Bernard Gloeckler North East Co.

626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bernard Gloeckler North East Co. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America , UAW. Case 6-CA-6496 April 30, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On April 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge James V. Constantine issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Re- spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. In brief, the facts are that on October 25, 1972, an independent labor organization known as Employee Representatives (ER) voted to affiliate with the United Auto Workers as Local 1461. The Administrative Law Judge found, and the record amply supports his find- ing, that in all respects the affiliation vote was proper and comported with the standards required by the Board.' Shortly after the October 25 meeting, the of- ficers of ER gave the Respondent written notice of the vote. This notice also informed the Respondent that an existing collective-bargaining agreement between Re- spondent and ER would be honored and that there would be no change in union officers or in the daily relationship between the parties. At a November 9, 1972, meeting with ER and there- after by posted notice the Respondent refused to recog- nize the affiliation of ER with the UAW. The Respond- ent made it clear that it would recognize only ER as the bargaining agent of the employees. The UAW reacted to Respondent's refusal to recog- nize the affiliation of ER as Local 1461, UAW, with a written protest averring that by its conduct Respondent was committing an unfair labor practice. Despite this protest, the Respondent thereafter in all meetings be- tween management and officers of the affiliated local refused to conduct any business or to process any griev- ances until the union officer or officers answered the question, "Whom do you represent, the employees un- der the present contract or the UAW?" As one officer I i In this regard all employees in the unit were invited to the October 25, 1972, affiliation meeting either by letter or by posted notice. See the dissent of Member Jenkins in North Electric Company, 165 NLRB 942, 943 (1967). testified, "in order to conduct our business," the offic- ers replied that they represented the employees under their existing contract with ER. Finally, at several meetings between management and ER in February 1973 the record indicates that Respondent replied to complaints about the "uneasi- ness" and "stress" caused by supervisors asking union officers whom they represented by informing em- ployees that it would like to see things return to the way they were before the employees voted to affiliate with the UAW. Respondent's general manager, William Lewis, also stated that he "wanted another chance with the employees" and that he thought a better contract could be negotiated so that the men would not have to go through the UAW for more favorable working con- ditions. Thereafter, on February 24, 1973, employees voted in favor of a motion to disaffiliate from the UAW. Respondent was notified on March 6, 1973, that the employees had voted to disaffiliate and that hence- forth they wanted to negotiate through the Bernard Gloeckler Committee, said committee being identical to the former ER. On this record the Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to recognize the UAW local. He concluded, however, that no order was neces- sary to remedy this unlawful conduct because the Feb- ruary 24 disaffiliation vote was proper and the UAW was lawfully succeeded by ER as of that date. In support of this conclusion the Administrative Law Judge asserted that the conduct of the local's offic- ers in stating that they represented employees under their existing contract with ER rather than the UAW and thereafter in initiating the February 24 disaffilia- tion vote, was "free and voluntary." We disagree. The record evidence plainly demonstrates that Re- spondent not only unlawfully refused to recognize Lo- cal 1461, UAW, on November 9, 1972, but thereafter embarked on an unlawful campaign' aimed at under- cutting the allegiance of its employees to Local 1461 and reversing the results of the October 25 election. As shown by the record, Respondent made it clear to em- ployees that it rejected the affiliation vote, would not recognize the local, and would not process grievances or handle any other labor relations matters with em- ployee representatives who identified themselves with the UAW. Having inculcated an attitude of futility 2 Our dissenting colleague responds to our discussion of the record evi- dence with the comment that the complaint does not allege such an unlawful campaign by Respondent. Obviously this begs the question The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recog- nize and bargain with Local 1461, UAW, and further alleges that Respond- ent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by bypassing Local 1461 and dealing directly with employees, and these allegations place in issue the lawfulness of Respondent's conduct on which its nonrecognition of the Union was based or maintained The record evidence as outlined above substantiates both allegations. 217 NLRB No. 104 BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO. - concerning the affiliation with the UAW, the Respond- ent held out the inducement of a better contract and improved working conditions if employees formally disavowed the UAW. Under these circumstances one could hardly characterize the February disaffiliation vote as a "free and voluntary" expression of employee sentiment. Although our dissenting colleague adopts the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety , he does not rely on the Administrative Law Judge's rationale . Rather he asserts that the UAW "originated the idea of a change in affiliation . . . [and] stage managed the en- tire procedure" thereby "raiding" the independent union. Furthermore, our colleague contends that the independent labor organization continued its existence as a separate entity that administered its existing con- tract and represented employees in grievance matters. Accordingly, our colleague concludes that the UAW "affiliate" is not the same union as ER under a different name and is not entitled to recognition as bargaining representative of Respondent's employees.' The short answer to our colleague's contention that the UAW "stage managed" the affiliation vote and "raided" the ER is that the evidence of any such UAW conduct is nonexistent. At most the record reveals that the UAW explained to committee members of ER what an affiliation vote would entail, thereafter leaving it entirely up to the committee members of ER and to Respondent's employees to make their own decision about their representation . As the Administrative Law Judge found, at no time did UAW Representative Cas- sesa act improperly, exceed permissible limits, or exert undue influence on committeemen or on employees generally.' As for the contention that ER retained its separate identity despite the October affiliation vote, this record fully supports a finding that if the facade of ER as a "viable" labor organization was maintained after the October election , it was maintained not by 3 Our colleague also intimates that the affiliation vote was a nullity be- cause of alleged irregularities in the manner in which the vote was con- ducted. It is worth noting that his description of the circumstances immedi- ately surrounding the October 25 vote and these alleged improprieties is drawn largely from the testimony of employee Ralph Neal, testimony that was specifically discredited by the-Administrative Law Judge '3 East Dayton Tool & Die Company, 190 NLRB 577 (1971), The Hamil- ton Tool Company, 190 NLRB 571 (1971), and News-Press Publishing Company, 145 NLRB 803 (1964), all of which are cited in our colleague's dissenting decision in connection with the contention that the UAW's con- duct constituted a "raid" on the independent ER, should be carefully exam- ined In fact these cases demonstrate the speciousness of our colleague's reasoning. Thus in both East Dayton Tool and Hamilton Tool the Board concluded that frequent contact and consultation between the international union and the independent labor organization pnor to the affiliation vote was not only understandable but proper. In News-Press, on the other hand, not only was there improper notice of the affiliation meeting, but the meet- ing itself was apparently conducted by the petitioning union's attorney and attended by a minority of employees who were given no opportunity to discuss the matter of affiliation pnor to voting on it. 627 employees but by a Respondent determined that it would not bargain with an affiliated local. Accordingly, we find that Respondent violated- Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) precisely as alleged in the com- plaint, that is, by refusing , on November 9, 1972, and thereafter, to recognize and bargain with Local 1461, UAW, as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative of its production and maintenance employees, and by dealing directly with such employees about their terms and conditions of employment ,at a time when they were represented by the aforementioned affiliate of the International Union , United Automobile, Aero- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. UAW, its Local 1461, and Employee Representa- tives are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 2(2) and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Respondent's North East, Pennsylvania, facility, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since on and after October 25, 1972, Local 1461, UAW, has represented the employees in said unit by reason of a valid affiliation vote of a majority of the employees voting in said unit, and Respondent has been since such date and is now legally obligated to -recog- nize and bargain collectively with said labor organiza- tion as such representative. 