Cadre Industries Corp.

278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cadre Industries Corporation and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 93, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA- 1434. July 31, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On April 9, 1959, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. There- after, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications indicated below. 1. The Respondent has excepted to unfair labor practice findings of the Trial Examiner, which we have adopted, on the ground that he erred in his credibility resolutions. However, it is well established that the Board will not overrule a Trial Examiner's resolution as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces the Board that such resolution was incorrect.' No such conclusion is warranted in this case. We have, therefore, adopted the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. 2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent engaged in independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In so finding, we rely on the following: Plant Superintendent Susco's telephone conversation with employee Sferrazzo on June 18, 1958, in which Susco, after telling Sferrazzo that he had heard rumors of union organization activity, questioned Sferrazzo as to what was going on, told Sferrazzo that, if the employees organized, they would i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 2 In connection with our adoption of the Trial Examiner's finding that the Advisory Council was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, see recent opinion of the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company, 360 U.S. 203. 3Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 9 1 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3) ; Baltimore Steam Packet Company, 120 NLRB 1521, 1524. 124 NLRB No. 33. CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION 279 really have to work for promotions and that Respondent could always fill important jobs with men from its east coast operations, and men- tioned to Sferrazzo that he knew the identity of those engaged in the organizational effort; Susco's conversations with employees Scott and Fontaine on June 19, during which he told Scott that he was aware of the leadership of the organizational drive and of the place and time of the organizational meeting; Susco's conversation with em- ployee Hearn on June 19, during which he asked Hearn if he knew of the activity that was going on, warned him that the talk could be dangerous, and stated that the Respondent was expanding and that there would be many openings for promotions but that the plant could close and move East "due to this activity"; and Susco's harassment of Sferrazzo during December 1958 and January 1959 for the purpose of obtaining the latter's affidavit to the Board in connection with this case .4 THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We are also convinced that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaran- teed by the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cadre Industries Corporation, Los Gatos, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 4 Although Susco's interrogation of employees was not alleged by the complaint to be a violation of Section 8(a) (1), as were his threats and warnings , the matter was fully litigated at the hearing and constitutes a proper basis for an unfair labor practice find- ing in this case, See Monroe Feed Store, 112 .NLRB 1336. The issue of harassment of Sferrazzo was raised by an amendment to the complaint at the hearing . Respondent's conduct in this connection is manifestly related to that alleged as unfair labor practices in the charge , such as its interrogation of and threats to em- ployees, and the fact that it occurred subsequent to the filing of the charges does not, as was recently made clear by the Supreme Court, preclude us from dealing with it in the circumstances of this case . N.L.R.73. V. Pant Milling Company, 360 U.S. 301. 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion and threatening and warning them of loss or curtailment of job promotion, and curtailment or cessation of operations at the Los Gatos plant, in the event they become organized. (b) Interrogating, intimidating, and harassing its employees with respect to affidavits or statements furnished to agents of the Board. (c) Forming, dominating, or contributing financial or other sup- port to, the Advisory Council or any other labor organization. (d) Recognizing the Advisory Council, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 93, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish, the Advisory Council, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. (b) Post at its plant in Los Gatos, California, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, San Francisco, California, shall, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable measures shall be 5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States 'Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION 281 taken by the Respondent to insure that such notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate any of our employees with respect to their union affiliation and activities in a manner constituting inter- ference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten or warn any of our employees that affilia- tion with International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 93, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, will result in loss of employment or of opportunities for promotion. WE WILL NOT interrogate any of our employees with respect to statements or affidavits given to Board agents, or demand the pro- duction and submission of such statements or affidavits, or engage in intimidation and harassment with respect to the production and submission of such statements and affidavits. WE WILL NOT interfere with, dominate, or contribute support to, the Advisory Council or any other labor organization of our employees. WE hereby disestablish the Advisory Council as the representa- tive of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing With us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and WE WILL NOT recognize the Advisory Council or any successor thereto for any of the fore- going purposes. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce, our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi- zation, to form labor organizations, to join International Asso- ciation of Machinists, District Lodge No. 93, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Employer. Dated--- ------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner in San Jose, California, on January 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20, 1959, on complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein- after called the Board, and answer of the Respondent, Cadre Industries Corporation. The issues litigated were whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter called the Act. The parties waived oral argument and the Respondent filed a brief. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a New York corporation, is a multistate enterprise with its principal office located at Endwell, New York. At all times material herein it has been engaged in the manufacture of electronic cable assemblies at its plant located at Los Gatos, California, the only plant involved in these proceedings. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, it sold products valued in excess of $100,000 to International Business Machines, hereinafter called IBM, which company is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's Los Gatos plant is part of its multistate enterprise, with total sales of the entire enterprise shipped directly outside the State of origin during the said fiscal year, in excess of $250,000. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists , District Lodge No. 93, AFL-CIO, here- inafter called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Incidents and issues In March 1957, the Respondent opened a new plant in Los Gatos, California. At the Los Gatos plant Fred J. Du Bois, Respondent's vice president, was general manager; Robert Randall, controller and administrative assistant to Du Bois; Riley K. Lane, personnel director; Sam Susco, plant superintendent; Mike Quartararo, foreman. Most of the statements and conduct alleged to have violated the Act issued from, or directly involved, Susco. Robert Bruce Wolfe, an employee alleged to have been unlawfully discharged on or about June 20, 1958, was employed by Cadre in April 1957 and assigned Clock No. 3, indicating that he was the third person hired. There was very little union activity among Cadre employees prior to June 1958. In March 1957, before the plant was in operation, Leland Nelson, the Union's busi- ness representative, called on Du Bois but presumably nothing came of this meeting. There appears to have been some discussion with respect to organizing between Wolfe, Wayne Johnson, and perhaps a few other employees, in May 1958, and Nelson testified that he talked to Wolfe and Johnson on two or three occasions prior to June 1958. However, the first concrete steps toward organization occurred on June 17, when Johnson requested Nelson to make contact with Wolfe. That same evening Nelson saw Wolfe at the latter's home. Wolfe said some of the CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION 283 employees were interested in organizing and asked for Nelson's advice as to pro- cedure. Nelson replied that it was advisable to have a small group of employees meet and discuss the situation. Nelson and Wolfe then agreed that the latter would arrange a meeting for some five employees and advise Nelson of the time and place. On Wednesday evening, June 18, Wolfe called Nelson and told him that there had been a meeting arranged for at the home of employee Fred H. Sferrazzo. At the Cadre plant, on June 18, there had been a discussion of the proposed meeting among a group of employees including Wolfe, Johnson, Sferrazzo, Kenneth Sundt, and Richard R. Scott, the five who were to attend the meeting. Also par- ticipating in the discussion relative to organization but not invited to attend the meeting were employees Harold James Hearn, Joel Fontaine, Beckhardt, and others. On the evening of June 18, Plant Superintendent Susco had a telephone conver- sation with Sferrazzo.1 According to Susco, Sferrazzo had left word with Foreman Quartararo that Susco was to call him, Sferrazzo. According to Sferrazzo, the call originated with Susco. Sferrazzo testified that Susco told him in his telephone con- versation that he had heard "rumors" of organizational activities and asked Sferrazzo, in effect, what was going on. Sferrazzo confirmed that the employees were engaged in organizing. Susco warned him against becoming involved in obtaining a mailing list of employees for organizational purposes; and further observed that the IBM, a principal purchaser of Cadre products, would not do business with Cadre in the event the latter became organized; that if the employees organized, "fine and dandy," but as far as promotion was concerned they would really have to work for it and Cadre could always bring men from its east coast operations to fill important jobs. Further according to Sferrazzo, Susco said he knew the identity of the employees engaged in the organizational effort, and Wolfe's name was mentioned. Susco admitted having a telephone conversation with Sferrazzo on the evening of June 18, and testified that while he had previously heard general talk about unions among the employees, it was during this conversation that he first learned that actual organizational steps had been taken. He admitted that an organizational meeting was mentioned by Sferrazzo during the conversation, but denied that Wolfe's name was mentioned. According to him, Sferrazzo said the employees were ready to organize and wanted a payroll list for organizational purposes. Sundt's name was mentioned in this connection. Susco told Sferrazzo that Sundt could not obtain such a list and advised him not to become involved in obtaining one. On June 19, a substantial number of employees were called into Susco's office and advised that they had received wage increases. According to the Respondent, these increases were granted according to plan and normal practice and were decided on prior to June 19. The complaint alleges that they were granted for the purpose of discouraging union activities. Wolfe was absent from work on June 19, and on June 20, shortly after he reported for work, he was called into Susco's office and discharged. It is the Respondent's position that he was discharged for irregularity in attendance and poor work; the General Counsel contends the discharge was because of Wolfe' union activities. Wolfe's discharge, whatever its motivation, appears to have put an end to organizational activity. The meeting scheduled to occur at Sferrazzo's house on the evening of June 20 was not held and following Wolfe's discharge, as testified to by employee Johnson, with respect to organization "everybody sort of dwindled away." On June 23, Lane posted a notice on the plant bulletin board advising Cadre employees of the formation of an Advisory Council. The formation, organization, and functioning of the Advisory Council were directed and controlled by the Respondent. Its first meeting was held on September 4. A second meeting occurred on October 13. On November 19, Respondent announced to Cadre employees through its plant loudspeaker system that the Advisory Council was terminated. There is no evidence that it survived, in any form, this announcement. . It is alleged that the Advisory Council was a company-dominated labor organi- zation; the Respondent asserts that it was not a labor organization and, in any event, that no remedial order is required inasmuch as it has been disestablished. In the Board's investigation of charges against Cadre, Sferrazzo, among others, was interviewed by a Board agent and gave an affidavit. He was subpenaed to testify, and did testify, in this proceeding. The General Counsel contends that Sferrazzo was submitted to harassment and intimidation at the hands of Susco in i Sferrazzo placed this conversation as occurring on the evening of June 19, but in this he was mistaken. 'Susco recalled it as having occurred on June 18, and on June 19 Sferrazzo mentioned the telephone conversation to several employees at the Cadre plant, 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the latter's efforts to obtain a copy of the aforesaid affidavit and insistence on seeing the subpena. Thus we have before us the resolution of these issues: (1) Alleged restraint and coercion through statements of Plant Superintendent Susco; (2) the alleged dis- criminatory discharge of Wolfe; (3) the June 19 wage increases alleged to have been granted for purposes of discouraging organizational activities; (4) an alleged company-dominated union; and (5) the matter of Sferrazzo's affidavit and subpena. B. Facts and conclusions 1. 