UTD Corp.

56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Reed Rolled Thread Die Co., subsidiary of UTD Corporation and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers , AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-6366' October 13, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On June 4, 1969, Trial Examiner Herzel H.E Plaine issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged 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, and the General Counsel filed a memorandum in support of the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 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 and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act , as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent , Reed Rolled Thread Die Co., subsidiary of UTD Corporation , Holden, Massachusetts, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.' 'We find no merit in Respondent's exception to the broad cease-and-desist order The broad order recommended by the Trial Examiner is appropriate herein since the domination of a labor organization by an employer goes to the very heart of the Act N L R B v Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F 2d 532 (C A 4), Dennison Mfg Co, 168 NLRB No 131 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HERZEL H.E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner Case CA-6366 is an unfair labor practice proceeding charging the Respondent with violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The complaint was issued October 31, 1968, on a charge by the Union (the Charging Party) filed with the Board on June 19, 1968. Case RC-9980 is a representation proceeding on a petition filed March 20, 1968, by the Union (the Petitioner, also the Charging Party in CA-6366) A representation election was held on April 17, 1968, but the case was consolidated on October 31, 1968, with the unfair labor practice proceeding for the purpose of providing a hearing on an objection to the results of the election related to the unfair labor practice charge against the Respondent (also the Employer in the representation proceeding) The complaint alleges that since December 18, 1967, the Respondent by various acts has dominated and unlawfully assisted an alleged labor organization, the Plant Committee, comprised of management and employee members, to whom it is said the Respondent has given recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees In this connection the Union-Petitioner in the representation case claims in its Objection 4 (to conduct of the Respondent-Employer affecting the results of the election) that "the Employer interfered with the results of the election by meeting periodically with the plant committee during the preelection period, thus creating an impression of continued recognition all to the detriment of your petitioner." In its answer the Respondent-Employer denied that the Plant Committee was a labor organization or that it was accorded recognition as exclusive bargaining representative or that it was unlawfully assisted or dominated by the Respondent-Employer The case was tried on December 10, 1968. Counsel for all three parties have filed briefs Upon the entire record of the case,' and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 'Case I-RC-9980 was originally consolidated with the instant case for hearing on certain issues arising with respect to an election conducted pursuant to a consent-election agreement See Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Sec 102 62(a) At the time of the transfer of Case 1-CA-6366 to the Board, Case I-RC-9980 was served and remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate action Accordingly, Respondent's exceptions insofar as they relate to the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations in Case 1-RC-9980 are not before the Board for determination, and we make no findings as to them 'In adopting the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(2) and (1) findings we do not rely upon his statement that the Company printed the ballots used in a 1948 internal Committee election Furthermore, we rely upon the fact that the Plant Rules and Policies preclude employee participation in Committee affairs for the first 90 days of employment only insofar as this rule is an example of the type of internal union regulation promulgated by the management-controlled Plant Committee I JURISDICTION Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of UTD Corporation and is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal office and place of business in Holden, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the production and distribution of machine tools. Annually, Respondent purchases and receives at its Massachusetts plant from points outside Massachusetts raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, and sells and ships from its Massachusetts plant to points outside Massachusetts machine tools valued in excess of $50,000. 'All errors, which appear in the transcript of the record, have been noted and corrected 179 NLRB No. 6 REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. 57 Respondent is engaged, as it admits, in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act The Union is, as Respondent also admits, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act As hereinafter discussed under heading 11, D, and notwithstanding Respondent's denial, the Plant Committee is also a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background and Issues Reed Rolled Thread Die Company had been in business for many years prior to 1961 In April 1961, the company was acquired by the Union Twist Drill Corporation (UTD) and continued business under the style Reed Rolled Thread Die Co , subsidiary of UTD Corporation, the Respondent or Employer in the two consolidated cases (For simplicity, the single designation Respondent is used hereinafter) At the time of the acquisition in 1961 there was in existence a Plant Committee, comprising employee and management members, which dealt on a regularized basis under written rules with the subjects of wages, other conditions of employment, and grievances of the employees The successor company has continued the Plant Committee in essentially the same form and for the same functions as the predecessor company In 1965, the Steelworkers Union sought to become the bargaining representative of Respondent's employees but was defeated in a Board election. No objection to the results of the election was filed, Case I-RC-8694 In 1968, the Boilermakers Union (the Petitioner and Charging Party in the presently consolidated cases) sought to become the bargaining representative of Respondent's employees In a Board election on April 17, 1968, in which the Steelworkers Union also appeared on the ballot, neither union received a majority in a tally showing 120 votes for the Boilermakers, 5 votes for the Steelworkers, and 145 votes against both participating unions, Case I-RC-9980 On April 23, 1968, the Boilermakers filed four specific objections and one general objection to conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election While the Plant Committee was not listed on the ballot, Objection 4 was that Respondent interfered with the results of the election by meeting periodically with the Plant Committee during the preelection period, creating an impression of continued recognition to the Committee as bargaining representative of Respondent's employees On May 31, 1968, the Regional Director in a report overruled the Boilermakers' objections, including Objection 4, and certified that as a result of the election neither union had achieved a majority or the status of representative of the employees On June 19, 1968, the Union (Boilermakers) filed the charge, in Case 1-CA-6366, that, since March 19, 1968, the Respondent refused to recognize the Union as bargaining representative of a majority of the employees on a proferred showing of card authorizations but instead continued to recognize the Plant Committee, a company dominated union which Respondent helped to organize with specified assistance and intent to destroy the Union's majority On September 30, 1968, the Regional Director revoked his report and certification of May 31, 1968, on the ground that, after investigation of the Union's charge of June 19, he was issuing a complaint alleging violation by Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and, since the complaint related to the Union's