5. By failing and refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with said labor organization since on and after November 9, 1972, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice prohibited by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. Since February 1973, Respondent has bypassed Local 1461, UAW, and dealt directly with employees in the appropriate unit with respect to their terms and conditions of employment notwithstanding the fact that since November 9, 1972, Local 1461, UAW, was the duly designed collective-bargaining representative of its employees, and by such conduct has engaged in an unfair labor practice prohibited by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Bernard Gloeckler North East Co., North East, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 1461, UAW, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit found appropriate herein. (b) Dealing directly with employees in the unit of production and maintenance employees found appro- priate herein with respect to their terms and conditions of employment. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 1461, UAW, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit, and em- body any understanding reached in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its premises in North East, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- with. MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting: The Administrative Law Judge recommended dis- missing the complaint in its entirety. I agree with this recommendation, but would not adopt his supporting rationale. Instead, I would rely on the following: In January 1972, Local 1461, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Im- plement _ Workers of America, UAW, hereinafter UAW, filed a petition with the Board seeking to repre- sent Relspondent's production and maintenance em- ployees. The Regional Director dismissed the petition upon the ground that an existing collective-bargaining contract between Respondent and Employee Represen- tatives, hereinafter ER, was a bar. In February 1972, 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of-Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." the UAW filed unfair labor practice charges against Respondent alleging that Respondent had dominated, assisted, and interfered in the administration of ER in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. The Regional Director found no merit in the charges and refused to issue a complaint based thereon. His ruling was upheld on appeal to the General Counsel. With the representation petition and unfair labor practice charges dismissed, Dominic Cassesa, an Inter- national representative of the UAW, suggested to offic- ers of ER that the latter organization go the "affiliation route" to secure the supplanting of ER by the UAW. He informed them, however, that all members of the executive committee of ER had to be in favor of affilia- tion. Since Forsell, the president of ER, was opposed to affiliation, Cassesa told the committee members that he was "leaving it up to them" as to how to get rid of Forsell, either by resignation or voting him out of of- fice. Thereupon, Gene Platt, a committee member, cir- culated a petition among Respondent's employees re- questing that Forsell resign as president of ER. Upon presentation of the signed petition, Forsell resigned and was succeeded as president by Ralph Neal, a committee member who favored affiliation with the UAW. When Cassesa learned of Forsell's resignation, he told an em- ployee that he had a "scheme" and that employees could proceed with affiliation. In September and Octo- ber 1972, Cassesa held meetings with executive com- mittee members of ER at which the necessary steps for affiliation were discussed and decided- upon. The UAW, through Cassesa, provided the affiliation resolu- tion, the notice of a meeting to vote on the resolution, envelopes and stamps for mailing of the notices, and the rented hall at the Rod and Gun Club at which the vote was to be taken. Cassesa also arranged to receive a written invitation to attend the affiliation meeting.' The affiliation vote at the Rod and Gun Club hall was held on October 25, 1972. Cassesa attended the meeting accompanied by two other UAW representa- tives. The affiliation vote was conducted in the follow- ing manner. Individuals entering the club signed in on a sheet of paper tendered to them by Executive Com- mittee Member Sherman Tanner and entered one room. After some discussion of the affiliation resolu- tion, employees lined up and were permitted three or four at a time to enter a kitchen where they were to vote. Three officers of ER who favored affiliation checked on individuals entering. Inside the kitchen there was an' ' V' shaped counter about 12 feet long on which there were several pencils for use in marking 6 According to Ralph Neal, a committee member, Cassesa told the com- mittee that he would have to receive a written invitation signed by the committee in order to attend the affiliation meeting Asked how the invita- tion was conveyed to Cassesa, Neal replied, "Well, the first time I saw it, he took it out of his coat pocket and gave it to us. We signed it and gave it back to him " BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO. ballots. The employees marked their ballots at the open counter. Employees testified that from three to six in- dividuals were milling around the kitchen as the mark- ing of the ballots proceeded, and one employee stated that he watched another employee vote. The ballot box was located on the short end of the "L" and was at- tended by three men chosen by Neal. After the ballots were dropped in the ballot box, the box was brought into the meeting room where the men were assembled and the votes were counted. The vote was 49 for affilia- tion with the UAW and 19 against. After the ballot results were announced, Cassesa gave Neal a letter to be sent to Respondent announcing the result of the affiliation vote. The letter to Respond- ent General Manager William Lewis stated that the name of ER had been changed to Local 1461, UAW, that the officers of ER would remain in the same posi- tions with Local 1461, and that the contractual com- mitments of ER would be honored. On or about November 9, 1972, at a meeting with the executive committee of ER, Lewis handed them a letter stating that Respondent did not recognize the affiliation of ER with the UAW, and that "It is our intention to continue to recognize the Employee Representatives as a sepa- rate independent union, as the exclusive bargaining agent of our employees, in accordance with the labor contract effective March 1, 1971." Grant Tanner, a committee member, expressed agreement with Respon- dent's position. Neal replied, "Okay, let's go on with the meeting.` Notwithstanding the affiliation vote ER has func- ti oned in the same way as it did before that vote, proc- essing grievances, and administering its contract. Since the vote, Respondent has inquired of the representa- ti ves at each meeting with Respondent, "Whom do you represent, the employees under the present (Employee Respresentatives) contract or the UAW." The response was always that the committee represented ER under the current contract. On February 8, 1973, committee members Neal and Galt met with General Manager Lewis and Manager of Manufacturing Carl about a cost-of-living problem. Neal mentioned that there was uneasiness among em- ployees because committeemen were being asked whom they represented each time they dealt with Re- spondent. He stated that he wished ER would go back 7 The meeting was held at the executive committee's request and Respon- dent's position on the affiliation question (in view of its current contract with ER) drew only agreement from the committee members. I agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that UAW employee representa- tives had a positive obligation to state precisely what their representative capacity was on the occasion when this question was raised by the Respond- cut, and with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that their statement that they were not acting on behalf of the UAW could be relied on by Respondent. I further agree with the Administrative Law Judge that such inquiries by Respondent were not coercive. In my view, they were merely prudent and precautionary in the light of Respondent's then current con- tract with ER, an independent labor organization. 