avezzano , several work- ing supervisors, including Joe and Irene Piagentini , Chloe Potenza, 9 what appeals to be the first leaflet commenced • , "Did you ever watch a little boy blow up a balloon? He blows and blows and blows and blows and each time he blows lie holds it away from him smiles , and invariably is tempted to blow just once more. What happens-the balloon bursts, the hot air is gone with the wind, and the little boy sits down and cries." _ Another leaflet commenced . - "And when the balloon burst, the little boy sat down and cried-and how he cried . . . Yehudi wrote the famous proverb-By their hot air ye shall know them .' 11 ( Three cheers for Yehudi ) The beautiful orange buttons are replacing many union buttons. The third leaflet was entitled : "Who Has the 'Crying Towel.' " The draftsmanship of the leaflets suggests that they were prepared by propagandists rather than by inexperi- enced waiters such as Chiavohno and Rothstein. I EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION. 625 Grace Costa, Benjamin Rothstein, and Louis Russo, and a number of reject; relief, and repair girls appeared at the entrance to the respond- ent's plant carrying signs bearing some of the anti-union slogans pre- viously publicized by the orange buttons and leaflets. Later that morn- ing,, the Board's Regional Director sent a telegram to the respondent asking that a notice be posted to inform employees that the election scheduled for that day had be6n postponed by the Regional Director. The respondent maintained at the hearing that it was not respon- sible for the anti-union conduct of its working supervisors, such as Clinch, Irene Piagintini, Costa, Usenza, Potenza, Mario Catalano, Russo,'Lankes, Joe Piagintini, and Rothstein. • The position of these and similar working supervisors in the respondent's plant will there- fore be considered. The respondent's production department consists of six units or lines, each of which contains about 135 employees. Over each unit is a foreman who is responsible directly to the plant manager for the operation of his unit. The units are similar, each consisting of a subassembly, a main line, a cabinet department, a test department, and a packing department. Over each of these subunits there is usu- ally a working supervisor who is directly responsible to, the foreman and who does both supervisory and manual work in his or her subunit. Under the working supervisors there are relief girls, repair girls, and reject girls who relieve the employees on the line, repair broken parts, and help salvage materials. These jobs involve some moving about in the subunit. They are sometimes combined with each other and, in part, with the job of a working supervisor. The majority of the em- ployees have stationary positions at the benches which form the major line in each unit. - Working supervisors each day take the attendance of employees in their respective units and maintain a place either at the main bench, or,on a separate bench, where they keep the books necessary for such clerical work. They also pass on to the employees orders received from the foremen, which include orders determining the rate of production. In addition, the working supervisors instruct'new employees in-the performance of their operations. They keep a general watch over all the employees and suggest corrections or improvement in the various operators' manner of work. If they are unable to handle a problem, they go to the foreman of the unit for assistance. The working super- visors are generally responsible for the flow of work and in particular for the maintenance of materials and supplies. This includes ordering materials, sometimes going after materials, and frequently placing niaterials near the operators who are using them. When a change in models is made, the working supervisors sometimes make sample sets which the girls on the line follow as models. The respondent's pro- duction manager testified that a working' supervisor is a "trouble 481039-42-vol. 43-40 9 '626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shooter of the line when something is wrong" and that "he sits there and sees that the line runs smoothly. . . . He sees that the partic- ular group of people are fed right" with materials, but he does not have any authority . Although working supervisors have on occasion recommended employees for raises or transfers , they do not have au- thority to grant raises or make transfers out of their own subunits. In addition to their supervisory work, they also do manual work in substituting when necessary for absent employees , in giving relief to employees who need rest periods in addition to the regular 10 -minute rest periods , and in assisting with the repair work and salvage of materials. Such, work takes a substantial part of .their time but varies considerably in different -situations . In-the spring of 1941, girls com- menced work on the benches at 36 cents per hour, and it was possible for them to attain a maximum of 44 cents per hour through automatic increases . Relief, repair , and reject girls usually received 46 cents an hour during this period, and working supervisors began at 48 cents an hour. It thus appears