Objection 4 to the results of the election, he was holding in abeyance any ruling on Objection 4 until disposition of the complaint On October 10, Respondent appealed to the Board asking it to set aside the revocation of certification of the results of the election by the Regional Director Thereafter, on October 31, 1968, the Regional Director consolidated for hearing by the Trial Examiner the complaint case and objection No 4 in the representation case (with directions to sever and return the representation case to the Regional Director for determination in accordance with the agreement for consent election therein, after the decision of the Trial Examiner) On November 4, the Board denied Respondent's appeal to set aside the action of the Regional Director revoking certification of the results of the election, but without prejudice to renewal of the appeal upon disposition of the complaint case The complaint case and the unresolved objection in the representation case raise two substantial issues, namely, (a) whether the Plant Committee is a labor organization purporting to act, and accorded recognition by Respondent, as the bargaining representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees, as the General Counsel and Charging Party contend, and Respondent denies, and (b) whether the Plant Committee is unlawfully assisted and dominated by Respondent, as the General Counsel and Charging Party contend, or merely receives support allowed by law, as the Respondent contends In addition, the Respondent contends there is a third issue, of a procedural nature, which the Trial Examiner ought to decide, to wit, whether the Regional Director had the power to revoke his certification of the results of the election four months after he had overruled the objection which is now revived by the revocation. B The Plant Committee Historical Evolvement The testimony has been supplied by three people (1) Respondent's President Rossiter R Holt, who has also been General Manager since April I, 1961, when Union Twist Drill Corporation acquired the company, (2) Personnel Manager James M Hunt, who joined the company twenty-nine years ago as a rank-and-file employee, became Assistant Personnel Manager in 1952 and Personnel Manager in 1953, and (3) employee William E Delaney, who has been a rank-and-file employee for 16 years, and was an employee member of the Plant Committee for 6 years Personnel Manager Hunt testified that the Plant Committee came into existence in 1948, that it's formation was the idea of then President Reed, discussed with some of the employees, and that Hunt became an employee member of the original committee by the election on ballots printed by the company In the ensuing years, according to Hunt, the committee organization was formalized under written Plant Rules and Policies, monthly meetings became the regular pattern, and an annual wage review was developed In 1952, when Hunt joined management as Assistant Personnel Manager, he switched from employee member to management member, and has remained such, serving also as secretary of the committee. Except for the few early years when former 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD President Reed kept the minutes of the meeting, Personnel Manager Hunt has kept the Plant Committee minutes of meetings since 1952 to the present When the company was transferred to its present ownership in 1961 and current President Holt joined the management, the Plant Committee and the practices that had evolved with it were continued, according to President Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt, and Holt, as General Manager, came on the committee to become, with Hunt, management's representatives As President Holt testified, the practices he followed in meetings with the committee since April 1961 were the practices already in existence - "the history was there," he said. Some revisions of the governing Plant Rules and Policies were made in October 1961, (G C Exh 2, and again in March 1966, G C Exh 4) The latter contains the presently effective rules The principal change under the 1966 revision, on proposal by President Holt according to the minutes of March 22, 1966, (G C Exh 3), involved the elimination of the office girls', foremen's, and administrative workers' representation in the Plant Committee (compare the respective articles IA in G C Exhs 2 and 4) As a result the current Plant Committee is made up of representatives of two groups - Respondent's management, and Respondent's production and maintenance employees (described under the Plant Rules and Policies as the factory workers) Composition, Functions, and Status The testimony of President Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt (as well as the representations of Respondent's counsel) indicated that the Plant Rules and Policies, G.C Exh 4, do not completely or always accurately describe the employee-management committee organization. Putting the testimony and the written material together it appears that the committee sits in two capacities, as a Plant Committee and a Factory Workers Committee, with common memberships in both. The Plant Committee is comprised of the General Manager (Holt) and the Personnel Manager (Hunt), representing management , and seven elected employee members representing the factory workers, called the Factory Workers Group The seven employee representatives of Factory Workers Group, are also the employee members of the Factory Workers Committee, on which the management representation is the Plant Superintendent (John Bock) and the Personnel Manager (Hunt) 3 At the annual wage review meeting of the Plant Committee, management representation is expanded to include the Plant Superintendent (Bock). The seven employee representatives, constituting the Factory Workers Group, serving in both the Plant Committee and Factory Workers Committee, are elected by the eligible employees from among the eligible employees. Eligibility to vote or serve is limited to those employed ninety days or more The rules provide for an annual election in April (although the 1968 election was postponed to October) According to Personnel Manager Hunt, the election is conducted on company time with ballots provided and prepared by the company and deposited when marked in a box in the company cafeteria The ballots may be marked elsewhere prior to deposit. Personnel Manager Hunt prepares an eligibility list from the payroll and furnishes the list to a member of the Factory Workers Group, retaining a copy for himself He and the member check the voted ballots against the eligibility list. A primary election is held on a Tuesday The written rules are silent on this aspect and the ballot lists all of the eligible employees except those who have by writing in advance declined to serve. The voting employees may vote for any seven names listed (both in the primary and final balloting) The twenty names receiving the highest number of votes in the primary then appear on the final ballot for the following Thursday and the seven receiving the highest number of votes become the Factory Workers Group. The existing Factory Workers Group does the counting of ballots in Personnel Manager Hunt's office, while he watches He then prepares the notice of the results which he causes to be posted In this connection, Hunt testified that he is in charge of the company bulletin boards and responsible for what is posted on them The eligibility lists are destroyed by Personnel Manager Hunt, as excess paper, immediately following the election, and the ballots are retained by him for a few weeks and then also destroyed, if there are no questions According to Personnel Manager Hunt, immediately following the election, the Factory Workers Group picks its own chairman (note that the written rules erronously call him chairman of the Plant Committee, see Hunt's testimony infra) and a vice chairman (although the written rules do not refer to a vice chairman). President Holt testified that since he came on the Plant Committee in 1961 the composition of the employee membership has been fairly constant, with few changes For example, employee Charles Beard, who was Chairman of the Factory Workers Group until he resigned in early 1968, served as a committee member for 5 or 6 years, and witness William Delaney served as an employee member for 6 years from 1962 to 1968, when he too resigned The Plant Committee holds regular monthly meetings, on the second Thursday of the month, at approximately 3 P