629 to meeing with Respondent as it had prior to the affilia- tion vote.' Galt agreed with this statement . Lewis said he could not express an opinion because of the law. In the latter part of February 1973, the employees held a disaffiliation meeting at which they voted 69 to 2 not to be affiliated with the UAW. The executive commit- tee informed Carl of this action. Respondent has consistently refused to recognize the UAW as representative of its employees and has con- tinued to recognize and bargain with ER as such repre- sentative. The UAW is seeking to accomplish in this 8(a)(5) proceeding what is usually sought in a motion to amend a certification during the term of a collective-bargain- ing contract. The standards to be applied in determin- ing the legality of Respondent's refusal to accept the change in affiliation are therefore no less strict than the standards applied in the motion cases.' In the Missouri Beef Packers case,10 the Board stated: As we have frequently held in the past, amend- ment of certification is not appropriate in those cases where a question concerning representation is presented. Amendment of certification, by and large, is intended to permit changes in the name of the representative, not a change in the representa- tive itself. Where, as here, there is no guaranty of continuity of representation and the certified labor organization is a functioning,, viable entity, and opposes amendment, it cannot be granted without doing violence to the purposes of the Act, which include the promotion of stability in labor-man- agement relations. The Board will deny a motion to amend a certificate to substitute one union for another where officials of the moving union have played such an active role in the movement to change affiliation as to constitute a "raid" on the certified union," the procedure used to achieve the change of affiliation did not provide adequate safe- guards for reflecting the desires of the employees, lZ and the union for which substitution is sought remains a viable, functioning labor organization.l3 Here the UAW not only originated the idea of a change in affiliation as as means of getting around the 8 The majority states that Respondent suggested that it would like to see things return to the way they were before the affiliation vote. This is inaccu- rate. Neal, the employee representative, made this statement 9 Universal Tool & Stamping Company, Inc, 182 NLRB 254 (1970). 10 Missouri Beef Packers, Inc, 175 NLRB 1100, 110,1 (1969). 11 See East Dayton Tool & Die Company, 190 NLRB 577 (1971), The Hamilton Tool Company, 190 NLRB 571 (1971); News-Press Publishing Company, 145 NLRB 803 (1964). 12 The Hamilton Tool Company, supra 13 The Hamilton Tool Company, supra, North Electric Company, 165 NLRB 942 (1967); Universal Tool & Stamping Company, supra; The Gas Service Company, 213 NLRB No. 123 (1974), Missouri Beef Packers, supra. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contract-bar rule, but it also stage managed the entire procedure even to the extent of supplying forms and postage.-Unquestionably the UAW's conduct was tan- tamount to a "raid" on the independent ER. Furthermore, the Administrative Law Judge found, and I agree with him, that "the Employee Representa- tives continued not only to exist, but to function, fol- lowing , the affiliation with the UAW . . . . [I]t proc- essed grievances regularly for the employees, and, shortly before the contract with Respondent expired, entered into negotiations with Respondent for a new collective-bargaining contract. Patently this labor or- ganization under such circumstances may not be de- scribed as defunct." The Administrative Law Judge further found, and again I agree with him, that no coercion or undue influence accompanied Respon- dent's repeated inquiry to the ER committee members as to whom they represented "so that the reply of the committee reflected a free and voluntary act." For these reasons, it cannot be said that the UAW is the same union as ER under a different name and entitled to administer the existing collective-bargaining contract. At best the UAW is a new labor organization seeking to supplant the the incumbent ER at a time when the Board's contract-bar rules preclude an elec- tion to determine a bargaining representative. Accord- ingly, I would find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recog- nize the UAW as bargaining representative of -its em- ployees and by continuing to recognize ER as such representative. The majority state that Respondent embarked on an unlawful campaign aimed at undercutting the alle- giance of its employees to the UAW and in pursuance thereof held out the inducement of a better contract and better working conditions if employees formally disavowed the UAW. The complaint contains no such allegation; it is therefore improper to make such a find- ing. Nor does the complaint allege unlawful domina- tion of, or assistance to, ER. Moreover, in refusing to recognize and deal with the UAW, Respondent acted within its right to test the legality of UAW's conduct and the validity of ER's alleged affiliation with UAW. That legality does not turn on the disaffiliation vote of February 9, but on the entire course of conduct from the steps leading to the affiliation vote to the continued viability of ER. I would not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's rationale that the affiliation vote was valid, and that its effect was undone by the subsequent disaffiliation which was also valid. Instead, I would find that in all the circumstances the affiliation vote did not_ require Respondent to recognize the UAW as the alter ego of ER. On this ground, I would dismiss the complaint. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively con- cerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Local 1461, UAW, as the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT deal directly with employees in the unit of production and maintenance employees with respect to their terms and conditions of em- ployment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 1461, UAW, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar- gaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at our North East, Pennsylvania, facility; excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST Co DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Administrative Law Judge: This unfair labor practice case was litigated under the provisions of Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. 29 USC § 160(b). It was commenced by a complaint issued on October 30, 1973, by the General Coun- sel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called Board, through the Acting Regional Director for Region 6. It names Bernard Gloeckler North East Co. as the Respond- ent. That complaint is derived from a charge filed on January 8, 1973, by International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, herein called UAW, against Respondent. In substance said complaint alleges that Respondent vi- olated Section 8(a)(1) and (5), and that such conduct affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7), of the BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO. Act. Respondent has answered admitting some allegations of the complaint but denying that it committed any unfair labor practices. Motions of Respondent at the tnal_to dismiss cer- tain allegations of the complaint were denied. Briefs have been received from Respondent and the General Counsel. This case presents the following issues: 1. Whether Local 1461, UAW, was validly designated by the employees on October 25, 1972, as the successor to Em- ployee Representatives (sometimes also called the Em- ployees' Association), the latter a labor organization which Respondent has recognized since 1965 as the representatives of certain of its employees. 2. Whether the employees mentioned in the preceding paragraph constitute an appropriate unit for purposes of col- lective bargaining. 3. Whether since October 25, 1972, Respondent has been obliged to recognize and bargain with Local 1461, UAW, as the representative of said employees for purposes of collective bargaining without an election to determine whether Local 1461 enjoys a majority. 4. Whether said Employee Representatives still represents the employees in the unit mentioned above. 5. Whether Respondent after October 25, 1972, validly bargained collectively with said Employee Representatives. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I AS TO JURISDICTION Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged at North East, Pennsylvania, in manufacturing steel fabrica- tions. During the year preceding the issuance of the com- plaint herein it shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to, and purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from, points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I find that Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 2(2), and is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED UAW, its Local 1461, and Employee Representatives each is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. General Counsel's Case Dominic Cassesa is an International representative of the UAW. A conspectus of his testimony is set forth at this point. On January 12, 1972, he met with a group of Respondent's employees to discuss the UAW with them. On this occasion they all signed authorization cards. The next day he met with more of Respondent's employees, "and received [an] ade- quate amount of authorization cards, 1JAW." As a result of obtaining these cards he filed an RC petition with the Board, but this was dismissed (see Resp. Exh. 3) for the reason that a bar existed as a result of a contract between Respondent and another union, the Employees' Association. 