8 (a)( I) statements Susco's telephone conversation with Sferrazzo on the evening of June 18 has been given in detail above. I accept, substantially, Sferrazzo's version of this con- versation. I have no doubt that it originated with Susco. He testified that Sferrazzo had left word with Foreman Quartararo for Susco to call him, but no plausible reason is afforded for Sferrazzo to have solicited the call and Quartararo, who, had Susco been testifying truthfully, might have corroborated him, was not called to testify. I have given full consideration to the fact that shortly before his employment by the Respondent Sferrazzo was convicted and given a suspended sentence for embezzlement, and was and is now on probation; and to Sferrazzo's admission that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Did Sferrazzo's testimony stand alone, no matter how plausible, it might not command full credence, but there are circumstances and testimony tending to corroborate it. Employee Scott testified that he called Sferrazzo at the latter's house on the evening of June 18, and Sferrazzo told him of Susco's call and said that Susco knew all about the organizational activity. Sundt testified that Sferrazzo told him that Susco had the names of the five employees who were to attend the organiza- tional meeting, and that the meeting would not be held. When Wolfe reported to work on June 20, Sferrazzo told him that Susco knew about the organizational meeting, where it was to be held, and who was to attend it. When Scott was called into Susco's office on June 19 and advised that he had been granted a wage increase, Susco told him that he had received four phone calls the previous evening and was informed as to who was leading the organizational drive and when and where a meeting was to be held. Susco further told Scott that if the Union came in Cadre might lose its contract with IBM and have to close up and move back East. Employee Hearn testified that on being advised on a wage increase by Susco in the latter's office on June 19, Susco, without mentioning the word "union," asked him if he knew of the "activity" that was going on and said the "talk" could be dangerous. Susco further told Hearn that Cadre was expanding and there would be many future openings for promotion, but that the Los Gatos plant could close and its operations be moved back East "due to this activity." Employee Fontaine testified on the occasion of being advised of a wage increase by Susco in the latter's office on June 19, he asked Susco if this was Cadre's method of combating the Union. Susco replied that Cadre had more to offer than a union, such as future benefits from increased production, expansion, and increased opportunity for promo- tion. Susco told Fontaine that on June 18 he had received three or four phone calls telling him of the prospective organizational meeting. Susco specifically or in general denied the testimony of these employees, but their testimony was mutually corroborative in certain particulars and, considered as a whole, together with Sferrazzo's testimony of his telephone conversation with Susco, establish a pattern of whose authenticity I am convinced. Their testimony appeared to be neither exaggerated nor weighted with animus, and differed in detail to a degree that it clearly was not the result of group rehearsal. On the other hand, I found Susco neither forthright nor persuasive. The remarks attributed to him appeared to me to be in "character." I find that by Susco's inquiries into the union activities of employees, and by his threats, implied and explicit, of denial of promotion opportunities to Cadre em- ployees, and of moving the Los Gatos operations back East in the event of unioniza- tion, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 2. The Wolfe discharge This discharge presents the not unusual but difficult problem of an employee whose performance of his work was of such character that except for its timing it is doubtful that his discharge would have raised a question in anybody's mind, including the dischargee's. Wolfe's production, his failure to make "bid time" on CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION 285 his various job assignments-the time managerially determined as required for the completion of an operation-had been a matter of concern to his superiors for months before there was any organizational activity, and in May he had been called into Susco's office with respect to his low production and told by Susco that considering the length of time he had been employed by Cadre, his work was not satisfactory and he would be let go if it did not improve. It was Wolfe's own testimony that he told Susco that he was tired of being called into Susco 's office and that Susco could fire him if he wanted to. Susco replied , "You remember you said it." Wolfe also admitted that something was said to the effect that he would have 30 days in which to demonstrate improvement . Respondent, in about March, had also complained about Wolfe's absenteeism , and his refusal to work overtime during a "crash program" covering the first 4 months of 1958. Wolfe's claim that he was not physically fit for overtime work was doubtless regarded by management with scepticism as to his physical unfitness and resentment because of his refusal to coop- erate. I am convinced that there were reasonable grounds for Respondent con- cluding, as it doubtless did, that Wolfe was something of a hypochondriac and that his attitude toward his work was cavalier. However, there was no absenteeism of note after March 1958, unless his absence on June 19 is counted , and it is not to be counted if Susco's testimony that the decision to discharge him was made prior to that date is credited. We must also take into consideration other factors. Wolfe's production did improve following his May interview with Susco, though up to the time of his discharge he did not succeed in making "bid time." Wolfe, to Susco's knowledge, was one of the five employees active in initiating an organizational campaign. There is also employee Johnson's testimony that when he. protested to Foreman Quartararo about being accused of being a union "ringleader," Quartararo replied, "We know Wolfe's behind it." There is other testimony tending to show that Susco regarded Wolfe as the leader in organizational activities, but this testimony is somewhat tenuous and inconclusive . Actually, employee Johnson was as instru- mental as Wolfe in starting an organizational movement, and Wolfe was no more a "ringleader" in it than others. Susco's animus with respect to the Union was demonstrated in the statements he made to employees, reviewed above , and it was Susco who made the decision to discharge Wolfe, although he made it after con- sultation with his superior , Du Bois. Finally, I regard with scepticism the testimony of Respondent's witnesses that the decisions to discharge Wolfe, to grant merit wage increases , and to launch the formation of the Advisory Council were all made prior to any knowledge on Respondent 's part that employees were engaging in organizational activities . There is such a thing as stretching coincidence too far. Taking all these factors into consideration , however, I am unable to conclude that the evidence preponderates to support the General Counsel's position. The warning of discharge , Wolfe's cavalier attitude about it, the background of poor production and a generally noncooperative attitude , and his failure up to the date of his discharge to make bid time on his job , to be overcome would require some- thing more positive and affirmative as to unlawful motivation than is found here, and even the timing of the discharge lacks what otherwise would be of decisive significance because of the fact that the discharge occurred some 30 days from the date of the warning and at the end of a 30-day probationary period. In short, the timing finds an explanation as reasonable in terms of the Respondent 's case against Wolfe as in terms of the General Counsel 's case against the Respondent. I must recommend dismissal of the complaint with respect to Wolfe's discharge. 