Hammond Organ Co.

HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 997 3. By virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act the said labor organization has been since June 5. 1963, and now is, the exclusive representative of all employees in the said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment: 4. By refusing, since June 5, 1963, to bargain collectively in good faith with the said labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the said appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 5. By discriminating as to tenure of employment and working hours against employees to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Hammond Organ Company and Upholsterers International Union, AFL-CIO and Hammond Round Table . Case No. 13- CA-6089. November 23, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On September 11, 1964, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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 McCulloch and Mem- bers Leedom and Jenkins]. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Ham- 149 NLRB No. 94. 998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mond Organ Company, its officers, agents successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on December 18, 1963, by Upholsterers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Upholsterers, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13 (Chicago, Illinois), issued his complaint, dated February 26, 1964, against Hammond Organ Company, herein called Respondent or Company. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint sets forth the specific respects in which it is alleged that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business opera- tions but denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin at Chicago, Illinois, on April 20 and 21, 1964. All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally before the close of the hearing, and to file briefs. The parties waived oral argument. Subsequent to the hearing briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent. These have been fully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent herein, a Delaware corporation with various plants and places of business in Cook County, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture of pianos and electric organs. In the course and conduct of its operations, it annually manufactures, sells, and ships pianos and electric organs valued in excess of $100,000 from its Illinois plants directly to States of the United States other than the State of Illinois. Upon the foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Hammond Organ Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 11. THE CHARGING PARTY INVOLVED The Upholsterers is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction The Respondent has four plants located in the Chicago area These facilities were referred to throughout the hearing as the Diversey, Melrose Park, Bloomingdale, and Western plants. Roger B. Burr, director of industrial relations for the Company, testified that the Diversey factory has about 900 employees, Melrose Park about 200,, Bloomingdale about 175, and Western about 150. In December 1962, Burr was instrumental in establishing at each of the plants the Hammond Round Table, herein called HRT. Since that time the latter has been in operation at each of the Respond- ent's plants. The General Counsel alleges that the HRT is a labor organization and that by its maintenance and support the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. The latter contends that the HRT is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and that the Employer has committed no unfair labor practices. At the outset, therefore, the status of the HRT must be resolved. B. Establishment and operation of the Hammond Round Table The Respondent established HRT in December 1962. At that time, an article which appeared in the "Hammond Notes," a company publication distributed each month to all the Respondent's employees, read as follows: "What is Hammond Round Table?" Briefly, it will be a group of Hammond people, one from each geographical area within each of our . . . plants, who HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 999 will meet regularly to exchange ideas on topics important to everyone in this ' company. The representatives will help select subjects that are of interest to" fellow employees. A few of the many possible areas of discussion are: 1) Wage program-How.do we evaluate a job? 2) Performance-How do we evaluate performance? 3) Benefit program 4) General areas of company progress 5) Company practices In short, the purpose of HRT is to provide you with a regular means for telling us about your problems, your complaints, or about your ideas and sug- gestions-and for asking any question which you feel is important to you as an employee of the company. HRT is also intended to be a means for sharing information with you, on a monthly basis about all phases of the company's affairs, including its problems, policies and plans. In addition to discussion with your representatives, at times other than during production hours,. you may also read the minutes of your HRT meeting, which will be posted on bulletin boards within five days after the event. Within the past two weeks, elections for area representatives were held at each plant, the employee receiving the highest number of votes in an area becom- ing the representative and the runner-up becoming the alternate. [There follows a list of the HRT representatives and alternates chosen within each Hammond plant during the foregoing elections.] In order to avoid a complete turnover of experienced representatives after,, each yearly HRT election, half of the representatives and alternates listed above will serve six months, the other half one year.... In six months, another election will be held, this one to choose replacements for the half-year people . . . All representatives in future elections will serve one year. First meeting was held on December 17-first round at all plants completed by December 21. It is hoped that Hammond Roundtable will provide each employee with a fund of valuable knowledge about his company. In a letter dated December 7, 1962, and mailed to all of the employees, Mr. Burr reviewed the purposes and objectives of HRT as set forth in the above article. In the same letter he detailed the manner in which the employees would vote in the election for representatives. Elections were held at all plants in December 1962, in June 1963, and again in December 1963. According to Mr. Burr: Elections are conducted in the same manner at all the