631 Later, Cassesa was informed by employees that Forsell, president of the Employee Representatives and an opponent of the UAW, was no longer president of the former union, and requested by them "to see if anything could be done." Consequently- Cassesa held another meeting with Respon- dent's employees at-which he explained to them "the entire affiliation route." All the officers of the Employee Represen- tatives attended this meeting. Cassesa held still another meeting with Respondent's em- ployees at the Ramada Inn. When he informed them that affiliation "had to come from within them," they all informed him that they desired affiliation and for him to prepare the paper work to accomplish this. He then instructed them to arrange another meeting with him and to notify all employees in the unit of the time and place thereof and mail them a copy of the resolution. A few days later he met with them again at the same Inn and handed each of the employees a resolu- tion to affiliate which he had drafted. Employees later were notified to meet on October 25, 1972, at the North East Rod and Gun Club to vote on said resolu- tion to affiliate. Cassesa was invited in writing to attend this meeting by the officers of the Employee Representatives. {See G.C. Exh. 2.) Accompanied by another UAW International representative and the president of the Erie UAW local union, Cassesa attended said gathering on October 25. But he notified those present that although he could not take charge of the meeting because "it was their local union," he would answer questions put to him. Neal, president of the Employee Representatives, presided over the foregoing assemblage. After the affiliation resolution was discussed by the employees present Cassesa and his two UAW companions "retreated . . . to the corner" of the room and the balloting was conducted in another room by officers of the Employee Representatives Following said voting Cas- sesa made a short speech to those present and also instructed the officers of the Employee Representatives what written notice they should send to Respondent Such notice was so dispatched. But Respondent on November 9, 1972, wrote to said officers that it "does not recognize the affiliation of the Employee Representatives with the . . . U.A.W." (See G.C. Exh. 3.) This caused the UAW to write Respondent that the latter was committing an unfair labor practice by its said letter of November 9. (See G.C. Exh. 4.) Cassesa on behalf of UAW filed a charge and amended charge against Respondent claiming the latter's relation to the Employee Representatives contravened Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. (See Resp. Exhs. 1(a) and 1(b).) This was dismissed. (See Resp. Exh. 2(a).) UAW then appealed said dismissal, see Respondent's Exhibit 2(b), but it was denied. (See Resp. Exh. 2(c).) Another witness, Gilbert Lewis, gave testimony substan- tially as follows. He worked for Respondent until August 1973. While he was there a "committee" known as the Em- ployee Representatives was the labor organization represent- ing employees in the production and maintenance unit. In fact, there is "currently a contract between" said committee and Respondent, and Lewis was involved as vice president of the committee in the negotiations resulting in it. (See G.C. Exh. 5.) Lewis contacted the UAW to have it represent Respon- dent's employees. Not long after this he and some other 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees met with Cassesa. This led to the filing of an RC petition with the Board, but it was "turned down" for con- tract bar reasons. Because said petition was dismissed Lewis and some committee officers again met with Cassesa. The latter informed them of the procedure to follow to affiliate with the UAW. After this Lewis, some committee members, and all but one of the committee officers met again with Cassesa, this time at the Ramada Inn, and further discussed affiliation. A second meeting with Cassesa at the Ramada Inn caused the committee officers to sign a resolution, which Cassesa had prepared, to affiliate with the UAW. (See G.C. Exh. 6.) Said resolution, among other things, (a) designated the Employee Representatives, also known as the committee, as Local 1461 of the UAW; (b) stated that all assets of the committee and the committee's collective-bargaining agreement "be held un- der the name and style of Local 1461," UAW; (c) asserted that "related pension" and "insurance agreement" be held by "this organization under the name and style" of Local 1461, UAW, and "this organization" apply to UAW for a charter of affiliation; and (d) provided that "this organization con- tmue its relationship with [Respondent] as'the duly certified and recognized bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of said Company." Then a copy of said resolution and a notice (G.C. Exh. 7) of a meeting on October 25 to vote on it were mailed to all employees in the unit for whom the committee had addresses. Not all em- ployees were sent such notice and resolution because the addresses of a few were not known. In addition a copy of said resolution and said notice were posted on the wall next to the timeclock in the shop. Cassesa was also invited to attend said meeting of October 25 at the Rod and Gun Club. At said meeting of October 25 a question-and-answer period occurred in the Club's main room during which Cas- sesa answered some of the questions. Following this, a motion to vote on affiliation was carried. Those employees present voted in the kitchen area of the club where a ballot box and pencils were placed on the counter. See General Counsel's Exhibit 8 for a diagram of this arrangement. Employees then voted for or against affiliation with UAW. Ballots were handed to the voters as they entered the kitchen by two committemen. Each ballot consisted of a "little piece of paper off a tablet." Only three or four employees were permitted to enter the kitchen at a time, and each placed his ballot on a table to mark it. There were no voting booths, so that em- ployees voted in the presence of each other but a few feet away from each other. Then each voter placed his ballot in the ballot box. When the balloting was concluded the tellers asserted that the number of ballots corresponded with the number of those present at the meeting. A count established that "forty some" were for, and 15 or 16 against, affiliation. Then Cassesa, who did not at any time enter the kitchen, congratulated them on their affiliation and suggested that Respondent be notified in writing of the action voted for, i.e., to affiliate with UAW as Local 1461, UAW. Such notice was sent to Respondent. (See G.C. Exh. 9.) The notice also informed Respondent that the name of "the union has been changed," that "all officers and functional leaders remain the same," and requested Respond- ent to "note for your records the change in the name of the contracting union." Respondent replied in writing that it recognized only the Employee Representatives, i.e., the com- mittee, and that it would not recognize the affiliation of said committee with UAW. (See G. C.'Exh. 3.) Thereafter Respondent met with representatives of the em- ployees on "a grievance or anything" but the officers of Local 1461, in response to questions from Respondent on such occasions, stated they were appearing "through the men in the shop" and not the UAW because they felt otherwise they "could not get anywhere with it." At a grievance meeting held in February 1973 with "the committee," Respondent stated that it thought it "had failed with the men in the shop, and . . . wanted another chance with them . . . that [the men] wouldn't have to go into the International Union for" better working conditions. Finally, at that February meeting Respondent stated it thought it could negotiate a better con- tract so that the men would not have to go "through [UAW] to get everything." Another committeeman of the Employee Representatives is Sherman Tanner, who worked for Respondent as a spray painter until March 1973. An adequate condensation of his testimony follows. He attended the first meeting at the Ramada Inn at which Cassesa was present. On said occasion, "we talked about the affiliation and how to go about it." He also went to the second meeting at said Ramada Inn when "the resolution" and the notice of another meeting on Octo- ber 25, 1972, were adopted. In addition he posted a copy of said notice and resolution on the bulletin board in the build- ing where he was employed, which was a different building from that in which Gilbert Lewis worked. Tanner went to the meeting_ at the Rod and Gun Club on said October 25. One of his duties there was to see that Respondent's employees entering the Club each signed as they came in. General Counsel's Exhibit 10 which was so signed discloses 63 signatures. A motion to vote on the resolu- tion to affiliate was carried and then voting was conducted. Three voted at