that the working supervisors perform both manual .and supervisory work. - They are the management's first contact with the general employees and are regarded by the latter as supervisors. They are part of the'rather familiar category known not only'as work- ing supervisors but also as leaders , pushers , crew foremen , and straw- bosses. It is clear that the working supervisors in this case have much more supervisory authority than the "lead men" who "by reason of long experience were skilled in handling new jobs and hence directed the set-up of the work ," and for whose actions management is respon- sible.7 Furthermore , in this case, the acts of the respondent's factory manager , assistant factory manager, and various foremen clearly re- vealed to all employees the anti-union program which the respondent ,espoused . The working ,supervisors , in performing similar acts, merely emulated the example set by the management , and, in doing so, thus acted for the respondent .8 The respondent contends that because the working supervisors were eligible to membership in the Union and because they were not ex- 'eluded from the unit agreed upon ' in the consent election agreement, the respondent is not responsible for their conduct. There is no merit in this contention . Unions may admit supervisory employees to mem- bership if they so desire , but this does not alter the relationship of the supervisory employees to the employer and to the other employees. ( International A iociation of Maclaniists, Tool and Die Maters Lodge No. 3T, etc V. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U S 72 'Cf. Wilson & Co, Inc V National Tabor Relations Board, 120 F (2d) 411 (C C _A 8) . Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , 9 N. L. It. B 117 ; Matter of Ward Baling Company and Committee for Indust) ial Organization , S N L R 13 558 8 Neie Idea, Inc v National Labor Relations Board, 117 F ( 2d) 517 (C C. A. 7). EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION - 627 The employer escapes no responsibility, by virtue of such membership, for acts performed by its employees when acting as management repre- --entatives.9 Nor does the agreement of the parties to include super- visory employees within a unit of non-supervisory employees for the purpose of the consent election relieve the respondent of liability for the unfair labor practices committed by such supervisory employees. This is especially true since the employees in question were carrying out the policies of the respondent, as expressed by its factory'manager, assistant factory manager, and foremen. The non-supervisory em- ployees were never informed of any limitation upon the authority of the working supervisors whom they considered to be representatives of the respondent and whose actions conformed to the pattern estab- lished by the respondent.10 The events related above reveal the respondent's policy toward the Union. As early as November 1939, Plant Manager Catalano attempted to discourage Glaser's interest in the Union by promising to get her a raise and by urging her to forget the other employees who were similarly situated. Some months later, after more em- ployees had joined the Union, Catalano utilized the same tactics with Vlack, requesting that the latter arrange a meeting of the union em- ployees in his department so that Catalano could discuss with them the possibility of raises without the necessity of having a union. When Catalano's efforts failed, Avezzano undertook to convince Vlack of the futility of belonging to the Union and suggested per- sonal gains which Vlack might obtain if he withdrew from the Union. After Vlack's name had appeared on a leaflet distributed by the Union, Avezzano suggested to him that he form an "inside" union to replace the Union. Shortly thereafter, the respondent's assistant factory manager sent William Santora, whose name had also ap- peared on the leaflet, to Catalano, who evinced an unprecedented interest in Santora's welfare and future plans for the purpose, as we have found, of discouraging his interest in the Union.. When these measures failed to stem the interest of 'employees in the Union, certain of the respondent's working supervisors at- tempted to initiate an inside union by obtaining signatures of em- ployees who favored such an organization. Employee Florence Weiss, who had been asked to sign the paper and who thereafter wore a large union button in the plant, was assigned to difficult work; and-Glaser, who had been made a supervisor, was demoted after 9 See International Association of Machinists and Matter of Tennessee Copper Company cited in f n 8 supra; Matter of Swift it Company and Amalgamated Heat Cutters and Butcher Woilmen of North America, 30 N. L. R B. 550; Matter of Decatur Iron it Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 29 N. L R. B. 1044 10Cf. Matter of Iowa Electric Light and Power Company and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 275, affiliated with the A. F. of L , 38 N L It B 1124 628 DECISIONS OF ,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD refusing to remove a union button she was wearing. Working super- visor Clinch urged Lillian Weiss to withdraw from