Local 1842, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Etc.

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD presently, and probably will be, in the future, the only employees not transferred from Evansville. On these facts and the record as a whole we find that the St. Louis Assembly Plant is not a new operation but represents the consolida- tion and relocation of the operations of the two Evansville plants.8 The employees of the St. Louis Assembly Plant are therefore part of the nationwide production and maintenance unit, including steam engineers, established by the collective bargaining of the Employer and the UAW. The requested production and maintenance unit limited to the employees of the St. Louis Assembly Plant is inap- propriate. Accordingly, we shall amend the UAW's certificates in Cases Nos. R-1407 and R-2209 in accordance with these findings. We further find that the 1958 collective-bargaining agreement is a bar to this proceeding, and we shall therefore dismiss the petition.' [The Board amended the certifications of representatives issued in Cases Nos. R-1407 and R-2209 to include in the unit description thereof the production and maintenance unit employees including steam engineers of the Employer's St. Louis Assembly Plant, Valley Park, Missouri.] [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 14-RM-194.] 8 General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215 , at 1221 ; The Mennen Company, 105 NLRB 677 ; Ford Motor Company, 92 NLRB 188. 9 As the parties are primarily concerned with the status of the four steam engineers, and as the latter's duties and functions have been fully litigated , we shall determine their alleged supervisory status. The record shows that the steam engineers work under the supervision of the chief engineer who, in addition to supervising the regular day shift, spends some time on the other two shifts and is available for call and advice at all hours. The engineers work alongside one boiler operator and one fireman on each shift whom they assist and occasionally direct in the maintenance and repair of powerhouse ma- chinery. This direction is of a routine character and in the nature of the guidance given by a skilled craftsman to less experienced personnel . The steam engineers have no authority to hire, discharge , assign, reward , discipline, transfer, or promote any employee, nor can they effectively recommend such action . We find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, but that they are employees included in the multiplant bargaining unit covered by the national contract between the Employer and the UAW. Craft severance of the steam engineers of that plant is also inappropriate , as bargaining for steam engineers was substantially on a nationwide basis and craft severance must be coextensive with the existing bargaining unit. Compare United States Gypsum Company, 119 NLRB 1415, at 1418. Local Union No. 1842, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Avco Manufacturing Corporation , Crosley Division] and Gene J. Klopp. Case No. 9-CB-362. August 31, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On January 26, 1959, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair 124 NLRB No. 86. LOCAL 1842, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ETC. 795 labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications. We agree, for the reason set forth below, with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) in causing the Company to discharge Klopp, the individual filing the charge in this case. When Klopp was hired by the Company on October 9, 1956, the Ecurrent union-security agreement required employees to join the Union after a 6-week probationary period. However, Klopp had previously joined the Union. Beginning in December 1956 his union dues were checked off by the Company pursuant to written authoriza- tion. In February or March 1957 he paid a $10 union assessment,, and was issued a new membership card expressly subject only to then continued payment of future dues. In June 1957 the Union's financial secretary told Klopp for the first time that he would have to pay back dues for October and No- vember 1956. Klopp refused to do so. The Union thereupon de- manded that the Company discharge Klopp, pursuant to the union- security agreement, for failure to pay regular monthly dues; and on July 29, 1957, the Company did so. We are thus presented with a situation where the Union refused to abide by its agreement extending a 6-week probationary or grace period to employees before union membership would become a condi- tion of employment. Instead, the Union demanded that because of his union membership when hired by the Company, Klopp pay dues without: any grace period whatsoever, and obtained his discharge for refusing to do so. However, the agreement contained no such require- ment. Moreover, even if the Union had a different union-security agreement, requiring the immediate payment of dues without any preliminary grace period for new employees who were union mem- bers, such an agreement would clearly be beyond the limits permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a) (3). We do not regard cases like Waterway Terminals Corporation, 120 NLRB 1788, 1790, or Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, 99 NLRB 1430, or Hubley Manufacturing Company, 121 NLRB 170, as applicable to the dif- ferent situation in this..ease. 796 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 1842, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Causing or attempting to cause the Company or any other employer to discriminate against an employee within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em- ployees of the Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author- ized 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) Notify Gene J. Klopp and the Company, in writing, that it withdraws its objection to Klopp's employment and requests the Company to offer him immediate and full reinstatement, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole Gene J. Klopp for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the "Remedy" section of the Intermediate Report. (c) Post at its business offices and meeting places in Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."'. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth, Region, shall be duly signed and posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Return. to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, for posting by the Company, if willing, copies of the notice signed as aforesaid. (e). Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. . . MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting in part : I agree, for a reason other than that relied on by the majority or by the Tri.al-Examiner•, that the^Respondent violated Section &(b) (2)- In 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." LOCAL 1842, IWT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ETC. 797 and (1) (A) in causing the discharge of Klopp. Respondent asserts, as an affirmative defense, that it was justified in causing Klopp's dis- charge under the terms of a union-security contract because of Klopp's delinquency in paying dues. The union-security clause provided that all new employees were required to join the Union on the 30th day following the effective date of the contract or after completing 6 weeks of employment, the probationary period, whichever was later. However, the contract was executed on March 2, 1955, and retroac- tively made effective from January 11, 1955. Consequently, it is clear that, by the terms of the contract, new employees hired between Janu- ary , 11 and February 17, 1955, were required to become union members without being accorded the minimum 30-clay grace period prescribed in Section (a) (3). The union-security clause was therefore unlawful and cannot stand as a defense.' I must dissent, however, from the dictum of the majority which holds unlawful a union-security agreement because it does not provide that a 30-day grace period be accorded new employees who are al- ready members of the union. Just as the required statutory grace period is held not to apply to old employees who are union members on the effective date of the contract,' for the same reasons it is not applicable to new employees who are existing members or who choose to join the union within the grace period otherwise afforded.4 By requiring a 30-day grace period in order to validate a union-security clause under Section 8(a) (3), all that Congress intended was that newly hired employees and nonmembers previously employed be accorded such a grace period before they may be compelled to obtain membership in the union.' It is inconceivable to me that there was any congressional intention that employees who voluntarily decide to belong to the union before the end of the grace period, and immedi- ately receive all membership benefits, including fraternal, should be absolved from paying their regular dues while they are already mem- bers during the grace period. My colleagues have no legal justifica- tion, in my opinion, to now summarily read such a prohibition into the Act. CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 2 Associated Machines, Inc., 114 NLRB 390, 402-403; Tacoma Harbor Lumber & Timber Co., 108 NLRB 912, 916. The entire union-security clause was tainted and rendered basically defective by the unlawful provision. See Imperial Wire Company, Inc., 118 NLRB 775. E.g., Charles A. Krause.Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536 ; Whyte Mfg. Co., 109 NLRB 1125 (Member Rodgers dissenting in these cases ). See also Waterway Terminals Corp., 120 NLRB 1788, 1790. 4 Chisholm-Ryder Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 508. 5 Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536, at 540-541. 798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION No. 1842, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AVCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, CROSLEY DIVISION 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 you that : VVE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Avco Manufacturing Corporation, Crosley Division, or any other employer, to dis- criminate against any employee within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of the Company or any other employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE have notified Gene J. Klopp and the Company, in writing, that we Withdraw our objection to Klopp's employment and re- quest the Company to offer him immediate and full reinstatement. WE WILL make whole Gene J. Klopp for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. LOCAL UNION No. 1842, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by Gene J. Klopp , an individual, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, issued an amended complaint, dated June 2, 1958, against Local Union No. 1842, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Re- spondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer on or about June 9, 1958, in which it denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 19, 20, and 21, 1958, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Ruling was reserved . The Respondent renewed its motion to dismiss at the close of the LOCAL 1842, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ETC. 799 whole case. Ruling again was reserved. The motion to dismiss the complaint is dis- posed of as hereinafter indicated. The parties argued orally on the record and filed briefs with the Trial Examiner after the conclusion of the hearing. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Avco Manufacturing Corporation, Crosley Division, herein called the Company, is a Delaware corporation which operates plants and does business in various States of the United States. In Ohio it owns and operates several plants, including a plant at 2360 Glendale-Milford Road, Evendale, Ohio, the plant involved herein, where it is engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment, consisting of fire control systems, radar tracking devices, and balloon tracking devices. It has contracts with the United States Army, the United States Navy, and the United States Air Force. During the period of 12 months preceding the hearing herein the Company, in the course and conduct of its business, has received in excess of $1,000,000 for products manufactured at its Evendale Plant, which products were sold, shipped, and delivered by the Company directly to the appropriate United States Government defense in- stallations located outside the State of Ohio. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union No. 1842, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Company. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES At the times material herein the Company had a collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent. The union-security clause in the contract provides in part as follows: During the first six (6) weeks of employment, new employees shall be con- sidered probationary employees and not subject to the terms of this agreement, except as to wages and hours. . All probationary employees shall be re- quired to become members of the Union as a condition of continued employ- ment . . . on the completion of six (6) weeks on the payroll of the Company, ... and shall be so advised by the Company at the time of their employment. Gene J. Klopp was hired at the Company's Evendale Plant on October 9, 1956. Some few years prior to this date he had been employed at the Company's Plant 7. While he was employed at Plant 7, he was a member of Local Union No. 1061, In- ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. When his employment was terminated at Plant 7, Klopp secured a withdrawal card from Local No. 1061. Some few days after Klopp was hired at the Evendale Plant of the Company, he had a conversation with Frank Ulm, president of the Respondent at the time. Em- ployee Carl Schwing, a steward and member of the executive board of the Respond- ent, was present during the conversation. Klopp told Ulm that he had worked at Plant 7 and that he had a withdrawal card from Local 1061. Ulm told him, "Well, when your six weeks probationary period is up, . you just bring in your card and I'll take care of the matter." Within a week after the expiration of his probationary period, Klopp gave his withdrawal card to Ulm, who stated, "I'll take care of it." Thereafter he heard nothing further from Ulm on the subject. In accordance with its contract with the Respondent, the Company deducted union dues from Klopp's wages on and after December 7, 1956. No checkoff of dues was made for the months of October and November 1956. During about February 1957, the Respondent levied a special dues assessment of $10 on all of its members. On or about March 1, 1957, Klopp paid to Schwing the amount of the assessment. Within a few days he received a pink "Membership Card" of the Respondent, which states that the bearer "Is A Member. This card is valid when accompanied by dues deduction check stubs or official receipts showing paid up dues." By letter dated May 27, 1957, employee Betty Kee, financial secretary of the Re- spondent, advised the Company that a number of employees were delinquent in ti e payment of dues and initiation fees. Klopp was listed in the letter as not having paid an initiation fee. The Company sent a letter dated May 31, 1957, to Klopp as follows: According to our contract with I.B.E.W., Local 1842, one of the conditions of continued employment in your job with the Crosley Division of the Avco 800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Manufacturing Corporation is that you must become a member of the Union within six weeks of employment and maintain such membership in good standing. . We have, been notified by the Union that you have failed to comply with that condition. Consequently, unless we are notified by the Union that you have put yourself in good membership standing by June 10, 1957 we will be obliged by the terms of our contract to terminate your employment with the company on that date. At about the time of. the above letter or shortly thereafter, Klopp had a conver- sation with employee Bill Harper, a steward and member of the executive board of the Respondent.' Harper told Klopp that he was delinquent for nonpayment of the initiation fee. Klopp said that he did not owe it as he had come in as a member of Respondent on a withdrawal card. Harper