M., in the abandoned plant cafeteria on the second floor of the plant, and has held such monthly meetings before and since December 18, 1967 (the start of the six month limitation period under Section 10(b) of the Act) plus some special meetings in 1968. The Factory Workers Committee also holds regular committee meetings once a month at a time prior to the Plant Committee meetings, and has met regularly both before and since December 18, 1967 The employee members are paid for their time spent in committee meetings and those employees who spend such time out of their regular shift are paid overtime Special meetings may be called only by the General Manager and any held without his permission cannot be held on company time (G C. Exh. 4, art 1, E, 4 ) President Holt testified that he and Personnel Manager Hunt were always together with the employee representatives at the monthly Plant Committee meetings Hunt testified that the employee members had the privilege of meeting, and being paid, for up to fifteen minutes in advance of arrival of the management representatives, and of meeting and being paid for five minutes time after adjournment, although normally, he said, they did not stay on after adjournment. Occasionally, said Hunt, there would be a request by the employee members for a caucus during a meeting, and he and President Holt would step out of the meeting during the caucus However, there was no evidence of any practice of the Factory Workers Group meeting by themselves off the company premises,' or meeting at times other than the scheduled Plant Committee or Factory Workers Committee meetings. 'Hunt said he knew of one meeting of the Factory Workers Group several years ago at employee Buffone's house He mentioned what he REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO 59 According to President Holt, there are no advance or formal agenda for the committee meetings Matters brought up at the Factory Workers Committee meetings were often disposed of by Plant Superintendent Bock, testified Holt, but if Bock could not dispose of a matter or if his action was unsatisfactory, it would be brought up at a Plant Committee meeting At the Plant Committee meetings, Personnel Manager Hunt opened the meeting with the call to order and reading of the last meeting's minutes, and adjourned the meeting after new business had been discussed The plant rules do not specify who is chairman of the committee' but testified Hunt, "if there was a chairman it was probably me " He further testified that he was active participant in the meetings on behalf of management, as well as the official secretary According to President Holt, since there were no formal agenda, after the regular opening of a meeting with reading and correcting (if needed) of minutes of the previous meeting, the usual course was to cover unfinished business and bring up new items President Holt would invariably initiate any discussions on business conditions, he said, and other matters, which might cover almost any subject (other than wages and benefits discussed at the annual wage review), would be raised either by the factory workers or management It was clear from the testimony of President Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt (certain examples appear hereinafter) and of employee William Delaney, who served as an employee member on the Plant Committee from 1962 until his resignation in 1968, that President Holt conducted most of each meeting and usually made the final decisions on matters requiring decision (President Holt was not willing to admit that his decision was always final, noting that on one occasion he had reconsidered a wage decision in the light of what the factory workers thought they should have ) As the designated secretary of the Plant Committee under the written rules, Personnel Manager Hunt kept the minutes of the meetings, including as well the minutes of the Factory Workers Committee meetings He would take notes while a meeting was in progress and thereafter, promptly dictate the minutes to his secretary, usually without consultation, he said, except an occasional question of President Holt (and before him President Reed) on how certain items should appear in the Plant Committee minutes, but inquiring of no one else In the case of the Factory Workers Committee minutes, Superintendent Bock, and no one else, reviewed the minutes before they were made available to anyone Hunt did not keep but rather destroyed his original notes Once the minutes of a meeting were typed and corrected, Hunt would cause a quantity to be multilithed and made available to all employees in boxes kept at the timeclocks for distribution purposes The seven employee members of the committee received their copies of minutes and saw them for the first time, by this same distribution Hunt testified that he sought to make the minutes of each meeting available to the employees on the day following the meeting In this connection, the testimony of Personnel Manager Hunt made clear that all of the paper work - including thought was another at employee Leo Harman ' s house, but according to employee Delaney this was merely a social gathering of some of the members for supper at Harman 's motel residence in 1963 or 1964 'The reference to a chairman in article 1, B, 1(d) of G C Exh 4 is in fact though not in words to the employee chairman of the Factory Workers Group and not to a Plant Committee chairman the materials and the services - was supplied by the Respondent with no contribution from the employees (indeed there have been no employee funds, such as dues) Included are such things as the minutes of the Plant, Factory Workers, and Grievances Committees, with reproduction for all employees of the minutes of the first two committees, election ballots, eligibility lists, wage review announcements, and even the employee wage review requests Under the written Plant Rules and Policies, '2 Management will assume that the Plant Committees speaks for the employees they represent 3 It is understood, that the Plant Committee' cannot commit the employees they represent without the approval of those employees, but it is assumed that when the Committee has reached a meeting of minds with Management, that they will fully explain their position to their constituents, and endeavor to secure their cooperation " (G C Exh 4, art I, D, 2-3 ) However the "cannot commit" language is not in harmony with the text or practice Other than the provision in article XXV (G C Exh 4) for a once-a-year employee vote to ratify or reject any tentative change effected by the Plant Committee in the Plant Rules and Policies, there is neither in writing or practice any provision or mechanism for the employee representatives to report back to the employees actions contemplated or taken by the employee representatives in the Plant Committee or Factory Workers Committee or to obtain approval by vote or meeting of the employees Indeed, it is President Holt's interpretation of the Plant Rules and Policies (corroborated by Personnel Manager Hunt) that the employees may not vote on the results reached by the Plant Committee in the annual wage review or on any economic matters, such as wage increases, vacations, holidays, and so on And, as Personnel Manager Hunt testified, supra, actions of the Plant Committee or Factory Workers Committee, as reported in the minutes of their meetings, are communicated forthwith and directly to all employees without a preliminary communication to the employee representatives or other opportunity to enable the employee representatives to make any prior checks with their fellow employees ' Even the provision in article XXV, for an annual employee vote to ratify or reject changes made by the committee in the Plant Rules and Policies during the previous year, has become almost a dead letter Personnel 'The language, rather inartfully, appears to refer at this point to the employee members '/d 'The one instance , brought out in the testimony of President Holt, of general employee voting on an issue relating to their economic welfare occurred in 1968, when management, and not the employee representatives, went to the employees as a whole for a vote, apparently because the employee representatives had not been able to agree on a management proposal It seems that after agreement in the September 1967 wage review meeting of the Plant Committee on an increase in pension contributions (see G C Exh 5), the parent company pressed for change in pension funding