the Union, after she appeared wearing a union button, and repeatedly warned O'Con- nell of the dire results she might expect if union activity continued. The Fleeting Hour Club, although falling short of the intended "inside" labor organization, was designed, as the Trial Examiner found, to "make the employees happy" and to serve as a substitute for the Union. The action of the working supervisors in wearing the z"I Am Neutral" buttons during the summer of 1940, and in wearing and selling to other employees the orange colored "Vote For Neither" buttons immediately after the agreement for the election of April 2, 1941; was consummated, constitutes a clear form of interference by the respondent with the rights of its employees, as does its action in permitting employees to leave the plant early to distribute anti- union literature. , The latter two incidents were especially coercive since, because of the impending election, the strictest impartiality was required of the respondent and its supervisory employees for whose acts it must be held accountable. It is clear, and-we find, that the respondent, by the above-described course of conduct, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Domination of and interference with- the formation and admin- istration of 'the Independent During the morning of April 2, 1941, a group of anti-union em- ployees, Frank Curcio, William Jerlat, Charles Schusteritch, Robert Curcio, Pat DeMarco, Gregory Riglizio, John Cardello, ' and Pat Cardello, met in the respondent's maintenance department on the second floor and decided to get petitions signed which they could present to the factory manager in an effort to obtain information as. to why the scheduled election had been called off. A number of em- ployees, including Margaret Ritz, a stock clerk ; Helen Ehrgott [Neustadt], a relief-repair-clerical girl who ranked slightly above line employees ; Piagentini, formerly a working supervisor but at' this time an ordina'ry' worker; Curcio; Pat Cardello, and others, circulated petitions during the rest of the morning and 'requested that as many employees as possible meet near Catalano's office at noon. They secured more than 370 signatures which they later pre- sented to Catalano and-then to Abrams, who read to them the tele- gram from the Regional Director. That afternoon 25 to 40 em- ployees left the plant, with Abrams' permission, and conferred with- i EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION 629 the Regional Director. She made an appointment for them to see a Field Examiner on the following day, and they returned to the plant. On the same day, Rothstein, and others associated with the "Vote For Neither" group, distributed one of their orange circulars urging opposition to the Union. When Curcio and his associates left work that afternoon they assembled in a bakery shop across the street from the plant where they had refreshments and discussed their plans. About 30 em- ployees were thus assembled, including Ritz, Ehrgott, and Jerlat. The group discussed what they would say at the coming meeting with the Board's Field Examiner and also considered the question of leadership among themselves. Curcio said that since he had thus far taken the initiative, he would volunteer to act as president. Ritz, Ehrgott, and Castine likewise volunteered to act as secretary, vice president, and treasurer, respectively. The next morning, April 3, this group conferred with Pomer- ance, a Field Examiner, at the Board's Regional Office. The em- ployees expressed their disappointment that the election at the re- spondent's plant had been called off and stated that their group had wanted to vote "neither" at the election, and still wanted to do something about it. Pomerance replied that a "neither group"'would have no status as an organization before the Board. When Curcio asked how they could be recognized by the Board, Pomerance sug- gested that they give themselves a name. Ritz suggested the name of "Independents," and Curcio enlarged it to "Independent Em- ployees of Emerson Radio." That night Curcio, Ritz, Castine, and John Cardello met at the Fleeting Hour Club. They approved plans made by Curcio and Ritz for the borrowing of money in the names of those two individuals from the National City Bank and for' the holding of a raffle among the respondent's employees to repay the loan. On April 4, Curcio and Ritz returned for a second conference with Pomerance. Curcio asked if they did not need a charter, since they were going to be a club.11 Pomerance replied that they should ask an attorney about the charter, but refused to recommend one. Cur- cio stated that they planned to hold meetings and asked if they could hold them at the Fleeting Hour Club. Pomerance replied that it was immaterial where they met as long as there was no company 'interference. He also gave them a copy of the Act and answered affirmatively when they asked if it was proper for employees to resign from membership in the Union and to join their organization. 11 Curcio testified "I really didn't think it was going to be a large union as it is now." This, however, is inconsistent with his testimony that they had already- obtained over 350 names on their petitions and had already made plans to borrow $200 which be was sure they could repay from a raffle because he knew "it would go over big." 