3. The wage increases Merit wage increases are initiated by Plant Superintendent Susco or Foreman Quartararo. If initiated by the latter, they are "checked" by Susco before being acted on. In initiating increases , Susco or Quartararo, as the case may be, uses a printed request form in which the employee's name and the name of the supervisor requesting the raise is noted. The form then goes to Personnel Director Lane who completes it by recording production , attendance, and other record data on the employee for whom the raise is requested . From Lane the request form goes to Du Bois who either approves or disapproves the request . Where the request is approved, it is normal procedure for Susco or Quartararo to inform the employee involved and discussion of his work usually follows . Where the request is denied, on occasion the employee is so advised and his work record is reviewed. In 1957, Respondent also granted general wage increases . None was granted in 1958. On June 19, 1958, Respondent authorized the granting of merit increases to 25 of its some 59 production employees, to become effective on June 21 . The requests for 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD these increases were dated June 17, with the exception of one dated June 16. The increased granted in 17 cases was 10 cents an hour, and in 8 cases, 5 cents an hour. Certain employees granted an increase were called to Susco's office on June 19 where they were informed of the increase. Statements found above to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act were made by Susco during some of these interviews. It was not unusual, however, for Susco to discuss production and general plant prob- lems with employees on occasions when he informed them of merit wage increases, and no adverse inference is drawn from the mere fact that he had these interviews at this time. According to Susco's testimony, he first learned of the organizational activity on the evening of June 18 when he talked by phone to Sferrazzo. I have found credible the testimony of General Counsel's witnesses that on June 19 he said that he had been informed of the activity by several phone calls and also at the plant on June 18. This is a comparatively small plant and while attendance of the scheduled organiza- tional meeting was to be limited to five employees, the discussions occurring at the plant on June 18 were not limited to these five. Nevertheless, there is no direct evidence establishing that Susco had knowledge of union activity prior to June 18, and the wage requests signed by him and Quartararo predated June 18. Final action on such requests, according to Lane, may vary from 1 day to several weeks. Here action on all the requests came speedily. The record does not tell us whether prior requests of similar magnitude were acted on so speedily, and therefore there is no basis for comparison on the point. We do find, however, that in addition to general wage increases granted in 1957, there have been merit increases from time to time, some almost every month, and that in March 1958, 21 of a total of 50 employees received merit increases. There were also a substantial number of increases in April and May. For the combined months of March, April, and May, 51 merit in- creases were given and the total number of production employees never exceeded 57. There is also Susco's testimony that the work records of Cadre employees were periodically reviewed, at least once every 3 months, for determining whether or not an increase was justified. In the granting of the June increases, for a substantial number of the employees so favored, obviously there had been no 3-month interval since their last merit increase. In fact, there is hardly an accounting in the testimony of Respondent's witnesses for the circumstances that gave rise to the granting of 25 merit increases out of a total of 59 employees on June 19, when in the preceding 3 months 51 merit increases had been granted. Neither is there any prior period of similar duration in the existence of the Cadre plant in Los Altos, in which merit increases of like number were given. Here, then, we have a situation which is bound to give rise to suspicion and con- jecture, and I am by no means certain that there does not exist in these facts a basis for justifiable inference that the speedily approved merit increases announced to Cadre employees on June 19 were granted in part, as least, to discourage the organizational activities of Cadre employees. Bearing in mind, however, that the Cadre plant is a comparatively new one and therefore there is very little basis for comparison of present and past practices; that the requests were dated prior to June 18 and com- pany knowledge of union activities prior to the date is not firmly established; and that the Respondent was as free following the start of union activities as it was before to adjust the wage level of its employees according to normal practices, I do not draw that inference but with an expression of doubt in the matter, find that there is no predominance of evidence supporting the General Counsel's position. 4. The Advisory Council There being no question that Respondent caused the Advisory Council, hereinafter Council, to be organized, participated in its organization, contributed support to and dominated it, this discussion deals principally with the issue of whether the Council was, or at any time functioned as, a labor organization. It is noted that the Council was patterned after an organization existing in Re- spondent's east coast plant, and that a manual including instructions for setting up such an organization was first sent to the Los Gatos plant on or about July 1957. The Council was not actually launched, however, util June 23, 1958, the week follow- ing the abortive effects of a few employees to organize the plant. In the week following June 19, Du Bois addressed Cadre employees, and, accord- ing to employee Scott, a credible witness, told them that: Respondent had a success- ful system in the East for taking care of employee problems called the Advisory Council, and that the Council was to be put into effect at the Los Gatos plant; the existing Recreation Association would designate a nominating committee and em- ployees would be nominated from each of the several distinct operations at the Los CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION 287 Gatos plant; and the Council