from an insured program to an investment program to conform with what other affiliates had done Despite special committee meetings called by President Holt and explanations by a parent company officer, the employee members had not been able to agree The company, in breach of art XXV, went directly to the employees, although President Holt conceded that there would have been no vote if management could have gotten the employee representatives to agree The ensuing popular vote, grounded on eliminating or retaining a life insurance policy provided for in the Plant Rules and Policies, was construed to be a disapproval of the proposed change since it fell short of the 75 percent approval then required for a change in the Plant Rules and Policies The item was No 5 in Resp Exh 5 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Manager Hunt testified that the only one such vote since 1961 was taken in 1968 when several previous changes, Respondent's Exhibit 5, items 1-4, were rolled together with the "illegal" vote management wanted on the item tied to its pension reform plan, Respondent's Exhibit 5, item 5, see fn 7, supra On the other hand, the significant changes made in the Plant Rules and Policies in 1966, relating to representation in the Plant Committee, were not submitted to an employee vote, and such a vote was specifically bypassed, see minutes of March 22 and 24, 1966, General Counsel's Exhibit 3 Annual Wage Review Each year at the end of September, in keeping with the historical arrangement under the predecessor company, according to the testimony of President Holt, the Plant Committee (expanded to include Plant Superintendent Bock in addition to President Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt as the management representatives) would meet for an annual wage review The company would set the date in advance usually the last Friday in September. The meeting, usually lasting a whole day, would be held at a restaurant away from the plant arranged for by the company The employee members were paid as for working time, and the company paid for use of the facilities and luncheon at the restaurant Well in advance of the wage review meeting the chairman of the employee members of the Plant Committee provided President Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt with a list of requests. Personnel Manager Hunt testified that employee Beard, chairman of the employee representatives, discussed some of the items with him in organizing the 1967 and 1968 lists, and that Hunt's secretary, at Beard's request, typed both documents in Hunt's office General Counsel's Exhibit 10, containing eight requests for increases in pay and benefits, was presented for the September 1967 wage review meeting. In that case, as in others, said President Holt, he came prepared with notes, for himself alone, on what the company would do, and Personnel Manager Hunt indicated, that he and the Assistant Treasurer had engaged in the necessary preparatory research The demands were discussed at the meeting without any advance distribution or disclosure of management's views, and while he did not accede to every request, said President Holt, agreement was reached on some. In this regard, testified President Holt, he has final authority in dealing with the employees and he made the final decisions on what the company would give. He has never acceded to all requests but also has never denied all requests, said President Holt. President Holt testified that it was the practice of the committee to continue to meet in the wage review until there was agreement 8 There has been no exchange of documentation to support the agreements. At the conclusion of the meeting the company (Personnel Manager Hunt) would simply draft and post on the plant bulletin boards an announcement signed by President Holt. The written announcement was not shown to the employee members of the Plant Committee before it was posted, although an understanding had been reached as to its terms, said President Holt. General Counsel's Exhibit 5, was such an announcement, stating that at the September 29, 1967 Plant Committee meeting agreement was reached on a four percent wage increase, on an increase in pension equivalent to average four cents per hour, and on a three cents per hour increase in second and third shift premium pay. The announcement, General Counsel's Exhibit 5, covered four of the eight items mentioned in the employee members' list of requests, General Counsel's Exhibit 10. According to employee member Delaney, who participated, President Holt conducted the September 29, 1967, meeting and, with the employees' list of items in hand, made the determination of what would be discussed, spending most of the day on those items particularly the pension matter, and tabling certain items, such as vacations, without discussion As President Holt testified, after the seven employee members of the Plant Committee have dealt with the matters agreed to at the annual wage review meeting, the plant employees at large do not vote to accept or reject But, said President Holt, it is expected of the employee members of the committee, under article 1, D, 3, of the plant rules (quoted above), that after coming to an agreement with management they would "believe in it and would sell it" to their fellow employees, although, he said, he had never asked them to sell it.9 The 1968 wage review meeting was held on September 27, 1968, but with only four of seven employee members of the committee participating because of three resignations in February 1968 and unfilled vacancies due to Respondent's postponement of the April election Respondent's Exhibit 4 was the employee representatives' list of seven requests, according to Personnel Manager Hunt, who indicated that there was action on four of the items and no action on three. According to President Holt, there was "give and take" on some of them, and a notice of the results posted on the bulletin boards. Grievances The grievance procedures in effect at the plant have been built around use of members of the Plant Committee in the several steps described in article VIII of the Plant Rules and Policies, General Counsel's Exhibit 4. Thus one or more employee members may serve variously as members of a Grievance Committee, or, in the final appeal to the General Manager, as representatives of the aggrieved employee At this final step, according to President Holt, his decision as General Manager is final There is no further review of his decisions at wage review or other Plant Committee meetings Personnel Manager Hunt testified that in the grievance procedure, his function is to expedite, that is, to assist in making interpretations of rules and policies and to prepare minutes of the grievance meetings The minutes are kept in his office, available on request and available to the grievance committee needing them on a successive step. In summary, it was President Holt's view that the Respondent has enjoyed good labor relations The only problem he saw was with the pension program, which he thought was good but not good enough (see fns. 7 and 9, supra) In his view, Respondent listened to its employees and had good contacts Also, it heard things it didn't like to hear, but, he said, this was the purpose of the committee, to find out what the employee problems were and to try to get satisfactory remedies wherever possible 'in 1966, said President Holt, after failure to agree on the company proposals the meeting recessed to the following week , when the employee members came back and accepted the company proposals 'In connection with the company's proposal in 1968 to change the pension program , see fn 7 supra. President Holt said that he expected the employee members of the Plant Committee to "sell " the other employees on the change , which ultimately missed approval by a very narrow margin on the popular vote conducted by management Previously , Holt had called special Plant Committee meetings on the subject in January and February 1968 REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. 