a time standing 3 to 5 feet apart at the counter in the kitchen of the Club. When the votes were counted about 14 were against affiliation and 49, the remainder, fa- vored it. Tanner also signed General Counsel's -Exhibit 9 informing Respondent of the affiliation with UAW. In November 1972, Tanner attended a grievance meeting with Respondent. At it Respondent made about the same comments uttered at a March 1973 grievance meeting de- scribed above by Gilbert Lewis. The recording secretary of Employee Representatives is Ted McQuiston. A synopsis of his testimony ensues. He went to the October 25, 1972, meeting on the question of affiliation with UAW described above. One of his duties there was to require each employee coming in to sign General Counsel's Exhibit 10 , and to make sure that anyone on that list voted only once. Additionally he made notes of what took place at the meeting. (See G. C..Exh. 11.) According to his notes 48 voted for, and 15 opposed, affiliation. On November 9, 1972, he and other officers of the Em- ployee Representatives were told by Respondent that the latter would not recognize the UAW as the bargaining agent of the employees. No employee at any time claimed that he saw how any other employee voted on October 25, 1972; nor did any employee ever "protest the way the affiliation vote was run." BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO. McQuiston also described the way the voting was con- du cted. As each person entered the kitchen where voting took place, McQuiston made sure that such person's name was on General Counsel's Exhibit 10. Then after such person voted, McQuiston saw to it that the former left the kitchen by another door to enter the foyer. From the foyer a voter reen- tered the main room where the meeting was being held. In his opinion no employee signed General Counsel's Exhibit 10 twice or voted more than once. Another member of the Employee Representatives and also an employee of Respondent is Charles Galt. A sufficient summary of his testimony is narrated at this point. Formerly he was treasurer, but when he testified he was president of said Employee Representatives, also known as "the commit- tee." About November 9, 1972, he attended a grievance meet- ing between Respondent and said committee. At said meeting Respondent's General Manager read to the group a letter (see G.C. Exh. 3) asserting that Respondent would not recognize the affiliation with UAW. Then he asked those present whether they were representing the UAW or the Employee Representatives. According to Galt they replied that "we would represent the employees," but they, in his opinion, so replied "in order to conduct our business." Thereupon griev- ances were taken up and "questions [were] answered at that time.", Galt also was present at a meeting between officers of the Employee Representatives, or "the committee," and Re- spondent in February 1973. It was requested by the commit- tee. This was held because some of the committee's officers discovered that they "were in error" in "discussing the cost of living" provision in the collective-bargaining contract. At the meeting committeeman Neal stated he "would like to see things back to normal, the way they had been at previous time." Respondent agreed "because the shop was in a state of uproar at the time," according to Respondent. At the foregoing meeting of November 9 Respondent's General Manager William Lewis stated that he felt "responsi- ble for the condition which existed at that time, and would like a chance to correct said condition." Respondent also "asked for a chance to go back and try to work together with the committee and . .. wanted us to give [it] that chance." Finally, it was decided that the committee "would see what the employees themselves thought about going back to bar- gain with the company as the [Employee] Representatives, rather than the UAW." In addition to the evidence of the foregoing witnesses there was evidence, adduced by Respondent's cross-examination, that the officers of the Employee Representatives were se- lected by some method other than balloting at an election. B. Respondent 's Defense Respondent's vice president and general manager, William L. Lewis, gave testimony substantially as follows. The Em- ployee Representatives was formed in late 1965 or early 1966. Since then said committee has continuously had a collective- bargaining contract with Respondent. In January 1972, he "became aware that the UAW was active in the plant" when Respondent received a letter from UAW. Lewis "first ... became aware of the affiliation" when, about October-10, 1972, he "learned of the election 633 being posted up on the bulletin boards" in the Company's two plants. These he caused to be removed from said boards. He "became aware of the outcome of the meeting of October 25th" when he received a letter about October 27 to that effect and which also was accompanied by a "resolution copy." See General Counsel's Exhibit 9 for the letter and General Counsel's Exhibit 6 for the copy of the resolution. Also he observed copies of General Counsel's Exhibits 9 and 6 on Respondent's bulletin boards. These, too, he had removed from the boards, because no permission had been obtained to post them. At the request of the committee, Lewis met with it about November 9, 1972. After reading a letter (G.C. Exh. 3) to them which in part insists that Respondent "does not recog- nize the affiliation with the Local 1461 of the UAW . . . and does recognize the Employee Committee as the sole bargain- ing agent," committee member Grant Tanner said, "I agree with the company's stand." Lewis also distributed a copy of said letter to committee members present. Then "the different grievances" were processed because Neal said, "O.K. Well then let's go on." On February 8, 1973, Lewis met with the officers of the committee at their request "regarding the cost of living" which it "wanted further to investigate" with the Company. Lewis asked those appearing for the committee whether they "represented the employees, in accordance to the present contract, or the employees, in affiliated ,with the UAW." Neal, a committee officer, replied, "The employees in accord- ance with the present contract." Another committee officer, Galt, rendered the same answer. Following this there was extensive talk concerning the cost-of-living index, which con- cluded with a solution acceptable to both sides. Then Neal mentioned, at the above meeting of February 8, that an "uneasiness" in the shop was "creating a great deal of stress for the employee group," caused by supervisors ask- ing the committee officers whom they represented. Continu- ing, Neal added that he wished the officers of the committee "could go back to meeting with management as they did prior to the affiliation." When Lewis asked Galt how the latter felt about this, Galt replied "exactly what Neal said." Thereupon Lewis said that, "because of the law in this case," he could not offer an opinion, but he could promise to "do whatever is possible, that I can do, under the present contract." After taking up two other matters, the meeting ended. In February 1973, Lewis met with said committee officers at their request. Again Lewis asked them whether they "represent the employees affiliated with the UAW, or the employees in accordance with the present contract." They "all said ... we represent the employees in accordance with the present contract." Grievances, "the possibility of plant seniority," and merit increases were brought up. Then Galt or Neal raised the question of "withdrawing the ... affilia- tion vote with the UAW," and also propounded the question of negotiating a new contract. Lewis mentioned he "would be more than welcome to negotiate a new contract." On March 6, 1973, Lewis received a letter from the com- mAtee informing him that upon a vote "by secret ballot" the employees decided "to work with the Company as the Ber- nard Gloeckler Committee and further persue [sic] a fair negotiation for our next contract." (See Resp. Exh. 6.) Al- though said Bernard Gloeckler Committee, according to 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lewis, is "very different" from the Employee Representa- tives, Ralph Neal nevetheless told Lewis that said committee was identical to the Employee Representatives . Thereafter, and until September, Lewis met sometimes with said commit- tee on "grievance procedures." In September 1973, at the request of Lewis the officers of the employee committee met with him to take up the provi- sions of a new collective-bargaining contract . At this and subsequent meetings on this same subject, as well as on other occasions since October 25 , 1972, the said officers of the committee stated they were representing the employees "un- der the present contract and not the UAW." But at no time since October 25 , 1972, did they say they were representing the UAW or Local 1461 when presenting grievances , or dis- cussing a new contract or "negotiating any matter" with Respondent . However, until about March 6 , 1973, when Lewis received Respondent's Exhibit 6, which he referred to as-the "disaffiliation" letter, his supervisors , at his direction, and he "every time we met with the committeemen , regarding whatever circumstances it was, he was asked who [sic] he represents . . . ." This was asked because Respondent "hadn't recognized the affiliation with the UAW." But he instructed his supervisors not to ask said question after re- ceiving said letter; and he also never personally posed such question after said March 6. Respondent also called upon Dominic Cassesa, who had previously given testimony as a witness for the General Coun- sel, to testify for it. In this capacity he testified substantially as follows. He serves Erie, Pennsylvania , as part of his duties as an International representative in Region Two of the UAW, with headquarters in Cleveland , Ohio. Among other things, he answered questions indicating that he had a num- ber of meetings with officers of Employee Representatives before the affiliation vote taken on October 25, 1972. Further, he at first told Tanner, who told him "they needed help," that Cassesa could do nothing "because of a contract bar," and that "affiliation would be impossible based upon the President of their local, Forsell , not accepting the UAW." Later, when Tanner informed Cassesa that Ralph Neal suc- ceeded Forsell as such president, Cassesa "mentioned then we have a scheme, and then we can proceed with the affilia- tion."