Respondent's plants with employee-representatives being elected from geographical areas within each plant. The areas are set up by Burr and may constitute more or less than one department. The ballots are prepared by the Company and distributed to the employees in each area by either the timekeeper or the foreman. Elections are held during working hours. The ballots are counted by individuals whom the foremen designate for that purpose and the foremen are present during the tabulation to insure that the count is fair and accurate. Election winners are notified by letter from the Company, by posting on the plant bulletin board and through announce- ments in the "Hammond Notes." Burr further testified that: He schedules the date of all HRT meetings at each plant. From December 1962 until January 1964, monthly meetings were held at each of the plants. Since the latter date, however, Burr has planned a schedule of only eight meetings per year. At each meeting Burr has been accompanied by his secretary or one of the plant stenographers who has taken notes of the proceedings. From these the secretary has made a transcription which, after editing by Burr, and in some instances by other management representatives, has been posted on the plant bulletin board. Originally these notes were posted only in English. For some time, however, and at the request of various HRT representatives, in order to accommodate the foreign-speaking employees, these notes have also been posted in Spanish and Polish translation. A large number of these published reports on HRT meetings was offered in evidence by the General Counsel. These cover certain meetings which were held from February 13, 1963, to March 25, 1964. They do not, however, represent reports to the employees on all the meetings which were held at-the different'' plants, even during this period. On the other hand, from the testimony of Burr and other witnesses it`is apparent that these published notes, br'reports, fairly reflect what 1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was discussed and what transpired at the various meetings which they cover, -and, as such, are representative of the operations of HRT at the different plants during the period in question. At the hearing, Burr stated that the HRT plan "expedited or reminded us through information which the employees gave us that certain areas required some type of looking into." He also testified that the HRT representative was not authorized to assist an employee in discussing a complaint or grievance with a foreman. On the other hand, he further testified that if an HRT representative "came to us with a complaint ... we asked him to have the employee who had this complaint see his foreman.... However, on an occasion if a complaint, an employee's complaint had not been taken care of, we did ask them to bring it back to HRT and I would see that it was processed." Harry Chicoine and Steven Wallace, two of the witnesses called by the Respondent, were HRT representatives. Chicoine testified that fellow employees in his department elected him "to represent [them] in anything that had to be brought up." As an illustration of the manner in which he carried out his duties, Chicoine testified that, on an occasion in March 1964, and at the request of several employees in his department, he complained at an HRT meeting that the silverware in the cafeteria was dirty and that some of the food was unsatisfactory. This witness testified that Burr promised to investigate the matter and that thereafter the problem in the cafeteria was corrected. Wallace testified that, during the summer of 1963, in his capacity as an HRT representative, his fellow employees asked that he complain that the speakers in the plant PA system were too loud and that when he presented their protest to Burr at an HRT meeting the latter promised to investigate. Wallace further testified that, during his tenure as an HRT representative, subjects discussed at meetings included complaints about the plant timeclocks, odors in the greasing room, ventilation in the plant, dirty washrooms, bad coffee in the cafeteria, and, finally, complaints regarding Saturday work which resulted in the Company providing for alternate Saturdays off during the summer of 1963. Significantly, with respect to the published reports or minutes of HRT meetings which were received in evidence, Wallace testified that during the year that he was an HRT representative he never found them to be inaccurate. The reports on HRT meetings which were received in evidence provide a detailed and voluminous account of the subjects discussed at 16 meetings held during the period from February 13, 1963, to March 25, 1964. No attempt will be made to set forth all of the topics covered. For the purposes of this case it is sufficient to note only a few of the subjects which the HRT representatives discussed with Burr and other management representatives at these conferences. We will now turn to the evidence in these documents. February 13, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr discussed job evalu- ation, told the representatives present that a prior complaint about spraying in the finishing department had been referred to the maintenance department and would be corrected, and discussed the complaint of one representative about the Respond- ent's promotion policy. March 13, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr stated that in response to a complaint voiced at an earlier meeting as to the allegedly low pay rate of several employees, he had reviewed the matter and could find nothing wrong with the pay rates allocated to the employees involved. Burr also discussed the merit rating plan which supervisors used in appraising each employee. The Respondent's severance pay, or profit-sharing, plan was reviewed and several proposals were advanced by HRT representatives as to changes which they desired. Burr welcomed these pro- posals with the comment "let us know of your suggestions. This is one purpose of HRT." I April 10, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr opened the meeting by stating that the purpose of HRT was advisory and informational, that, in trying to institute improvements, all work-related problems should first be brought to the foreman and then, if the problem still remained, it should be brought up at an HRT meeting. Stanley M. Sorenson, president of the Respondent, was in attendance at this meeting and spoke to the HRT representatives about their role and the purpose of HRT which he described as having been "management inspired" and intended as an avenue of communications in which the employees might more fully understand the attitude of the Company and at the same time develop a better management appreciation of the employee problems and their ideas for improvements within the Company. 