61 C Conduct Relating to the Union Personnel Manager Hunt testified that in representation proceedings involving Respondent in 1965, the Steelworkers Union was the petitioner, Case 1-RC-8694, and failed to obtain a majority, as certified by the Regional Director in Respondent's Exhibit 6. No objection was filed In 1968, the Boilermakers Union (Charging Party) was the petitioner in representation proceedings involving Respondent, Case I-RC-9980 The petition, General Counsel's Exhibit 1(a), was filed March 20, 1968. A regular meeting of the Plant Committee was held March 21, 1968, the day after the Union's petition was filed President Holt testified (and see minutes of meeting, General Counsel's Exhibit 11) that he announced the filing at the meeting, referred to the fact that the committee had only four employee representatives because of resignations, that a Plant Committee election would normally be held in the first week in April, but thought it best to postpone the election because of the Union's petition He also stated that the Plant Committee would continue to meet and function as usual and the committee next met again April 11, see minutes, General Counsel's Exhibit 12 On March 28, 1968, an agreement for consent election in the representation proceeding was executed, General Counsel's Exhibit 1(b), pursuant to which a Board election was scheduled for April 17 Included on the ballot were both the Boilermakers and Steelworkers, who had intervened Prior to the election the Boilermakers handbilled the employees with circulars, Respondent's Exhibits 8 and 9, which were critical, among other things, of Respondent's Plant Rules and Policies and alleged control of the Plant Committee by management On its part, Respondent sent four letters over the signature of President Holt, addressed to the employees and their families, dated March 29, April 10, April 12, and April 15, 1968, exhibits U-i, U-2, U-3, and R-l, respectively, calling the employees' attention to the Board election for April 17, renewing Respondent's 1965 opposition to either union, noting existing employee benefits and that the employees have a written understanding with the company in the form of the Plant Rules and Policies, and urging the employees to vote against both unions In the April 17 election neither union received a majority in the tally of votes showing 120 for the Boilermakers, 5 for the Steelworkers, and 145 against either, General Counsel's Exhibit I(d). The Union (Boilermakers) filed objections on April 23, General Counsel's Exhibit 1(c), including as objection No 4 that "the Employer interfered with the results of the election by meeting periodically with the Plant Committee during the preelection period, thus creating an impression of continued recognition all to the detriment of your petitioner." On May 31, 1968, the Regional Director in a report on objections and certification of results of election overruled the Union's objections and certified that neither participating union had won the right to represent the employees as bargaining agent.1° The Plant Committee continued its regular monthly meetings in May and June 1968. At the June 5 meeting, testified President Holt, he reported the results of the April 17 Board election He told the committee that the whole Plant Committee program had been carefully reviewed and a decision made to continue it as in the past, because it was worthwhile and necessary for management to maintain contact with the employees He suggested that the committee election postponed from April be held on Tuesday, June 18 (primary), and Thursday, June 20 (final) According to Holt, there was no discussion or problem raised concerning the dates The primary was held on June 18 (results tabulated in General Counsel's Exhibit 9), but on June 19 the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Respondent alleging 8(a)(2) and (5) violations for recognizing a company organized and dominated union and for refusing to recognize the Union, General Counsel's Exhibit 1(e) " Whereupon, on June 20, as President Holt testified, he issued a notice to the employees, General Counsel's Exhibit 6, which said that, because the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge claiming that the Plant Committee interfered with the employees' rights under the Act, though the claim was without merit, he was postponing the Plant Committee election, on advice of counsel, until the Board had processed the charge At the August 8, 1968, meeting of the Plant Committee, President Holt announced that the company expected to continue the past practice of an annual wage review meeting, and at the September 12 meeting be received a list of the employee proposals, Respondent's Exhibit 4 As noted under heading B, above, the wage review meeting was held on September 28, 1968, and the notice of the results posted in the plant. On September 30, 1968, the Regional Director revoked his May 31 certification of the results of the election He noted the Union charge of June 19 and stated that he had determined to issue a complaint against Respondent for alleged violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (2), and that he was holding in abeyance ruling on the Union's objection No 4 to the results of the election, General Counsel's Exhibit 1(g) On October 10, Respondent appealed to the Board to set aside this action of the Regional Director. The 1968 Plant Committee final election of employee members, postponed from June 20, was held on October 8, 1968, according to President Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt (the ballot was General Counsel's Exhibit G C. 8), and the new committee met on October 10 On October 31, 1968, the Regional Director issued the Section 8(a)(1) and (2) complaint against Respondent and an order consolidating the hearing with the Union's objection No 4 to the results of the election, General Counsel's Exhibit 1(i). On November 4, the Board denied Respondent's appeal of the Regional Director's revocation of certification, but without prejudice to renewal of the appeal upon disposition of the complaint case, General Counsel's Exhibit 1(k) President Holt issued a letter to all employees on November 8, 1968, General Counsel's Exhibit 7, which informed the employees of the pendency of the 8(a)(2) charge and notice of hearing for December 10. He observed that what the Union wanted was to disestablish "In dealing with objection No 4, the May 31 report noted that the Plant Committee did not appear on the ballot, and that there was no pending charge that the Plant Committee was assisted or dominated by business was encompassed in the two committee meetings in March and Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(2) The objection appears to have April, prior to the Board election , did not show any employer preference been disposed of on the ground that the evidence before the Regional or impropriety interfering with employee voting rights Director indicated that the Plant Committee was purely advisory and could "Personnel Manager Hunt testified that this was the first unfair labor not make commitments binding on management , and that whatever practice charge ever filed against Respondent 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Plant Committee He said he did not believe that the Plant Committee or the plant employees had been dominated or coerced by management, that the committee had been in existence for twenty years, and that he believed the employees would want the company to fight a decision to disestablish the committee, as evidenced by their expression in the Board elections of 1965 and 1968 to continue as in the past He concluded by saying the company would do everything within the framework of the law to maintain the Plant Committee Program In concluding his testimony on this subject, President Holt stated that the Plant Committee was the only organization that purported to speak for the production and maintenance employees of Respondent D Domination , Interference, and Unlawful Assistance In my view, the evidence is overwhelming that the Plant Committee is a company organized, dominated, and unlawfully assisted labor organization Section 2(5) of the Act defines "labor organization" to include 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 concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work " From the description of the Plant Committee functions under heading B, above, it is obvious that the committee has dealt and deals with the employer on the subjects listed in the statutory definition, and that the employer's representatives participate in the discussion and resolution of these matters and frequently grant the employee representatives' requests Even though the dealing may not be collective bargaining in the usual sense, these activities with respect to any one or more of the listed subjects constitute the Plant Committee a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) and