would provide a channel of communication between management and employees, and would adjust grievances and problems which would not normally came to managerial attention. Implementing Du Bois' address, on June 23 a bulletin was posted giving details for the election of departmental representatives, four in number, and containing the following description of the nature and modus operandi of the Council: Policy: To provide a channel of communications whereby the company and their employees thru their elected representatives may discuss policies, standards and mutual problems. Procedure: Each year Employees will elect representatives to the council. This council shall include the President of Cadre Industries Corp. or his Designee and the Secretary of the Corporation. At a monthly meeting all problems, policies and situations that arise during the month and need clarification, correc- tion or adjustment may be taken up by the council for discussion and action. Each member of the council shall be allowed to discuss council business with those he is representing on company time. Each council member shall work closely with the Supervisor(s) of those he represents. The election of employee representatives to the Council was supervised by Per- sonnel Director Lane and these representatives having been elected, a first meeting was held at a local restaurant on September 4. Employee and management repre- sentatives, the latter including Du Bois and Lane, had a steak dinner at the expense of management, after which Lane read from Respondent's manual on the operation of the Council. According to Lane, Du Bois, who presided, stated at the outset of this meeting that the Council was not to function as a grievance or "gripe" committee. Scott, an employee representative who attended the meeting, testified that he did not hear Du Bois make such a statement and that either Lane or Du Bois said that the Council would provide a channel of communication to take care of problems, griev- ances, complaints, and "keep everything running smooth." Lane kept minutes of the meeting and they best illustrate and authenticate the nature of the business trans- acted at this meeting: The following items were presented to the group for their consideration. 1. Machine Maintenance Man I. Florendo. Lack of interest in this work, would like to get off this job. F. Du Bois: Will check. 2. Telephone Calls M. Lewis. Some calls are not being relayed to the shop. F. Du Bois: We will use Memo pads. 3. Incentive Pay R. Scott. If, When and how it works. F. Du Bois: Yes we will have it. Cost reduction in progress now. Can't give exact date it will begin. 4. Machine crimping I. Florendo. Need assistance & info. on what is a good crimp. F. Du Bois: Discussed troubles we are having with machines. Will give you help in understanding this phase of the work. 5. Having trouble with round cord R. Scott. Men dissatisfied with it. F. Du Bois: Many cables will be changed to flat braid. 6. Bid Times R. Scott. Many too high. F. Du Bois: Cost reduction in progress. Bid time will be adjusted. 7. Lights in #10 Mr. Lewis. Girls complaining about poor light. F. Du Bois: We will install Dazor lights. 8. Advisory council R. Scott. Employees don't understand its function and operation. Council mem- bers are not getting questions. R. Lane: Have a meeting of all the plant personnel giving the required info., encourage employee participation, no retaliation etc. 9. Higher Stools M. Lewis. M. Vodden and E. Vanderburg need higher stools. F. Du Bois: We will take care of that. 288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10. Policy F. Du Bois. A. No husband and wife employment for the present unless both em- ployed in plant prior to marriage. B. Pregnancy: May remain with the company through the 6th month. 11. Growth of the Company F. Du Bois. Discussion as to present and future growth, prospects etc. Employees should not be discouraged. Great opportunities. 12. Schools R. Scott. How about schools? F. Du Bois: Blue print reading to begin shortly, sign up next week. Introduction to Supervision to begin this fall. 13. Girls buying own tools M. Lewis. State law against. R. Lane: We will check and get a clarification on this subject. 14. Lead length on cables Op. 5 R. Scott. Some employees are cutting against the pins instead of on the line. F. Du Bois: We will check on this. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. A few days following the September 4 meeting, according to Lane, Du Bois addressed the employees, as was his practice from time to time, and during his address explained the objectives of the Council and reported on what had occurred at the first meeting. Du Bois told the employees that he wanted them to take a part in the Council, "to be in it, and be free to ask questions, and if they needed more information on certain things, to be sure and let the Council members know." Further according to Lane, Du Bois also said, "This council is not to be a grievance or a gripe Committee." A second meeting of the Council was held at a local hotel on October 13, and again employee representatives were the dinner guests of management. At this meeting, according to Lane, it was again pointed out "that this was not a gripe or a grievance council." Also at this meeting, a statement of policy received by Re- spondent from its east coast office was handed to each of the employee representa- tives. It had been received by Respondent subsequent to the first meeting of the Council and subsequent to Du Bois' address referred to in the paragraph above. The statement, after reviewing how the Respondent avails itself of "advisory groups," speaks of the Council as a part of "this large Advisory Group." "It is the prime purpose of management in forming this group," the document reads, "to be able to utilize your ideas, suggestions, and guidance in helping to work out the hundreds of problems involved in employing a group of people such as we presently have. We feel that this group will effectively improve the communications to the employee group and that through this group we will be able to maintain an efficient system of cooperative management. Your primary function as a member of the Council will be to maintain contact with the group of employees who have appointed you to this Council. You are to be their spokesman in helping to solve problems and in bringing to light situations that would be impossible for the manage- ment group to be aware of. Your second function will be to bring these problems to the Advisory Council meeting, which will be held approximately the first week of each month. At the monthly meetings these questions and problems will be thrown out on the table before the council and it is desired that by discussion and suggestion an effective solution to the question or problem might be had. There will be times when you will not only be solving employee problems, but you will be requested to express your opinion in matters of Company interest and manage- ment. This group has not been formed to serve the purpose of a Grievance or Gripe committee. Its purpose is to come to this meeting with problems and ideas for the solution of problems. It is not expected that the group will handle situations that are the Company Supervisor's responsibility but that the group will refer these situations to the Department Supervisor." Coming now to the actual business transacted at the October