1,The quotations in this, and the succeeding paragraphs, are from the reports which Burr issued on the meetings. HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 1001 May 8, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr discussed impending changes in the Company's severance pay plan and solicited opinions from the repre- sentatives present as to the desirability of a program that would provide special recognition for employees with many years of service. One representative questioned Burr as to why an employee was not paid for time spent on jury duty and was told that the Company considered jury duty a civic responsibility of the individual and not of his employer. June 12, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr told the representatives that the Company was awaiting formal approval from the Internal Revenue Service of all proposed revisions to the severance pay plan and that in the meantime he wanted to thank them for their participation in the discussions on the changes because "the suggestions by H.R.T. representatives played an important part in the implementation of a formal seniority program and the proposed changes in the Severance Pay Plan " At the same meeting, representatives asked numerous ques- tions as to the Respondent's system of job postings, including the results of two particular job postings in the plant One representative asked several questions about his own job classification. Some time was spent discussing the program of working every other Saturday for the summer months and the schedule in connection there- with which the Company had published. Finally, Burr announced that seniority lists would be posted within the next 10 days. July 8, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant: Burr opened the meeting with a welcome to newly elected representatives and told those present that the represen- tatives whose terms had expired the month before had contributed "a great deal in making known the importance employees place on seniority and the need for a review of our Severance Pay Plan.. . Thereafter, a representative complained that the present system of posting a job opening only in the plant where it occurred limited an employee's opportunities for advancement Burr, however, answered that this problem could not be solved by corporatewide job posting and that the manage- ment was opposed to such a system. Another representative complained that there was no uniform disciplinary policy as to tardiness and Burr promised to review the matter immediately. At the suggestion of another representative Burr stated that he would review the medical services rendered to a certain employee. August 12, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant: Burr listed the following tangible improvements at the plant for which he credited HRT: (1) cleaning and painting of the cloakroom; (2) rearrangement of certain benches; (3) repair of ramp; (4) installation of vent fan in women's washroom; (5) purchase of fans as required; (6) fence around parking lot; (7) improvement of parking lot; (8) change of inven- tory dates to minimize loss of pay; (9) opening of cafeteria prior to scheduled starting time; and ( 10) alternate Saturday schedule. During the meeting a representative suggested that a sidewalk be constructed along one side of the warehouse. Burr promised that he would discuss the proposal with Works Manager Vincent Washburn. Another representative complained that an open gate at the parking lot afforded no security for the employees' cars. Burr stated that the Company planned to install a gate with an electrically operated lock to solve that problem. August 14, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant- Burr discussed the plant trainee program with the representatives. He also promised that at their next conference he would make a report to them on the progress of the wage and salary committee in its review of job classifications, rate structures, and related matters. Thereafter a representative questioned Burr as to why some men received large increases whereas others did not receive any increase at all when the current wage and salary program went into effect. Later, another representative asked Burr if a suggestion program could be established by the Company which would allow employees to receive credit for suggestions submitted Burr explained that several proposals had been considered but that no workable plan had been found. Burr also answered a question about the status of the new severance pay plan with the explanation that the company proposal was in the process of being resubmitted to the Internal Revenue Service for approval. One representative brought up the matter of an employee in his department who did not feel that he was being paid enough, although this matter had already been discussed with the employee's foreman Burr suggested that the employee be advised to talk with his foreman again and if he still remained unsatisfied the representative could bring the matter up at the next HRT meeting. Several representatives stated that there was a lack of confidence in the foreman at the plant. Burr promised that he would review this situation with Works Manager Washburn. September 5, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant- Burr introduced John Adolph, wage and salary administrator for the Company , to the representatives. 1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter, Adolph explained in detail the methods which the wage committee had been using over a period of several months to analyze the Company's entire wage program and the numerous changes which were under consideration. HRT represen- tatives present asked many questions about the latter and voiced concern as to the manner in which the specific changes would affect the wage of individual employees. Several representatives raised questions as to the fire hazard connected with unauthor- ized smoking in the finishing area and the fact that there was only one fire extinguisher in that department. Burr promised to discuss the matter with Works Manager Washburn. September 11, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Adolph, the wage and salary administrator, accompanied Burr to this meeting and reviewed againt the work of the wage committee and the proposed changes in the wage and salary structure which were being contemplated. Here, as at the Melrose Park plant conference held the preceding week, several representatives expressed concern as to the