as the term is used in Section 8(a)(2) of the Act i 2 N L R B v Cabot Carbon Co , 360 U S 203, 213-214, 218 (1959), N L R B v Standard Coil Products Co , 224 F 2d 465, 467-469 (C A. 1), cert denied 350 U S 902, American President Lines, Ltd v N L R B, 340 F 2d 490, 492 (C A. 9) Historically, the Plant Committee was originated over twenty years ago by the president of Respondent's predecessor in discussion with just a few of the employees and with no vote or discussion then or since by the general body of employees on the matter of the committee's formation, organization, or continuance When Respondent became owner in 1961 it adopted and continued the committee's operations under the Plant Rules and Policies and the practices devised by its predecessor, with some modifications in organization made, again as in the case of its predecessor, without any vote by, or discussion with, the general body of employees indeed Respondent in 1966 effected the one major organizational change, of dropping the representation in the committee of foremen, administrative employees, and office girls, by circumventing the popular vote it was pledged to take by the then effective 1961 Plant Rules and Policies 11 "Sec 8 (a)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support " "The events that happened earlier than six months prior to the filing of the charge are not relied on here to charge unfair labor practices (in accordance with Sec 10(b) of the Act as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act), but they are "utilized to shed light on the true character of matters The Supreme Court in Cabot Carbon, supra, said that, "The principal distinction [between an independent and a company-dominated labor organization] lies in the unfettered power of the former to insist upon its requests," 360 U S at 214, recognizing that while "Final decision is always with management, . when a claim is made by a well organized, good sized union, management is doubtless more strongly influenced in its decision than it would be by a recommendation of a board which it, itself, has selected and which has been provided with no fighting arms " (360 U S at 214, fn. 15, quoting from N L R B v Jas H Matthews & Co , 156 F 2d 706, 708) In the case of the Plant Committee, the organic requirements and practice not only made the General Manager and Personnel Manager part of the committee (and the Plant Superintendent and Personnel Manager part of it when it sat as the Factory Workers Committee), but also put the management representatives in charge of the calling of meetings (in addition to the fixed monthly meetings), the running of the meetings, the subjects that would be discussed, and the reporting of the meetings to the body of employees in minutes and announcements of actions and decisions, without consultation of the employee representatives on the wording of the reporting or without affording them an opportunity to report directly to their fellow employees. In this connection, the Personnel Manager (Hunt) was the de lure secretary of the committee (under the written rules), and consulted with the General Manager and the Plant Superintendent respectively, on the form and language of the reporting (minutes) for the Plant Committee and Factory Workers Committee meetings. Personnel Manager Hunt also claimed to be de facto committee chairman (the rules are silent on this) However, it can be said with greater accuracy that, apart from Personnel Manager Hunt opening and adjourning the meetings, the real chairman, who determined what would be discussed and who lead the substantive discussions, was President and General Manager Holt President and General Manager Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt attended all of the meetings of the Plant Committee, and Plant Superintendent Bock, along with Hunt, attended all of the meetings of the Factory Workers Committee Personnel Manager Hunt also attended the meetings, and acted as secretary, of the grievance committees, which draw their members from the Plant Committee, and Hunt was in charge of the preparation, custody, and distribution of minutes for all of the various committees The Factory Workers Group, who comprise the seven employee representatives on the Plant Committee and Factory Workers Committee, have been chosen at annual elections from among the production and maintenance workers. However, workers who have not been employed for at least ninety days are neither eligible to serve nor to vote The election machinery - preparation of eligibility lists and ballots, counting, announcements of results, storage and final destruction of ballots - is entirely in the hands or under supervision of management, except for participation of members of the Factory Workers Group occurring within the limitations period, " Local Lodge 1424 Machinists v N L R B , 362 U S 411, 416-417 In this connection it is useful to note the Supreme Court opinion, prior to adoption of Taft-Hartley, that while the historical continuity of a plant committee "may not be controlling as to the continuance of dominance by the Company, it is at least evidence of such dominance, entitled to be considered by the Board The effects of long practice persist " N L R B v Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co 319 U S 50,57 REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. in checking the eligible voters and counting of ballots. The evidence also established that twice in 1968 management made the decision to postpone the election of employee representatives that would regularly have been held in April 1968, and also made the third decision to go ahead with it in October 1968 The Factory Workers Group has no separate existence that permits it to hold meetings or act separately from the Plant Committee or Factory Workers Committee, except the meeting to choose a chairman and vice chairman of their group immediately after the annual election. The evidence indicates that the group has not attempted to meet separately or away from the established meeting place in the plant The practice does allow for the Factory Workers Group to caucus in the established meeting place in the plant for up to fifteen minutes before the management representatives arrive for a committee meeting and for up to five minutes after adjournment; and, on occasion during meetings, the group has been permitted to caucus while management representatives stepped out of the meeting temporarily. There is no provision for the Factory Workers Group to meet with their constituents at large or to report to them to obtain instructions, approvals, or other views on actions or positions taken or to be taken As already indicated the only reporting is by minutes of meetings or announcements prepared and distributed by management, which the employee representatives see for the first time in a general distribution to all employees. Employees at large have no right to vote on any economic matter. Their right to vote on issues is limited to a theoretical, once-a-year submission of changes made during the year in the written Plant Rules and Policies. However during Respondent's ownership of the Company, since April 1, 1961, such a vote was taken only once, in 1968; and on the occasion of the 1966 revision of the Plant Committee composition involving change of the written Plant Rules and Policies, Respondent by-passed taking the employee vote. Nonetheless, despite this absence of direct communication and opportunity for expression of views, between the Factory Workers Group and the employees at large, it has been management's position that in the Plant Committee (and Factory Workers Committee) meetings the Factory Workers Group "speaks for the employees they represent," and when the group has reached a meeting of minds with management that the group will "endeavor to secure" the cooperation of their constituents. President Holt's testimony was indicative that the Factory Workers Group was expected to "sell" their fellow employees on the actions taken and decisions arrived at in the course of the committee meetings. The subservience of the Factory Workers Group to the preferences of management is fairly manifest in the evidence concerning the annual wage review, in particular the 1967 and 1968 reviews. Thus it appears that the chairman of the employees' representative consulted the Personnel Manager before even drafting the list of employee requests and had the lists physically prepared by the Personnel Manager's office. Management has come to the meetings fully prepared to state what it will give on the items it chooses to discuss but without advance counterproposal or revelation of its position , and has tabled other items without discussion, leaving the employee representatives little option other than to accept what was offered. Their fellow committee member, President Holt, has final say on what the company will do or even discuss. 