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL; LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On April 3 or 4, Curcio asked Rothstein where he had had the "Vote For Neither" circulars printed and was referred to the Fifth Avenue Letter Shop. Curcio and John Cardello then went to that shop on April 4 and had mimeographed 700 copies of a leaflet entitled EMER- SON EMPLOYEES, choosing to use orange paper, the same as-that used by the "Vote Neither" group, because they "figured" that the people who had "grabbed" the orange sheets before would "grab" them again. This policy of using orange paper for the Independent releases was generally followed thereafter. The "Emerson Em- ployees" leaflet was distributed by Curcio, Ritz, Ann and Margaret Rizzo, and by Piagentini, Costa, and Potenza, working supervisors who had helped to distribute the preceding "neither" leaflets. This leaflet stated that after Abrams had been interrogated about the post- ponement of the election, a group of employees had gone to the Re- gional Office, had demanded that the election- be held as scheduled, had convinced the Board's representatives that a great many were sincere in not wanting outside union influence, had formed an organization known as "The Independent Employees Association of Emerson," and had gotten the "green light" to go ahead. , The leaflet was signed by Curcio, Ehrgott,'Ritz, and Castine. At about the same time, Curcio asked Lankes if he would give the Independent group the "neither" buttons for use as their first mem- bership buttons, since they then did not have any funds. Lankes ac- commodated Curcio and gave him "a couple of bags" of "neither" buttons. On April 4, Castine ordered printed 1,000 stickers on orange paper of about the same size as the "neither" buttons. They read: "Independent Employees Association 'of Emerson-Independent of Outside Influence." These stickers were delivered on April 10, pasted on the "neither" buttons, and thereafter were worn by. members of the Independent to signify their allegiance. Not only ordinary employees, but-also working supervisors par- ticipated in the ^vearing of the "neither" buttons thus converted into Independent buttons. Commencing not later than May 14, Clinch wore such a button at the plant for at least several weeks. Likewise, William Atkins, who was then a packer supervising several employees and who thereafter became a working supervisor, wore one for several days after the postponement of the election. On April 5, employees Curcio, Ritz, Ehrgott, Castine, Jerlat, the, two Cardellos, Robert Curcio, Alberti, Talarico, and Scavron held' their second meeting in the Fleeting Hour Club. They ratified the printing of the stickers for the buttons, voted to print 700 membership cards and 500 raffle books, and made arrangements for the distribution of cards and buttons and the waging of membership and publicity campaigns, EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION ', 631 On April 7, Curcio and Ritz applied for loans of $108 each from the National City Bank of New York for use by the Independent. That night the Independent had another meeting in the Fleeting Hour Club at which Curcio read a letter proposed by the publicity committee for distribution . It was signed by Chiavolino , Jerlat; and others. The letter was approved, mimeographed on orange paper , and released the next day to the employees at the factory . It stated that the Independent was "not just another balloon full of hot air," and that it "originated with Emerson employees . . . suggested and approved by the Labor Board." The letter emphasized several points, the last of which was: Some people might call this Association a company union. There is no such thing as a company union . . . The Independent Employees Association of Emerson will have all the advantages of a union, but none of its disadvantages. This leaflet and three others were distributed by a number of em- ployees, including Lankes and John Carclello . The latter worked as a 'cabinet finisher and also as a -guard or watchman for the re- spondent. His job was to stand at the stairway exit of the plant, as the employees left work, to see,that they departed in an orderly manner, and also to see that no one not working for the respondent entered the plant at that time by way of the exit. It was while Cardello was so engaged , standing at the stairway on the respondent's property, that he distributed these four Independent leaflets to the employees who were leaving. Although Cardello was not a super- visor, his distribution of the leaflets is to be attributed to the re= spondent since he did so in the usual course of his duties on com-' pany, time and premises , and presumably, with the knowledge of the respondent. - During its campaign for members, the Independent received ad- ditional help from the respondent through the working supervisors. Thus, one morning soon after April 2, the repairman on the 'No. 2 unit, in the presence of Schenkenberger , the line , foreman, com- menced soliciting signatures on