replied, "I'll check into it for you." 2 After getting a report from Harper, Kee sent a letter dated June 18, 1957, to the International of the Respondent, which states in part as follows: Gene J. Klopp, marked as fee due, worked at Plant #7 (Local #1862) before coming here. He had a Withdrawal card from # 1862, which he turned over to our former President, Frank Ulm. Mr. Ulm said he would take care of the matter of getting him into our Local. He failed to do this. The matter has just been brought to my attention.and since the office of Local #1862 is now closed, I was wondering if you could check on it and help me get it straightened out? He started work here 10-9-56. The International replied to Kee to the effect that Klopp's withdrawal card should be accepted (in lieu of payment of the initiation fee of $10), but that Klopp should be charged for dues for October and November 1956.3 During about the latter part of June 1957, Kee went to Klopp's department and talked to him during the lunch hour. Schwing was present during the conversation. Shee told him, in substance, that after receiving Harper's report about the withdrawal card, she had written to the International; that the International had ruled that his withdrawal card should be accepted; and that he did not have to pay the initiation fee but would have to pay dues for October and November. Klopp replied that he did not owe the dues, and was not going to pay them. In explanation, he related his conversation with Ulm when he first was employed. Kee sent the following letter, dated July 17, 1957, to the Company: Please be advised that the following member of Local 1842, Gene J. Klopp (20634 ), is not in good standing with our Union. Mr. Klopp is not in good standing because of failure to pay regular monthly union dues. Therefore, as provided in Article I, Section 3, Part (c) of our current agreement, you are hereby notified that we will expect discharge of the men- tioned employee ten (10 ) days after receipt of this letter . At the end of this ten (10 ) day period we will inform you if the above employee has regained good standing in the Union. On July 18, 1957, the Company sent a letter to Klopp, identical to that dated May 31 , 1957 , except that the termination date was set forth as July 29, 1957. It is undisputed that Klopp took no action following the receipt of this letter until July 29. Charles Coomer was president of the Union from June 7, 1957, until August 15, 1957. Shortly after the lunch hour on July 29, 1957 , Coomer went to DeShong's office and presented him with the following letter , dated July 29: On July 17, 1957 you were advised by letter from the Financial Secretary Miss Betty J. Kee that Mr. Gene J. Klopp (20634 ) was not in good standing with the Union . The Union received its copy of form E-431 to Mr. Klopp. Since he has still not put his self in good standing with this Local Union 1842 the Union Desires this Employee Discharge this date Under Article I, Section 3, Part (c ) of the current agreement Between crosley Div. Avco Mfg. Corp. and Local Union 1842, AFL* CIO. i Klopp was unable to identify Harper. Kee testified that she sent Harper to see Klopp about his initiation fee. 3 E. Lucian DeShong, Jr., manager of Industrial Relations of the Company, testified to the effect that the Respondent withdrew its request for,.Klopp's discharge on June 10. 3 The Respondent's dues amounted to $2.50 per month. The above ruling was in accord- ance with the Respondent's constitution. LOCAL 1842, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OP' ELECTRICAL ETC. 801 DeShong notified Robert Hoffman, the Company's "Hourly Placement Super- visor," of the Respondent's action, who in turn notified Carl Baxley, Klopp's super- visor. Baxley told Klopp that he was writing up his termination papers. At about 2 p.m. Klopp met Coomer in the plant and offered to pay his "union dues." Coomer refused to accept payment.4 He told Klopp, in substance, that he could not accept his dues as under a new policy the financial secretary was the only one authorized to make collections, and that Kee was at the Respondent's office at the time.5 Shortly after the above conversation, Klopp again met Coomer and offered to pay his dues. Coomer refused to accept payment, telling him that he would have to see the financial secretary. When Klopp said, "You mean to say I am going to get fired?" Coomer replied, "Well, I turned the letter in to Lu DeShong between 1:00 and 1:30 this afternoon." At about 3:30 p.m. Klopp met Kee in front of Hoffman's office.6 He told her that he wanted to pay "his dues." She refused to accept payment, stating that she was not permitted to collect dues or write receipts until after 3:48 p.m. Shortly before 3:48 p.m., Coomer had a conversation with Hoffman at the latter's office. Klopp was present. Hoffman said, "Charley, here is a man [Klopp] who wants to see you about giving you some money." Coomer replied, "It's too late." He then left Hoffman's office. Starting at 3:48 p.m. Kee collected union dues in the lobby of the plant. Klopp told her that he wanted to pay his dues. She refused to accept payment, saying that Coomer had told her she could not take his dues. Schwing was present at the time.? Employee Sue Drane testified credibly and without contradiction that she had a conversation with Coomer about I week after Klopp's discharge; that she said, "they tell me you fired [Klopp] about his dues . . . I heard . that he offered to pay the dues, and that you wouldn't accept"; that