meeting, we again rely principally upon minutes of that meeting taken by Lane. Scott did not attend the meeting and none of the three employee representatives who did attend testified. Referring to these minutes, we find that one employee representative raised the question of absenteeism occasioned by the need to care for sick children; another introduced the subject of a "suggestion system"; another "wanted to know more about the Incentive Plan and how it operates"; one brought up the subject of having music piped in through the public address system; the cleaning of restrooms, company policy regarding raises, performance rating and how it works, and a stock purchase plan, were other topics broached and discussed at the meeting. CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION 289 An amended charge alleging the Council to be a company-dominated labor organization was filed on October 6. After a conference in the Board's Regional Office on or about October 14, Respondent decided to refer the matter to its home office and await instructions . By letter dated November 17, the home office advised Respondent to disband the Council. On receipt of this letter on or about November 19, and pursuant to Du Bois' instructions, Lane announced to Cadre employees over Respondent's public address system that on orders of the home office the Council was disbanded. There is no evidence that it has functioned in any capacity since that date. With the statutory definition in mind,2 we come to a resolution of our central problem: was the Council a labor organization or a mere vehicle for the presenta- tion of grievances permissible under Section 9(a) of the Act? Lane testified that at the first meeting in September, in Du Bois' address to the employees following that meeting, and at the outset of the October meeting, the employees were informed that the Council was not a "grievance or gripe" committee. Actually, this term appears in the policy statement that was distributed at the October meeting, was recorded as having been stated to the employees by the minutes taken at that meeting, and I am convinced that at no time prior to the October meeting were Cadre em- ployees informed that the Council was not to be a "grievance or gripe" committee. No such language appears in the policy statement taken from Respondent's manual and posted on the bulletin board on or about June 23; no mention of such a state- ment appears in the minutes of the first meeting; and I think it unlikely that Du Bois or Lane would have used the precise phrasing which appeared in the policy state- ment distributed at the October meeting, prior to seeing that statement. Actually, the statement posted on June 23, which purports to be a policy and procedure state- ment, has language general enough to embrace almost any topic that normally would constitute the subject matter of collective bargaining. "At a monthly meet- ing," the statement reads, inter alia, "all problems, policies and situations that arise during the month and need clarification, correction, or adjustment may be taken up by the council for discussion and action." [Emphasis supplied.] That this embraced problems and situations affecting the working conditions of employees and looked toward their discussion and adjustment is made clear by the functions assigned to employee representatives on the Council, who were permitted, on com- pany time, to approach and interview the employees of their respective departments for the purpose of preparing data on problems affecting the department and the individual employees, preparatory to presentation before the Council. The minutes of the September meeting reveal, beyond question, that the principal business of that meeting was the reception and consideration of problems, presented by employee representatives, affecting conditions of employment. This was somewhat less marked in the October meeting, held after a charge had been filed alleging the Council to be a company-dominated labor organization, but, nevertheless, despite the admo- nition at that meeting that the Council was not a "grievance or gripe" committee, matters affecting the wages and working conditions of employees, individually or collectively, were chief among those discussed, and in some instances promises of remedial action were given. Clearly, the Council was not and never functioned as a mere channel of communi- cation by which employees were kept abreast of company plans and policies, and in which discussion was general and unrelated to specific problems affecting the wages and working conditions of employees. True, the Council had but slight formal organization , no constitution, no dues requirements, no treasury, and no officers. Such factors do not, however, serve to distinguish it from the representa- tion plans which flourished prior to the Wagner Act and were found unlawful under it, and it is noted that the Act's definition of "labor organization," including the term "employee representation committee or plan," was not changed with the enactment of Taft-Hartley. Obviously, a formal organization is not required to satisfy the statutory definition and, in any event, for all practical purposes, the employee representatives elected from their respective departments by secret ballot- ing constituted the employees' "bargaining committee," or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Both in its organization as a continuous body, plantwide in scope, with 2 Section 2(5) of the Act: The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind , or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers con- cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. 525543-60-vol. 124-20 :29.0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .elected representatives, and in its functioning, the Council must be distinguished, I .think, from the mere presentation of grievances by individuals or employee groups pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act. It negotiated no contracts, but real collective bargaining on a contract between a company-dominated organization and an ,employer would involve a contradiction in terms, and it is not expected that there will be encountered an aggressive and coordinated program presented and prosecuted by employee representatives of such an organization. What we may expect, and .about all that we may expect, of a company-dominated organization is that the .employee representatives will present, for managerial consideration and adjustment, ,problems affecting the wages and working conditions of individual employees and of the employees generally. That the employee representatives of the Council "dealt" with management concerning such problems is self-evident from a reading of the minutes of the two meetings; i.e., they presented problems, proposed solutions, the problems were explored in joint discussion, and, in several instances, remedial action was taken or promised. This is about as far as a company-dominated organi- zation can go in its simulation of true collective bargaining. In my opinion, both its organization and its functioning distinguish the Council from the situation in Avildsen Tools and Machines, 112 NLRB 1021 where the Board found that periodic .assemblages of employees en masse for discussing and registering employee opinions on management proposals did not constitute a labor organization. A closer analogy is found in Cabot Carbon Company, at