manner in which the prospective changes would affect the wages of individual employees. One representative stated that in his department a certain employee felt that he should have attained the maximum rate. Burr suggested that the employee talk with his foreman and indicated that this particular situation would be reviewed at the next HRT meeting. Another representative asked whether double time would be paid the maintenance employees for Saturdays and holidays Burr answered that a decision on this question would be made only when such work became necessary. Before the close of the meeting Burr answered other questions as to the application of the plant seniority rules and the effective date of the new severance pay plan. October 3, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant: Representatives present asked Burr questions with regard to the effective date of the revisions to the severance pay plan, the lack of fire extinguishers in certain areas of the plant, and the adequacy of the plant social fund. One representative complained that a certain employee with many years' seniority had recently failed to secure a promotion after he had signed a job posting. Burr promised a review of this case and in the published report on this meeting he set forth an explanation as to why the employee in question had not been promoted. In this same published report Burr also answered a complaint which had been brought up at the HRT meeting about another employee who felt that, notwithstanding substantial seniority, she was getting less pay than anyone else in her department. November 7, 1963, meeting at Melrose Park plant: Burr spent some time explain- ing to the representatives the revisions in the company wage program. Several ques- tions were asked as to how the wage committee could evaluate a job without discussing the job with an employee. Burr was also asked several questions about the application of the Company's seniority policy. One representative raised an issue with respect to a situation in his department in which three men were performing the same job, and whereas two of them recently received pay increases, the wage rate of the third remained the same. Burr stated that this matter should be taken up with the fore- man for an explanation and then brought up for review at the next HRT meeting. Another representative called attention to a safety hazard connected with a proposed move of the timeclocks to a ramp area near the parking lot. Burr promised that he would review the problem raised with Works Manager Washburn. A representative asked Burr whether the Company would consider pay for jury service. Burr replied that upon completion of the wage revision program all of the Respondent's industrial relations policies would be reviewed. December 4, 1963, HRT meeting, Melrose Park plant- Burr reviewed several problems raised at the November meeting with respect to the timeclock area and described the steps which had been taken to eliminate the basis for those complaints. A representative brought up a question concerning the inadequacy of the group health insurance as it applied to a particular employee Burr stated that he would have the industrial relations department contact the representative immediately. Another representative asked questions with respect to a job classification, and Burr promised that Wage and Salary Administrator Adolph would review the situation as to the specific employee discussed. Later, a representative raised a question as to a job evaluation matter and Burr suggested that the representative should discuss the problem with the employee's foreman. January 29, 1964, HRT meeting, Diversey Avenue plant: Representatives brought to Burr's attention complaints regarding drafts from open windows on the second floor of the annex building, the fact that the telephone booth on the third floor of the plant was frequently blocked by boxes, and that the frequency with which the fire bells rang made it impossible for the employees to know whether there was actually a fire when they heard the bells. At the outset of the meeting Burr listed the following disposition of matters which had been raised at a preceding meeting: HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 1003 (1) Lights were in the process of being rearranged in the screw machine section; (2) an additional light had been installed in the men's washroom; (3) improvements were being made in the annex blower system ; (4) the recommendation for the pur- chase of additional magnetic separators had been referred to the manufacturing engi- neering department , ( 5) the temperature in the first floor annex had been reduced; and (6 ) the manager of the cafeteria had taken steps to rectify complaints regarding certain food served in the cafeteria. March 11, 1964, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant : Burr reviewed some of the topics which had been brought up at the last meeting and the action which had been taken on them: ( 1) Firefighting units had been organized and equipment demon- strations were being conducted ; (2) cats were being removed from the building; (3) the ladies' washrooms were being cleaned after working hours ; (4) the organ dollies were being repaired . One representative questioned Burr as to the company policy on not paying employees for time lost while inventories are being taken. Another representative complained as to the scheduling of her vacation. Near the close of the meeting Burr asked the representatives what the general feeling seemed to be regarding a summer schedule of work . Those representatives present told him that most of the employees wanted to work the same schedule as had been in effect the preceding summer. March 25, 1964, HRT meeting at Diversey Avenue plant - Burr solicited sugges- tions as to a work schedule for Saturdays during the summer and the representatives offered several proposals. Later, a representative suggested that a permanent seniority list be posted at all times . Burr stated that this was not feasible but that an employee could get his seniority date through his foreman. Several complaints were expressed regarding drafts in the plant. Burr promised that he would turn them over to Works Manager Washburn . One of the representatives asked for pay for jury service. Burr stated that this proposal would be reviewed during an evaluation of all industrial relations policies. Another representative voiced a complaint - that cutbacks in one section of the plant had caused men to be transferred from higher to lower rated jobs. Burr did not attempt to answer this complaint at the time but in the published report of the meeting he stated that