the Independent's orange member- ship cards before the employees started to work at 8:30 and' continued thereafter while the employees were at work until about 3 o'clock that afternoon . When he asked employee D'Abelle to sign she refused . When he again asked her , about 30 minutes later, she again refused, - saying that she had already joined the Union and would be a hypocrite if she signed the orange card. The girl next to D'Abelle also' refused to sign. When she did so, not only the repairinan , but also Working Supervisor Josephine Usenza asked why she refused. At about the same time , Working Supervisor Mario Catalano, on We No. 3 unit , told employee Medici that Pat 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cardello wanted to see her 'and that John Cardello would take her place while she was gone. On thus being relieved, Medici left her place of work and went to the other side of the line to talk to Pat Cardello. He had some of the Independent's membership cards with him, told Medici that everyone was signing up with the Inde- pendent, and asked if she would care to sign one of the cards. She did so. All other employees on the line except Ferraro, who was wearing a union button, were similarly relieved and sent to see Pat Cardello. On April 10 the Union called a strike which was terminated 1 month later after an agreement between the respondent and the Union which will be discussed hereinafter. There is considerable testimony indicating that various repair, reject, and relief girls solicited employees on behalf of the Independ- ent with the knowledge and acquiescence of the working supervisors and the foremen. As noted above, these girls ranked above the ordinary employees on the line and immediately under the working supervisors. Their work required them to move about frequently during working hours. Employees of this category were active in the Independent. In particular, the evidence, indicates that Mary Alberti Papaccio, Ann Rizzo Dell Aquila, Margie Bonaniossa, Helen Ehrgott Neustadt, Pat Barba, and Florence De Bouno at various times solicited memberships, collected dues, and returned dues cards to employees while at work and in the presence of supervisors who did nothing to interfere with this conduct. Four of these girls testi- fied. Each admitted collecting dues but denied generally engaging in such activity during working hours and in the presence of fore- men. They maintained that such activity was confined to relief periods. The Trial Examiner concluded, as do we, that these repair, relief, and reject girls took advantage of their position and engaged in activity for the Independent during working hours, and that such activity was carried on with the knowledge and acquiescence of the respondent's working supervisors and at least some of the respondent's foremen. In December 1941, Potenza asked Medici, according to the latter's uncontroverted testimony, why she had not joined the Independent. Medici replied that she was not interested in any union dominated by the respondent. Potenza retorted : "Well, it can't be proven." A few minutes later Potenza wrote a list of names on a slip of paper which she gave to Mary Alberti Papaccio. The latter then took the list and, in the presence of Potenza, went down the line asking various people if they had paid their dues to the Independent. The history of the Independent shows that it evolved from the respondent's long campaign against the Union. In 1940, the respond- ent had tried to prevent unionization by appeasing its leaders and EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION 633. 1. 1 then by forming a social club: In March and April 1941, its super- visors spent both time and money in the loosely organized "neither" group which fought the Union during the election campaign and took the form of a labor organization only when the election was called off and when such transformation appeared necessary for recognition as an opponent of the Union. In addition to inheriting the momentum of the "neither" group, the Independent received assistance from supervisors in the preparation and distribution of leaflets, and from the fact that working supervisors wore Independent buttons and dis- tributed the "Emerson Employees" leaflet and others. Further, the Independent received active assistance from supervisors who joined in arguments 'with employees on its behalf, and who assisted and acquiesced in the action of relief and repair girls in engaging in .Independent business on company time. It is clear that the Inde- pendent was not only created as the respondent's instrument for oppo- sition to the Union, but has also continued to receive its support. We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the forma- tion and administration of the Independent and has contributed sup- port thereto and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. As we have noted, above, the respondent contends that the present proceedings are barred by (1) an agreement for a consent election entered into on March 19,1941, pursuant to which the Board's Regional Director notified the respondent that charges previously filed had been withdrawn with prejudice; and (2) an agreement