al., 117 NLRB 1633, and while this decision ,was reversed in 256 F. 2d 281 (C.A. 5), and is now pending on certiorari before the Supreme Court [cert. granted 358 U.S. 863], I am bound by the Board's decision. While I have carefully weighed the explanations given by Respondent's witnesses for having delayed the formation of the Council from July 1957 to June 1958, I am unable to regard the launching of this organization quick on the heels of Respond- ent's first knowledge that its employees were attempting to organize, as merely coincidental. On the contrary, I am convinced that it was offered to the employees at that time for the purpose of diverting their attention from union affiliation by providing them with a substitute for bona fide collective bargaining. Upon the entire evidence in the matter, I find that the Council, throughout its existence, was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, formed, domi- nated, and supported by the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a) (2) and, ,derivatively, 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act. 5. Sferrazzo's affidavit and subpena Sferrazzo testified that on December 30, he was called to Susco's office where Susco told him that he, Susco, wanted a copy of the affidavit Sferrazzo gave a Board _ field examiner during the latter's investigation of charges against the Respondent, and asked Sferrazzo to sign a letter prepared by Susco and addressed to the Board'' Regional Office, bearing the following text: Please send me a copy of the statement which I gave to you in connection with Cadre Industries Corporation Case #20-CA-1434. Sferrazzo did not recall whether he signed the statement he gave to the Board and to satisfy Susco called his wife from the plant to determine whether she recalled if he signed such a statement. She did not recall. That same day, following Sferrazzo's call to his wife, Susco came to him where he was working, and when Sferrazzo told him that neither he nor his wife recalled whether he signed the statement, Susco said, "Well, supposing the statement does appear in court. Do you want me to feel sorry for you?" About January 8, 1959, Foreman Quartararo directed Sferrazzo to see Susco in Respondent's main office and there Susco produced the letter previously referred to and again asked Sferrazzo to sign it. Thereupon Sferrazzo signed the letter prepared by Susco, and the Respondent caused it to be mailed to the Board's Regional Office. On this same occasion, on January 8, Susco asked Sferrazzo if he had received a subpena to testify at the hearing in this proceeding, and on Sferrazzo's affirmative answer, asked to see it. When told by Sferrazzo that he had left it at home, Susco sent Sferrazzo to the latter's home for the subpena. Sferrazzo returned with it and gave it to Susco who returned it to him the same day. Sferrazzo was absent from his work on the afternoon of January 12. On January 13, he was called to Susco's office where his absence of the previous afternoon was discussed. When Quartararo came into the office, Susco told him, "See that this fellow puts out double the amount of work because he won't be here for a while." During this same conference Susco wanted to know if Sferrazzo had received a copy of his affidavit from the Board, and when Sferrazzo said no, Susco said he had CADRE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION 291 called Sferrazzo's wife the previous afternoon and was told that the mail delivery was in the forenoon. He then asked Sferrazzo to call the latter's home to find out if the statement had come, saying, "I've got to have that statement from you one way or the other." Sferrazzo called his house twice that day but the statement had not arrived and when he so informed Susco, the latter complained because he had not signed the letter requesting the affidavit sooner. On cross-examination, Sferrazzo testified with respect to the January 13 conference with Susco that, while insisting that he call home to find out if his Board statement had come in the mail, Susco had a stick in his hand and waved it about in a threatening manner. It was on the basis of matter covered in this testimony that the General Counsel, on the first day of the hearing herein, amended the complaint to allege 8(a)(1) violations, in that Susco: (1) On or about December 30, 1958, and at various times thereafter, de- manded that Fred Sferrazzo give him a copy of the statement he submitted to the National Labor Relations Board, and threatened him with loss of his job if he failed to produce said statement. (2) On or about January 9, 1959, de- manded that Fred Sferrazzo obtain for him at the plant and give to him the subpoena which had been served upon said Fred Sferrazzo in this matter.3 Susco admitted that the letter to the Board requesting a copy of Sferrazzo's affidavit, signed by Sferrazzo, was prepared and mailed by the Respondent. He also admitted that he first talked to Sferrazzo about the letter on December 30, that the letter was prepared and offered for Sferrazzo's signature on that date, and that the letter was not signed by Sferrazzo until some 2 weeks later. According to him he called Sferrazzo to his office on January 30 because the latter appeared to be disturbed and that Sferrazzo during the conversation mentioned several personal matters that were causing him anxiety, including his apprehension that he might be called as a witness at the hearing in this proceeding. Susco asked him if he had signed a statement for the Board, and told him if he had he could get it back; that he, Susco, had signed a statement and had obtained a copy of it by writing to the Board. Sferrazzo said he did not remember whether he signed the statement but that he would like to have it back. He then asked Susco to prepare a letter requesting a copy of the statement and the letter, accordingly, was prepared in Respondent's office for Sferrazzo's signature. Further according to Susco, Sferrazzo did not immediately sign the letter because he wanted first to check with his wife and see if she recalled whether he, Sferrazzo, had signed the Board statement, and on making the call, learned that his wife did not recall either. Susco admitted that he had a "few" conversations with Sferrazzo about the letter before it was signed and mailed because he, Susco, had the letter in his desk and wanted to know what to do with it. He also admitted that following the mailing of the letter, he questioned Sferrazzo whether the latter had received a copy of his Board statement but denied that he did this several times, or that he called Sferrazzo's home with respect to the matter. He had no recollection of brandishing a stick at any time during a conversation with Sferrazzo. With respect to the subpena, Susco testified that on January 8 Sferrazzo volun- teered that he had received a subpena to testify in this proceeding, whereupon he told Sferrazzo that he, Susco, would like to see it. He admitted that on the following day he sent Sferrazzo home to get the subpena and that he showed it to Du Bois before returning it to Sferrazzo. According to Susco, he merely wanted to ascertain whether Sferrazzo's absence from his job to testify was required. It is my opinion that the Respondent had a legitimate interest in seeing the subpena, and I am not convinced that there was unseemly harassment of Sferrazzo with respect to it. Because of Sferrazzo's conviction for embezzlement,4 of which Respondent doubtless had knowledge, and his failure to disclose this on his applica- tion form, it may reasonably have required something more than Sferrazzo's word that his presence at the hearing was necessary. No doubt the absence of an employee from his job requires managerial attention and it is reasonable to suppose that a substitute, or some rearrangements of schedules, might be required. Accord- ingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint with respect to the subpena. 