Coomer replied, "that's right . . . he got smart with my secretary, and I told him I didn't want his money, I wanted his job"; 8 that on July 29, 1957, during working hours in the morning, she gave Kee a check for her union dues; that during April 1958, she again gave Kee a check for her union dues during working hours; that "it is a company policy not to pay your union dues during company time"; and that she knew that dismissal could result if an employee was caught collecting union dues on company time and property.8 * Coomer testified that at his first meeting with the officers and stewards of the Re- spondent after he became president he ordered that "there would be no money collected by any officer or representative of the union except by the financial secretary, not even myself" ; and that there was an agreement with the Company to the effect that the Respondent could collect dues from employees in the lobby of the plant after quitting time, or 3 :48 p.m., and that otherwise money was not to be collected from employees in the plant. Kee testified that officials of the International had ordered that only the financial secretary could collect money due the Respondent. She testified without contradiction that Walter Dewar, her foreman, at sometime after February 1957, had threatened her with discharge if he caught her "taking dues money in the plant." 6 Klopp testified that he told Coomer that he would get permission to leave his job early so that he could go to the union office in order to pay his dues; and that Coomer told him, "you don't have to do that. She will be here at 3 :00 o'clock in front of Mr. Hoffman's office." I do not credit Klopp's testimony in this respect as it is in serious conflict with statements in his affidavit. Coomer, when questioned if he told Klopp that Kee would be in the plant at 3 p.m., testified, "Not to my recollection, I did not." d Klopp testified that he met Kee at 3 or 3 :05 p.m. In his affidavit he states he went to meet Kee "at about 3 :30 p.m." Kee testified that she talked to Klopp " sometime between 3 :30 and 3:48." 7 Schwing and Klopp testified credibly to the above. Kee testified that she did not "recall" making such a statement. She testified that she told Klopp, in substance, "that it was my understanding that he had been fired at 3 :48 ; therefore, I couldn't take his dues." 8 Kee testified that on one occasion Klopp "talked real smart . . . he spoke kind of bad language." 9 Schwing testified that as a steward of the Respondent he collected union dues and assessments on company time and property. He admitted, however, that after the assess- ment of $10 had been collected, the Company ordered that union dues were not to be collected on company time and property, and that Kee alone was authorized to collect dues in the lobby of the plant after working hours. 525543-60-vol. 124-52 802 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I find that by causing the Company to discharge Klopp on July 29, 1957, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. In my opinion the evidence shows that Coomer sought Klopp's discharge for reasons other than his failure to tender periodic dues. This is apparent from his conversation with Drane shortly after Klopp's discharge. Further, Hoffman, an official of the Company, in effect invited Coomer to call off the discharge by telling him that Klopp wanted to pay his dues. It is to be noted that this occurred before 3:48 p.m., the time when the discharge was to become effective. Coomer could have accepted the dues at that time without fear of violating the Company's rule, inasmuch as Hoffman apparently gave permission for the collection, or could have arranged for payment to Kee. Although he already knew from two conversations with Klopp earlier in the day that he wanted to and was ready to pay his dues, Coomer merely replied to Hoffman that it was "too late." The evidence clearly shows that it was not "too late" to call off the discharge. I can only conclude from this evidence that Coomer was motivated illegally. It was brought out in the testimony that Klopp believed that the Respondent was demanding payment of dues for October only; and that when he made his offers of payment to Coomer and Kee he was prepared to pay dues for 1 month. The Re- spondent contends that this was not a valid tender. This contention is rejected. The evidence shows that on each occasion Klopp stated that he wanted to paw "1 us dues," without specifying a particular amount or month. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, which occurred in connection with the operations of the Company set forth 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, including the posting and distribution of appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent notify Klopp and the Company, in writing, that it has withdrawn its objections to Klopp's employment by the Company. It will also be recommended that the Respondent make Klopp whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to 5 days after the Respondent serves written notice upon the Company of its withdrawal of objections to Klopp's employment, less his net earn- ings, if any, during such period. The back pay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By causing the Company to discharge Gene J. Klopp, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. 4. By restraining and coercing employees of the Company in the exercise of the rights under Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.]