- Cassesa also told Respondent's employees that "during the organizing drive" and in the affiliation campaign dues re- mained the same as "they were presently paying"; that they would continue to pay such dues "until we were successful in negotiating a new agreement for them"; and that initiation fees in UAW were waived for present employees and those hired "up until we secured the new agreement." No em- ployees signed UAW membership cards during the affiliation drive. At the October 25 , 1972, meeting of Employee Representa- tives, which Cassesa attended by reason of being invited thereto, he did not address the employees present, but he answered some questions from them . General Counsel's Ex- hibit 9, the letter informing Respondent of the affiliation with UAW, was copied in substance out of the UAW organizing handbook. Cassesa "instructed the Committee to send [it] to the Company, along with the resolution." It was not typed by anyone in Cassesa's office. He also told the officers of the Employee Representatives on October 25 that he "wanted a free discussion . . . and to read the resolution" at the meeting on that date. - Respondent's plant engineer is Ivan Schoenfeldt. He testi- fied substantially as follows. Some of his duties entail resolv- ing disputes and processing grievances of maintenance men whom he supervised. In performing such tasks between Octo- ber 25, 1972, and "sometime in March 1973," he asked "the representatives of the employees prior to processing griev- ances if they . . . brought the grievance as representatives of the . . . Company [sic] or the UAW . . of the employees . . . under the present company contract, or the UAW" on each occasion. They always responded "the employees under the present company contract." No one at'any time said that they were representing the UAW. Edward Sayban, Respondent's plant manager, and a for- mer president of the Employee Representatives, testified that in processing grievances between October 25, 1972, and "sometime in March 1973," he asked "the employees who came to him with grievances" whom they represented; that they always responded that they "represented the employees under the present contract"; that no one ever told him during this period that he represented or was an agent of the UAW; and that after said October 25 "the Employee Representa- tives Committee conducted themselves in a manner similar to the manner which they did prior to October 25th, 1972 " Another witness for Respondent, Dale Carll, its manager of manufacturing, testified for it. His testimony may be con- cisely stated as follows. Whatever employee representatives came to him on grievances or matters concerning the contract after October 25, 1972, he asked them whether they repre- sented "the employees' representatives ... under their pres- ent contract, or the employees who are affiliated with the UAW." They always replied, "the employees' representatives under the present contract." No one ever claimed he was "presenting [sic] an affiliate of the UAW." He attended a meeting with employee representatives on or about February 8, 1973, at which the cost-of-living index arose and was resolved. At that event Ralph Neal, one of the employee representatives present, complained "about the un- easiness in the plant because the question was always asked" whether they represented the "employees under the present contract, or the employees affiliated with the UAW." Neal requested that "it go back to the old way . . . continue as they did in the past." Galt, an employee, representative in the group, said he agreed with Neal. General Manager Lewis replied that "by law he ... could not express his opinion." Neal also stated he wanted "to find out . . . what their [the employees'] feelings were" on this last matter. Carll also attended another meeting in February 1973, with the Employee Representatives. General Manager Lewis, who was present, asked the employee representatives whether they were acting for "employees under the present contract or the employees affiliated with the UAW." Galt replied, "the em- ployees under the present contract." At still another meeting in February 1973,- with employee representatives, Galt informed Carll that "at a meeting they had voted not to be affiliated with the UAW . . . 69 no and 2 yes." They also asserted that they wanted to negotiate "their next contract ... with Bill Lewis." The employee representatives asked Carll to so inform General Manager William Lewis, and he did so. But no one told him how the BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO. foregoing balloting was conducted; he was informed by them of nothing "other than the total" vote. A former president of the Employee Representatives Com- miittee, Richard Forsell, gave testimony in substance as fol- lows. While he served as'such president "UAW activities started in the plant." He was opposed to affiliating with the LAW and conveyed his said views to employees. When he later learned that the men felt he was not doing a very good job as such president he told them he would resign if more than 50 percent of them signed a "petition" to this effect. He did resign and was succeeded by Ralph Neal. Forsell went to the meeting on'October 25, 1972, at the Rod and Gun Club. He voted at a counter in the kitchen on the issue of affiliating with the UAW. There were "six or eight . . . everybody was just milling about the whole hall" when he voted. However, he "supposed there were six or eight people" in the voting room "at a time." But he was unable to state if anyone was near him while he voted. On cross-examination Forsell admitted he did not "see how any- one else voted," that no one told him of seeing how others voted, and that he was not sure there were 6 or 8 in the voting area at one time. Gene Platt, a maintenance man for Respondent and a com- mitteeman of the Employee Representatives, gave testimony essentially as follows. He, among others, "was trying to get a union in the shop, and . . . took it upon [himself], being on the committee," to circulate a petition "so that Dick Forsell would resign" as president of the above-mentioned commit- tee. This was because Forsell opposed the UAW which Platt and others wanted "to get . . . in the shop." In fact Cassesa had told Respondent's employees that without Forsell "it would be easier to proceed . . . to get the union in the plant"; and that they "all [on the Employee Representatives Committee] had to be in favor of" the UAW, with no one on the committee against it, if it was to get into the plant. At a meeting of the committee with Cassesa at Gilbert Lewis' home, which Platt attended, Forsell was discussed. But Platt was unable to recall how the "subject of Mr. Forsell came up" or what comments were made there concerning Forsell's opposition to the UAW. However, Cassesa did say to the group that he was "leaving it up to the [group] that [the group] should try to get [Forsell] to resign or vote him out, or what ever we had to do [to] eliminate him as .. . President." Another witness for Respondent was Grant Tanner. A summary of his testimony follows. He is a committeeman of the Employee Representatives, and he actively opposed af- filiation with the UAW. Ted McQuiston, who had previously given testimony for th e General Counsel, was also called as a witness by Respond- ent. A summary of his testimony for the latter follows. The Bernard Gloeckler Employees' Welfare Fund has a total of $1194, deposited in the First National Bank of Pennsylvania between September 22, 1972, when the account was opened and March 9, 1973. The committee has no other bank ac- counts or any other assets. The name in which said bank account was started has not been changed since October 25, 1972, nor has the Employee Representatives Committee taken any action to dissolve itself since said October 25; in fact, it is "still functioning" by processing grievances and negotiating a new contract with Respondent. 