between the re- spondent and the Union on May 10, 1941, for the settlement of a strike, in consideration for which,- the respondent claims, the Union agreed not to prosecute the charges upon which this* proceeding is based. There is no merit in the contention. It has been our practice to give effect to such agreements only where no further unfair labor practices have been engaged in by the employer and where we were of the opin- ion that the policies of the Act would be effectuated thereby. The Re- gional Director's notice that charges had been withdrawn with preju- dice contemplated that the respondent would not engage in further unfair labor practices. Since, as we have found above, the respondent engaged in such practices following, both agreements relied upon, we- are free to consider events occurring prior thereto. Moreover, the Board may, in its discretion, disregard an agree- ment between the parties where the purposes of the Act have not been served. . Here, the agreement of May 10, 1941, upon which the re- spondent relies, merely purported to settle a strike. It did not pro- vide for the disestablishment of the Independent, nor for the cessation of any other unfair labor practices. Nor was the Board or any of its 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representatives a party to the agreement. Therefore, even if we as- sume that the "Board had or should have had" notice of this agree- ment, as the respondent offered at the hearing to prove, we do not consider ourselves bound thereby. Such settlements clearly do not effectuate the policies of the Act.12 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, oc- curring 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. V. THE REIIIEDY Since we have found that the respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. . I , We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent and contributed support to it. We shall order that the respondent refrain from rec- ognizing the Independent as a representative of its employees. for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions •of work, and completely disestablish- the Independent. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. 'Local 430, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of Amer- ica, C., I. 0., and. Independent Employees Association of Emerson Radio are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) ' of the Act. , i2Matter of Ingrain Manufacturing Company and Textile WoiAers Organizing Com- mittee, 5 N L. R B 908; Matter of Picker X-Ray Corporation, Waite Manufacturing Division, Inc- and International Association of Machinists, 12 N. L. R. B 1384 ; Matter of General Motors Corporation and Delco-Reiny Corporation and Inteinational Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 1y6, 14 N. L R. B 113; Matter of Allsteel Pioduats Manufacturing Company (Inc.) and International Association of Ma- chinists Local 108, 16 N L. R B. 72 ; Matter of Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, 38 N. L. It. B. 234 Ct. Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc. and Sugar Mill 1Vorheis' Union; Locals No. 12177 and No. 2188 affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N. L. R B. 568; Matter of Hope Webbing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee of the C I. 0 , Local No 1/i, 14 N L R B 55, Matter of International Agricultural Corpora- tion, Wales, Tennessee, Plant and Inteinational Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, 16 N. L. R. B. 176. EMERSON RADIO & PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION 635 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of the Independent Employees Association of Emerson Radio and contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. - - 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 Board hereby orders that the respondent, Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corporation, New York City, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:* 1. Cease and desist from: - (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Inde- pendent Employees Association of Emerson Radio or with the forma- tion or administration of any other labor organization and from con- tributing support to Independent Employees Association of Emerson Radio or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its'employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist, labor organizations, 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 : (a) Withhold all recognition from Independent Employees Asso- ciation of Emerson Radio as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor dis- putes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Independent Employees Association of. Emerson Radio as such representative ; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant in New York City and maintain 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) and (b) of this Order; and (2) 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the respondent will take the affirmative action'set forth in para- graph 2 (a) of this Order; '(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. M.R. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. _