63 Even in the instance of the 1966 meeting, cited by President Holt, when the employee members had not accepted his proposals at the end of the meeting day, they came back on a subsequent day and accepted them, as Holt told it, fn. 8, supra The constancy in the employee membership on the committee, with little turnover, and the inability of new employees to have a voice in selecting, or in representation on, the committee, no doubt has eased management's ability to continue its dominance of the employee members; and the "clubiness" of the wage review day at the restaurant, away from the shop, with meals provided and time paid for, was not calculated to stir employee members' resistance to employer disposal of their requests ' Likewise the employer's contribution of all moneys (including payment for committee time), supplies, services, and meeting places, to enable and assist the Plant Committee system to function, with no employee contribution or funds available for this purpose, has not made easier any inclination that the Factory Workers Group might have to press or insist upon requests on behalf of the employees 11 Not only has Respondent dominated the Plant Committee, but it has propagated, as illustrated in the Plant Rules and Policies1s and in the letters to employees and their families preceding and following the last Board election," and has apparently successfully instilled in a majority of the employees, the mistaken belief that the Plant Committee was a truly representative labor organization of the employees, which Respondent has recognized for bargaining. Recognition has not been set out in the usual type collective bargaining contract used by labor unions, but nevertheless has been explicit in the conduct of the whole Plant Committee system Indeed, as recently as April 10, 1968, in its communication to the employees (exhibit U-2), Respondent reminded them that the Plant Rules and Policies of March 22, 1966 (embodying the Plant Committee system) was their written understanding with the company for mutually meeting and solving questions and problems In its communications (note 17, supra), Respondent has also demonstrated to its employees its hostility to independent union organization, and (G.C Exh. 7) that it would "Respondent claims in its brief that good labor relations exist in the plant because there has been no unfair labor practice complaint against Respondent heretofore, and because there was no evidence of employee bitterness or ill-will toward management It has been aptly suggested, in a like situation , that the appearance of amiability and of absence of hostility "did not indicate genuine industrial peace but rather an absence of genuine representation which permitted the employers a degree of freedom which is usually found when there is no bargaining representative in the picture " National Federation of Labor , Inc , 160 NLRB 961, 989, enfd N L R B v National Federation of Labor. Inc. 387 F 2d 352 (C A 5) "While the Act does not prohibit cooperation between management and a labor organization , on the contrary encourages it, Federal Mogul Corp v N L R B, 394 F 2d 915, (C A 6), contributions become unlawful support when management's activities undermine the integrity of the employees' freedom of choice and independence in dealing with the employer, Id . and particularly when the contributions are made to an employees' committee that is not free to run its internal affairs and conduct negotiations without managerial interference and domination, Id at 2336, citing with approval N L R B v H and H Plastics Mfg Co , 389 F 2d 678, (C A 6) In H and H Plastics , the Court listed factors similar to many enumerated in the instant case, including financial support , indicative of unlawful managerial interference with and domination of an employees' committee in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2), 389 F 2d at 680-681 "G C Exh 4 "Exhibits UI, U2, U3, R-l, GC-7 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD continue to recognize the Plant Committee as the employees' representative unless compelled to desist by law. Thus, Respondent by its dominance and interference with the administration,18 but continued recognition of the Plant Committee, has used it "as a means of thwarting the policy of collective bargaining by enabling the employer to induce adherence of employees to the [Plant Committee] in the mistaken belief that it was truly representative and afforded an agency for collective bargaining, and thus to prevent self-organization." N L R B v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines. 303 U S 261, 271 Accordingly, I find that in the six month period preceding the filing of the charge and in the period since, Respondent has, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, unlawfully assisted, interfered with the administration of, and dominated the Plant Committee, the labor organization purporting to represent, and recognized by Respondent as representing, its production and maintenance employees. N L R B v. Grand Foundries, Inc , 362 F 2d 702, 709 (C A 8), and see N L R B v. Chardon Telephone Co , 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) E The Representation Election and the Procedural Issue Respondent has contended that I ought not deal with, or make any findings on the merits of, the question of interference with the April 17, 1968, Board election results , rather, that I should decide that the Regional Director had no power to revoke his certification of the results of the election four months after he had overruled the objection of interference and certified the results of the election , and hence had no power to revive and refer the issue to me for hearing . (The chronology of events is set out in heading C, above ) However , the Board has made the procedural law for the case on this question by denying Respondent's appeal to set aside the Regional Director ' s revocation of the certification and holding that his action was proper, without prejudice to a further appeal by Respondent. The Board has further directed that any renewal of the attack on the Regional Director' s authority must await disposition of the unfair labor practice case Board Order, November 4, 1968 (G C Exh. I (k)). I therefore will not deal with the procedural issue, though I note in passing that Respondent may have overlooked the reach of the Regional Director's authority, as the delegate of the Board, to make post-election investigation independently and regardless of the time limitations on the parties for filing objections or whether the matters investigated were included in the objections, N L R B v Realist , Inc , 328 F 2d 840, 843 (C A. 7), cert. denied 377 U.S 994, and of his authority to police certifications , by recall if necessary , when circumstances are brought to his attention that would have caused him to refuse certification in the first instance , National Federation of Labor, Inc, supra , 160 NLRB 961, 989, enfd N L R B v. National Federation of Labor, Inc , 387 "In determining that Respondent 's conduct has constituted interference with, or domination of, or unlawful assistance to, a labor organization in violation of Sec 8(a)(l) and (2) of the Act, the test "is not whether each individual fact is a violation, but whether the facts taken together" justify the conclusion, N L R B v Thompson Rama Wooldridge , Inc, 305 F 2d 807, 810 (C A 7) F 2d 352 (C A.5)." On the merits, the gravamen of the Union's objection (No 4) to the results of the representation election was that Respondent created for its employees the impression of "continued recognition" to the Plant Committee as bargaining representative of the employees. The Union's recital of the committee meetings during the preelection period were symptomatic but hardly the total evidence of the impression conveyed. The evidence of the actual, though not formal, recognition has been summarized and analyzed under the preceding headings. The Union's objection was well taken Moreover the election was tainted not only for the reason alleged by the Union but also by reason of Respondent's more encompassing violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) N L R B v Fashion Fair, Inc . 