3 The complaint was amended over Respondent's objection. It claimed, and claims, that the amendments are jurisdictionally defective because not set forth in any charge filed by the Board. N.L.R.B. v. Waterfront Employers, et at., 211 F. 2d 946 (C.A. 9). 4 The record does not disclose the amount that was embezzled but does disclose that Sferrazzo made restitution. The record does not disclose the nature of the crime involving moral turpitude for whit!h he was convicted. 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the affidavit, however, I am convinced that Sferrazzo was sub- jected to demands and harassment amounting to intimidation. I do not find an explicit threat of discharge. Assuming that Susco said to Sferrazzo, as testified to by the latter, "Well, supposing the statement does appear in court. Do you want me to feel sorry for you?", such a statement is subject to different interpretations; and Susco's later alleged statement to Foreman Quartararo with respect to Sferrazzo, "See that this fellow puts out double the amount of work because he won't be here for a while," may very well have had reference to the fact that Sferrazzo had just told him of his efforts to enlist in the Armed Forces. But that Susco exerted pressure on Sferrazzo to sign a letter which he, Susco, had had prepared, requesting the Board to furnish a copy of Sferrazzo's affidavit, and that he engaged in subsequent harassment by repeated inquiry with respect to Sferrazzo's receipt of a copy of the affidavit, 1 do not doubt. That Sferrazzo, the recipient of a telephone call from Susco on June 18 with respect to organizational activities, would go to him and volunteer that he had given the Board an affidavit, I consider highly improbable. I find it equally improbable that he would solicit Susco's aid in having a copy of the affidavit sent him by the Board and then refuse to sign the letter prepared for him by Susco because neither he nor his wife could recall if Sferrazzo had signed the affidavit. The probabilities altogether are that Sferrazzo would not want Susco to see the affidavit in advance of the hearing, and that when Susco presented him with the letter he "stalled" in signing it on the ground that he did not remember if he actually executed an affi- davit for the Board. It also seems obvious that had Susco been disinterested in the matter, as his testimony would indicate, when Sferrazzo first refused to sign the letter, he would either have destroyed it or given it to Sferrazzo. Instead, be kept it and admittedly it was on his reminder some 2 weeks later that Sferrazzo actually signed the letter. Susco's real interest in the matter is further disclosed by what I find to be his repeated questioning of Sferrazzo concerning the latter's receipt of a copy of the affidavit, and his insistence on seeing it. Sferrazzo having been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, his testi- mony requires close scrutiny and may be of dubious probative value unless it finds corroborative support either in the testimony of others or in circumstances that give it the stamp of verisimilitude. It must be borne in mind, however, that Susco was himself an unreliable witness, and has been found not to have testified truthfully with respect to statements on organizational activities made to employees other than Sferrazzo on June 19. With respect to the affidavit, the probabilities preponderate heavily in support of Sferrazzo's testimony, corroborated to a degree by Susco's admissions, while on the other hand I found Susco's rationalizations of his conduct with respect to Sferrazzo's affidavit entirely illogical and improbable. It is found that in Susco's harassment of Sferrazzo for the purpose of obtaining the affidavit the latter gave a Board agent in the investigation of this case, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, I have accorded no weight to Sferrazzo's testimony that on one occasion when Susco was questioning him about his receipt of a copy of the affidavit, Susco waved a stick in a threatening manner. Respondent was well aware that Sferrazzo, on probation under conviction of a crime, was extremely vulnerable to management suggestion. There would have been no occasion, in my opinion, for Susco to threaten Sferrazzo with physical harm. Why brandish a stick when a feather would have done as well? Susco was one given to elaborate gesturing as an accompaniment to speech, and if he happened to have something in his hands when talking to Sferrazzo, a stick or any other object, he doubtless waved it about a bit but not, I think, for the purpose of threatening physical harm. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Pursuant to findings above that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. ° FOREMOST DAIRIES, INC. 293 Having found that the Respondent formed, dominated, and contributed support to, the Advisory Council, I shall recommend that it completely disestablish the Advisory Council as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with their employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of employment; and that the Respondent refrain from recognizing the said Advisory Council, or any successor thereto, for any of the purposes defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.5 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 93, AFL-CIO, and the Advisory Council are, respectively, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By forming, dominating, and contributing support to, the Advisory Council, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. 3. By the aforesaid action, and by interrogating its employees concerning their union activities and threatening and warning them of the consequences of organiza- tion; and by interrogating, intimidating, and harassing its employee, Sferrazzo, with respect to the Board affidavit, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by its discharge of its employee, Wolfe, or by the granting of wage increases. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 6I have found that following the filing of a charge alleging the Advisory Council to be a company-dominated labor organization, and on instructions from the east coast office, the Respondent publicly announced to its employees that the said Advisory Council was disbanded, and that there is no evidence that it has survived this voluntary dis- establishment. Nevertheless I am recommending the customary disestablishment order. Such an order is necessary to insure against a reestablishment of the Council or the formation and recognition of a successor thereto. Foremost Dairies, Inc. and Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 512, Jacksonville , Florida, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-585. July 31, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman A. Cole, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 124 NLRB No. 38.