635 Continuing his testimony, Ted McQuiston stated that Re- spondent's "management and supervision [are] . . . still deal- ing with the Employee Representatives . . . they still recog- nize the Employee Representatives as the representative of the employees of' Respondent. He also said that in October 1972 Grant Tanner, a member of the committee, i.e., Em- ployee Representatives, was opposed to affiliating with the UAW. Tanner did not sign the resolution (G.C. Exh. 6) of the officers of said Employee Representatives to "take all steps necessary to accomplish" affiliation with the UAW because he was absent from the meeting at which it was proposed. However, although the other committee members signed said resolution, no vote was taken among committee mem- bers before the resolution- was adopted. Said resolution, together with notice of a meeting on October 25, was mailed "to the employees." Both were prepared by Cassesa. But no vote was taken among the employee members of said Em- ployee Representatives "to find out their desire" prior to October 25, 1972, although the resolution avers, among other things, that "it is the desire of the membership and officers" of such organization to affiliate with the UAW." Prior to mailing said resolution to the employees only those who signed it and Cassesa saw it. According to McQuiston, Cassesa told the officers of Em- ployee Representatives that if affiliation was consummated said organization would receive whatever was in the bank account of Local 1461, UAW, because the former "were going to be Local 1461." Such balance was about $500. In addition, Cassesa told them Employee Representatives would receive It filing cabinet and typewriter owned by Local 1461. Also, Cassea remarked prior to October 25 that UAW could not charge or collect dues until it had negotiated a new con- tract with Respondent even though the employees would become members of UAW the moment affiliation became "valid"; that an initiation fee to join UAW would be waived for those employees employed by Respondent on October 25, 1972; that the UAW strike fund was available to preventing a member from losing "his house or his car"; that it would be better if a new contract was negotiated for the employees "as soon as possible" as the current one "wasn't the best kind of contract to have . . it was a bad contract"; and that if after affiliation the employees were dissatisfied with UAW the latter "would withdraw" if the employees voted "how they felt." Cassesa supplied the notices concerning the October 25 meeting, the envelopes in which they were to be mailed, the postage to transmit them to employees, and the rent for the use of the Rod and Gun Club. However, the decision of the officers of the Employee Representatives to affiliate had been made before Cassesa mentioned anything about dues' waiver, initiation fees, filing cabinet, bank account, etc. On October 1, 1973, McQuiston submitted a register of all officers of the Employee Representatives to Respondent. (See Resp. Exh. 13.) It discloses that, among other things, he is the present secretary of Employee Representatives and that said organization has officers as there listed. Charles Galt, another of the General Counsel's witnesses, was also called to testify for Respondent. A summary of his testimony as Respondent's witness is related here. He became president of the Employee Representatives about May 7, 1973, succeeding Ralph Neal in this position. Previously, and 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during a period including October 25, 1972, Galt served as its treasurer. As treasurer he opened a bank account for said organization with money supplied by the employees of Re- spondent on a voluntary basis. No steps have been taken to dissolve said Employee Representatives, so that it is "still processing grievances" and "negotiating a successor agree- ment to the present contract." Galt signed General Counsel's Exhibit 6, the resolution to affiliate with UAW. Grant Tan- ner, another committeeman of said Employee Representa- tives, opposed such affiliation. Galt also corroborated other evidence recited above as to what Cassesa said concerning dues, initiation fees, and strike funds, in case affiliation with UAW was consummated. How- ever, Galt claimed that he bought a "batch of envelopes" for mailing the above resolution for which Cassesa did not reim- burse him, although Cassesa did pay for "other envelopes" and the letter to Respondent informing it of the affiliation. (See G.C. Exh. 9.) Cassesa also paid for the rental of the Rod and Gun Club. According to Galt, Ted McQuiston prepared the written invitation to Cassesa to attend the October 25, 1972, meeting of the Employee Representatives. (See G.C. Exh. 2.) Galt signed this along with other officers of said organization. This was prepared because Cassesa told the officers thereof that "he needed one [an invitation] or he would not be allowed to attend." In addition, Cassesa informed them that even if he came to the October 25 meeting he could not "chair" it or be in charge of it, that he would be only a guest there and that any questions intended for him would have to be channeled through the president, Ralph Neal, and should not be pro- pounded directly to Cassesa. About February 8, 1973, Galt attended the meeting men- tioned heretofore at which the cost-of-living index was taken up and resolved. He is not sure whether management asked those who were employee members whom the latter repre- sented. At this time Neal expressed a desire "to see things back . . . as they were before," and Respondent's vice presi- dent, William Lewis, replied that he "would, too, like to see it back like it was before." However, Lewis added that he could not, discuss it or influence their decision in any way as "it would have to be the committee that decided what they did." Galt "agreed with Ralph Neal in his [said] statement." At another meeting with management which Galt went to about 2 or 3 weeks after that of February 8, the members of the employees' committee were asked whom they repre- sented. Among other things grievances were deliberated. Ac- cording to Galt a "note" was also read to the committee by Vice President Lewis insisting that Lewis "did not recognize the UAW or our affiliation." Finally, Galt replied in the affirmative to the question, put to him by counsel, "Are you currently negotiating a contract?" The request to negotiate was made by Vice President Lewis around January 1974. On cross-examination Galt testified that, although Grant Tanner was opposed to affiliating with UAW, and never attended any committee meetings relating to such affiliation, Tanner was "kept informed concerning what the committee was doing." However, Galt not only informed Tanner of the date for which meetings of the committee concerning affilia- tion were scheduled and where they would be conducted, but also invited Tanner to come to them. Tanner informed Galt that the former refused to attend such meetings because he opposed affiliation "or anything at all to do with" the UAW. Further, on cross Galt asserted that Cassesa's references to the bank account of Local 1461 were uttered "after the affilia- tion vote," and that this was the first time that Cassea talked about this subject. Additionally, on cross Galt declared that the committee's "decision to pursue affiliation had been" arrived at before Cassesa's making statements regarding dues and initiation fees, but such statements were made before the affiliation vote was held. However, Cassesa did advert to the fact that UAW could not accept or collect dues until a contract had been reached by UAW and Respondent, and that "affiliation meant automatic membership into the UAW." According to Galt, Cassesa said affiliation meant "nothing other than auto- matic membership in the UAW." Respondent also called upon Ralph Neal as a witness. In this capacity Neal in substance gave the following evidence. Neal is in charge of quality control in Respondent's shop. He was appointed by Forsell to serve as a committeeman for the Employee Representatives. At that time the Employee Rep- resentatives had only one officer, a president, who was For- sell, and committeemen. Said Forsell was "against joining any union," including the UAW. Neal succeeded Forsell as president of the Employee Representatives in August or Sep- tember 1972. As President, Neal caused the "organizational structure" of said Employee Representatives to include a vice president, a recording secretary, and a treasurer. In October 1972 Neal signed the resolution (G.C. Exh. 6) relating to affiliation, but Grant Tanner, who was opposed to it as a committeeman, did not. However, no vote was taken on adopting said General Counsel's Exhibit 6 by the committeemen; "It was just shown to us and we looked it over and read it and signed it." The "idea of an affiliation" was first raised by Cassesa at "the third meeting we had at the Brotherhood of St. Jo- seph's," at a time when Forsell was president of the commit- tee. In this connection Cassesa observed that all the members of the committee "had to be in agreement" before affiliation could be accomplished, and that "we couldn't have one against affiliation, especially the president." No other mem- ber of the committee spoke to Neal about becoming affiliated prior to the first time it was brought up by Cassesa. In his talks to the committee Cassesa explained to those who com- posed it