399 F 2d 764 (C.A 6), N L R B v Tennessee Packers, Inc , 379 F 2d 172, 179 (C.A 6), cert denied 389 U S. 958, Weather Seal Inc , 161 NLRB 1226, 1229 That the Plant Committee was not listed on the election ballot made it no less a factor in the ultimate result I find that the existence of the company dominated and company assisted labor organization, the Plant Committee, and Respondent's according it continued recognition as the bargaining representative of its employees, interfered with and made impossible the holding of a fair representation election among Respondent's employees on April 17, 1968 In my view, the results of that election should be set aside, and I would so recommend to the Regional Director upon severance and return of the representation case to him III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the "It was part of Respondent's contention that the Regional Director's postelection actions, in revoking his certification and referring the reopened issue for hearing , were destructive of the consent-election procedural design for speedy resolution of representation questions In this connection I have also taken note of N L R B v Chelsea Clock Co . 411 F 2d 189 (C A 1), just released as this decision was going to print The court held that the Regional Director had abdicated the authority vested in him by the parties to finally resolve an objection to the results of a consent election, by referring the objection for hearing to a Trial Examiner in consolidation with a related unfair labor practice case The court was of the opinion that the reference for hearing and consolidation violated the purpose of the consent-election procedure to obtain a speedy result from the Regional Director, and found that the Regional Director's delay of more than four months before acting on the severed representation case after it was returned to him , apparently awaiting the Board ' s affirmance of the Trial Examiner's decision in the complaint case, was evidence of the abandonment of the decision making by the Regional Director Without commenting on the merits of the decision , it may be observed that the Court held that there was nothing improper per se in the Regional Director delegating for hearing the objection to the election results, and said that it was not holding that consolidation may never be employed in a consent election context In the representation case before me, the agreement for the consent election (G C Exh l (b)) preserves for the Regional Director , particularly in paragraph 6, complete and final discretion on the method of investigation of objections to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election , including the question of whether a hearing should be held In the circumstances, taking into account that the reference and consolidation by the Regional Director in the present cases is within his apparent authority under the consent agreement and under his broad postelection authority to investigate , and to police election certifications, and that the Board has initially approved his postelection action and postponed any attack upon it until the complaint case has been disposed of, I remain of the view that I should not pass upon the procedural issue REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. 65 Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relations to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing the free flow thereof IV THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act In particular, I shall recommend the disestablishment of the employer dominated labor organization as "the only effective way of wiping the slate clean and affording the employees an opportunity to start afresh in organizing for the adjustment of their relations with the employer" N L R B v Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co , 308 U.S 241, 250, N L R B v Southern Bell Telephone Co , supra, 319 U.S 50, 57, Carpenter Steel Co , 76 NLRB 670, 673. Also, "because Respondent's unfair labor practices strike at the very roots of employees' rights safeguarded by the Act," St Joseph Lead Company, 171 NLRB No. 74, fn 1 (1968),20 I shall recommend a broad cease-and-desist order Concerning the representation case, RC-9980, having found that Respondent's unfair labor practices interfered with the results of the election of April 17, 1968, and having recommended that the results of the election be set aside, I shall further recommend that, in accordance with the order for consolidation, the representation case be severed from the complaint case and returned to the Regional Director for disposition Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following Plant Committee or any other labor organization of its employees (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, 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 recognized in Section 7 and authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from, and completely disestablish the Plant Committee as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent in respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, provided, that this action shall not be interpreted as requiring Respondent to vary wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive features of its employees' working conditions already established (b) Post at Respondent's plant in Holden, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."21 Immediately upon receipt of the copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region I (Boston, Massachusetts), the Respondent shall cause the copies to be signed by one of its authorized representatives and posted, the posted copies to M maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Case I-RC-9980 be severed from this proceeding and returned for disposition to the Regional Director for Region I CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act The Union and the Plant Committee are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2 By dominating, interfering with the administration of, and unlawfully assisting the Plant Committee, to whom it has accorded recognition as bargaining agent of its employees, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3 By engaging in said unfair labor practices the Respondent has interfered with the results of the representation election of April 17, 1968 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Dominating, contributing financial or other assistance to, or interfering with the administration of, the "Likewise based on findings of Sec 8 (a)(2) and ( 1) domination of, and unlawful assistance to, a labor organization "In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is enforced in 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 " "In the event that this Recommended Order is 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, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that After a trial, in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the Act, and has told us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we are committed to do. WE WILL NOT dominate, contribute financial or other assistance to, or interfere with the administration of, the Plant Committee or any other labor organization. 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE HEREBY withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the Plant Committee as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or other conditions of employment However, we will not interpret this action as requiring us to vary your wages, hours, seniority , or other substantive features of your working conditions already established. You are all free to become or remain members of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , or to refrain from doing so, except as your right might be affected by a contract validly made under the National Labor Relations Act with a labor organization , whereby membership in the labor organization is a condition of employment after the 30th day following the date of the contract or the beginning of the individual's employment, whichever is later Dated By REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. SUBSIDIARY OF UTD CORPORATION (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 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 If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3300.