the actual facts as to the situation involved, which he out- lined, did not disclose any irregularity. As the result of an RC petition filed by the Charging Party, the Regional Office of the Board scheduled a representation election at the Melrose Park plant for Decem- ber 13, 1963. In a letter dated December 3, 1963, and addressed to all employees of the Melrose Park plant, John A. Volkober, executive vice president , outlined the benefits which they had received during the course of the preceding year and questioned whether any union, such as the one which was then soliciting their support , could offer any- thing more During the course of this letter. Volkober referred to the HRT program and stated that, as a result of its establishment- ... many matters which we might otherwise have overlooked have received our prompt and serious attention . Here are a few examples: the thievery from employees ' cars from Melrose Park has been practically elimi- nated by fencing in the parking lot. conditions in the cloak rooms have been improved. "early bird" cafeteria service has been introduced. the parking lot has been resurfaced. an every other Saturday summer work schedule was adopted. The charge in this case was filed December 18, and was served on the Respondent on December 20, 1963. In its brief the Respondent attacks the admission in evidence of the reports on HRT meetings which occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge herein, on the ground that all such evidence is barred by Section 10(b) of the Act. It is, of course, manifest that no unfair labor practice findings may be made as to events prior to June 20 , 1963. On the other hand , evidence of what occurred before that date may be received as background , or considered as "illuminative of the true character of later events within the limitations period." N.L.R.B. v. Fitzgerald Mills Corporation, 313 F. 2d 260, 264 (C A. 2). This usage of the reports on the HRT meetings is particularly appropriate in the present instance because Burr testified that from its establishment in December 1962 and up to the time of the hearing there had been no change in the operations ' or dealings of HRT other than the fact that in January 1964 the number of meetings per year was cut from 12 to 8. There is no dispute as to the origin, sponsorship, support, and assistance of HRT by the Respondent. It was established under the supervision of Burr late in 1962, and thereafter all its activities have been conducted on company time and property. 1004 DECISIONS OR NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Burr has scheduled all meetings and has had complete charge of the agenda at each conference between management and employee representatives . Finally, for all of its functions the Respondent has provided the meeting rooms, supplied secretarial and other clerical services needed , and paid the employee-representatives their average rate of pay for attendance to HRT duties. C. Contentions of the parties and concluding findings The General Counsel and the Union allege that the Hammond Round Table is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and that the Respondent estab- lished, supported, and dominated it in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and ( 1). The support and assistance which the Company gave to HRT was freely conceded by Burr, but the Respondent vigorously denies that HRT is a labor organization. The contention of the General Counsel and the Union that the HRT is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act is plainly well founded . Section 2(5) of the Act defines a "labor organization" as "any organization of any kind, or any . employee representation committee or plan , in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part , of dealing with employers concern- ing grievances . . . wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work." This definition is so extremely broad that it has been found to encompass almost any kind of employee group, committee , or plan that is established to represent plant personnel. Here, the definition clearly embraces the Hammond Round Table. The recitation of subjects discussed at the meetings of the HRT, set forth above, discloses that, in practice , almost every element of the employee-employer rela- tionship was discussed at HRT meetings . The all-inclusive character of the subjects covered at the regular conferences between the HRT employee -representatives and the Respondent's management covered practically every aspect of "wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work." At the hearing, and in its brief, the Respondent asserts that the employee-represen- tatives had no grievance-handling function . Notwithstanding what may have been their instructions , it is clear that the representatives felt that the HRT was intended as the forum to which they could bring either their own individual complaints and/or grievances, or present those of their fellow employees in the departments from which the representatives were selected . This is evident not only from the testimony of Chicoine and Wallace , set out above, but also in the bulletins on the meetings which Burr published . In the latter there appear numerous references to complaints pre- sented by representatives on behalf of their coworkers which Burr thereafter referred to the department head involved and at a later meeting of the HRT announced the results he had obtr fined in conferences concerning these grievances with the man- agement officials. Thus, at the meetings on August 12, 1963, and January 29, 1964, described above, Burr told the HRT representatives of the tangible benefits which HRT efforts had secured for them . In the news letter of December 3, 1963, Vice President Volkober told the Melrose Park employees that HRT had been responsi- ble for: ( 1) an every other Saturday summer work schedule, (2) resurfacing of the parking lot, (3) "early bird " service in the plant cafeteria , (4) improved conditions in the cloakrooms, and (5 ) the installation of a fence around the employee parking lot. The record establishes that in the course of the discussions with HRT repre- sentatives, the Respondent's management, Burr in particular , listened to numerous employee grievances of both a group and an individual character , and thereafter sought to resolve or process them. The Respondent contends that, in any event, the activities of HRT , as found above, did not constitute "dealing" or collective bargaining, within the meaning of the Act. This same argument, advanced in a not dissimilar case was rejected some time ago by the Supreme Court . N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company , 360 U.S. 203, 210-218. Whether the course of conduct followed by HRT and the Company con- stituted collective bargaining in the accepted sense of the term is immaterial. The activities of the Hammond Round Table and the Respondent's management, set out above, clearly establish that the HRT was "dealing with" the Company as to mat- ters within the scope of Section 2(5) of the Act. Cabot Carbon, supra, N L.R.B. v. Chardon Telephone Company, 323 F. 2d 563, 564 (C A. 6); Pacemaker Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 260 F. 2d 880, 883 (C.A. 7). In so doing, HRT was acting as, and must be held to constitute , a labor organization within the meaning of the Act The Trial Examiner so finds. The Respondent does not deny responsibility for the establishment of the Ham- mond Round Table. Its creation was plainly a unilateral act of management. HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 1005 Throughout its existence, the Company, through Burr, has scheduled all its meet- ings, established the agenda of topics to be discussed , and otherwise controlled the operations of HRT. It is undenied that HRT received all of its financial , secre- tarial , and clerical assistance from the Respondent. Nor is there any dispute that the usual indicia of an independent labor organization, such as a constitution, bylaws, membership` tequirements, and dues, or other:means of independent financing, are completely lacking. On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is the finding and con- clusion of the Trial Examiner that the Hammond Round Table was established, sup- ported, and dominated by the Respondent, that it is inherently incapable of ever fairly representing the employees , and that by the course of conduct found above the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(2) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R B. v. New- port News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241, 250-251; Indiana Metal Products Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 202 F. 2d 613, 621 (C.A. 7); Harrison Sheet Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 194 F. 2d 407, 409-410 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. American Furnace Company, 158 F. 2d 376, 378 (C.A. 7); N.L.RB. v. Chardon Telephone Company, 323 F. 2d 563, 564 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B. v. Western Reserve Telephone Co., 323 F. 2d 564, 566 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B. v. Sharples Chemicals, Inc., 209 F. 2d 645, 652 (C.A. 6). IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices set forth above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of the Respondent described in section I, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because the Respondent has established, dominated and interfered with the admin- istration of the Hammond Round Table and has contributed support thereto, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from such conduct and that it withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the Ham- mond Round Table as the representative of any of the Respondent 's employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union and the Hammond Round Table are labor organizations, all within the meaning of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining and corecing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, and by dominating and interfering with the administration of the Hammond Round Table, and contributing support thereto , the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondent, Hammond Organ Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Hammond Round Table, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and contributing support to the Hammond Round Table or to any other labor organization of its employees. (b) Recognizing, or in any manner dealing with, the Hammond Round Table, or any reorganization or successor thereof , as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Hammond Organ Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist Upholsterers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- 1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which' is necessary to effectuate the poli- cies of the, Act: (a) Withdraw all'recognition from the Hammond Round Table as a representa- tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Hammond Organ Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of work, and completely disestablish the Hammond Round Table as such representative. (b) Post at all of its plants in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 'Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least 60 days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.3 2In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 3 In the event' that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor Relations Act: WE HAVE notified the members of the Hammond Round Table that they may no longer act as your representatives on grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and WE HAVE completely disestablished the Hammond Round Table as such representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Upholsterers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collec- tive 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, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a labor organization except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement conforming to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the amended Act. HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) ROY MILLER FREIGHT LINES, INC. 1007 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illi- nois, Telephone No. 828-7572, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. - Roy Miller Freight Lines, Inc. and Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case No. 21-CA-5540. November 23, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 7, 1964, Trial Examiner David London issued his Deci- sion 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Roy Miller Freight Lines, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 1 The findings of the Trial Examiner are based on credibility resolutions which will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous . Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, 545, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3). No such conclusion is warranted here. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and an amended charge filed September 9, 1963, and October 4, 1963, by Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Region 21 of the National Labor 149 NLRB No. 93.