that all of them must "agree" and that notices must be mailed to employees "that there would be an affiliation meeting." Notices of the October 25 meeting pertaining to affiliation, supplied by Cassesa, were mailed to employees. Cassesa also paid for envelopes and stamps used to mail such notices, as well as for renting the hall. Addresses of such employees were acquired by McQuiston's obtaining the name and address of each by having each write the same on a piece of paper; but, since all names were not thus secured , every employee was not mailed a notice of said meeting. In addition, a notice of this meeting was affixed at various places including the bulle- tin board, in the shop's lunchroom, on the timeclock, and on windows above such clock about a week before October 25. However they were removed during the morning of the same day they were put up. Although they were reposted the same day they were again taken down in a few hours. BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO. 637 Prior to the October 25 general membership meeting Cas- sesa told the committee that he would "throw a beer party .. . if we won the election." Neal also repeated substantially what others above described as Cassesa's words concerning UAW dues, strike benefits, and initiation fees. It need not be repeated here. Cassesa also said (1) that "if we went on strike our insurance would be paid . . . [and] if you bum coal . . . we'll buy you a ton of coal, too"; and (2) that "if we affiliated with the UAW, [the bank account of Local 1461] would become ours." Neal relayed to employees the above remarks of Cassesa. Neal claims the invitation to Cassesa to come to the Octo- ber 25 meeting (G.C. Exh. 2) was given to the committee by Cassesa, and "we signed it and gave it back to him." In his affidavit to the Board Neal asserted that he "wrote a letter to the company, informing them of the affiliation and re- questing they make appropriate adjustments . . . ." (See p. 365 of the transcript.) However, prior to this Cassesa had informed the committee "he would have to have an invitation signed by the committee" to come to the October 25 meeting. At said meeting Cassesa instructed them how to conduct the meeting and the election which immediately followed it; and he also told Neal to direct questions asked by members to Cassesa at the meeting. Neal did so direct about 4 or 5 inqui- ries. At that meeting Neal "expressed my feelings at the time that I felt that we should vote for affiliation." So did Galt. At the election on October 25 held in the kitchen, Neal claims four or five "practically rubbing shoulders" voted "at the counter at one time." Since said counter was about 12 feet long it "was ... physically possible to see how someone else voted." In fact Neal did see how another employee voted; but he never mentioned this to anyone or in his affidavit to the Board. Ballots consisted of a blank sheet of paper about 2 inches by 3 inches on which the voter wrote "yes" for affilia- tion and "no" for opposing it. The letter to Respondent an- nouncing the results of the election, which Neal and others signed, was provided by Cassesa. (See G.C. Exh. 9.) Since May 1973 Neal has not been president of the commit- tee. But nothing has been done since October 25, 1972, to dissolve it. Not only that, but since that date the Employee Representatives Committee has continued to function as it did before the voting on said October 25, so that it has con- tinued to process grievances. Whenever since said October 25 said committee met with Respondent' s management and supervisors to process grievances the committee would al- ways be asked whether it was acting on behalf of Employee Representatives "under the present contract" or "under the affiliation with the UAW." Neal replied, "under the present contract." The February 8, 1973, meeting with management iegard- ing the cost-of-living index was requested by Neal. Among other things both Neal and Galt stated that they were tired of the way things were going and that they wanted to "go back to the way things were before the affiliation." Respon- dent's Vice President Lewis replied that he would not express any comment on it "due to the law," but that he had "feel- ings" or "opinions on it." Sometime in February 1973, Neal, accompanied by three committee members, called upon Respondent's manager of manufacturing, Dale Carll, to inform Carll that the em- ployees had voted 69 to 2 in favor of disaffiliating from the UAW and "in favor of the company," and that Neal "wanted to be the one to negotiate a new contract with" Respondent's Vice President Lewis. Neal also notified the UAW and Cas- sesa by letter of the outcome of said voting. At "practically every meeting" which the committee prior to October 25, 1972, had with him, Cassesa told them "if we decided we did not want the UAW . . . all we had to do was to tell him, and the UAW would pull out and leave us and forget us." Cassesa also told them that the officers of the Employee Representa- tives would remain the same after affiliation. On cross-examination Neal admitted that in an affidavit to the Board he swore that "we let three men in at a time in the kitchen" to vote regarding affiliation on October 25. He also conceded that he never complained to anyone about the man- ner in which "the balloting was run." But said affidavit also provides that, although three voters at a time entered the kitchen there were three others in that room, Lazer, Haag, and Moheney, "observing that the balloting was conducted fairly as they stood near the ballot box." C. General Counsel 's Rebuttal Employee Gilbert Lewis testified regarding the disaffilia- tion vote. He attended the meeting at which said vote was taken. At such meeting, which was held in the lunchroom of Respondent's shop, ballots were cast on the question of disaf- filiation. A ballot, consisting of a piece of paper, together with a pencil, was distributed to each employee present. Then "someone passed a hat around" in which the ballots were deposited. The employees were "sitting in the lunchroom" when the hat was passed around to collect their votes. D. Concluding Findings and Discussion 1. As to the appropriateness of the unit The unit described in paragraph 5 of the complaint is an appropriate one within the contemplation of Section 9(b) of the Act, and I so find. This is composed of: All production and maintenance employees employed at the Respondent's North East, Pennsylvania, facility, ex- cluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Further, I find that for 6 or 7 years, prior to October 25, 1972, Respondent recognized the Employee Representatives as the collective-bargaining agent of the employees in said unit. This is because (a) the answer admits "that the majority of employees since 1965 have been represented for the pur- poses of collective bargaining by the Employee Representa- tives"; and (b) the answer fails to deny the allegation in paragraph 6 of the complaint that "a majority of the em- ployees described in`paragraph 5 above designated and se- lected Employee Representatives . . . as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respond- ent." 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Whether affiliation was validly consummated a. Cassesa 's conduct prior to the election to affiliate On the issue in this subparagraph (a) I credit Cassesa and only that part of Respondent's evidence consistent with his testimony. On such credited evidence I find that Cassesa's actions and behavior prior to the election were not improper or otherwise affected the validity of the election to affiliate with the UAW. Respondent strongly contends that certain conduct by Cassesa has rendered the election invalid. But I find that such conduct does not destroy the validity of the election. Cf. The Hamilton Tool Company, 190 NLRB 571 (1971). These acts of Cassesa may be briefly set out here. First, it is true that dues and initiation fees were waived. But I expressly find that such waiver extended to all em- ployees, and, therefore, did not undermine the election. B. F Goodrich Tire Company, a Division of the B. F Goodrich Company, 209 NLRB 1175 (1974). N.L.R.B. v. SavairManu- facturing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973), does not require a con- trary result for in that case dues and initiation fees were waived only for employees signing union "recognition slips." Respondent additionally insists that Cassesa also rendered assistance, some of it in the form of stamps and envelopes, to the Employee Representatives. I find that he did do this. But I further find that his assistance did not interfere with the freedom of the officers to reject it if they so wished, and that paying for the stamps and envelopes was not so irregular as to contaminate the election. Cf. East Dayton Tool & Die Company, 190 NLRB 577 (1971). I find that UAW was not instrumental in the efforts to terminate the status of the Em- ployee Representatives as the collective bargaining agent of the employees in the unit. Cf. Hamilton Tool Co., supra at 573. See Canton Sign Co., 174 NLRB 906 (1969). Nor did Cassesa exceed permissible limits when he in- formed the employees that, if they affiliated with UAW, its strike fund would aid them in keeping up payments on cars and homes. I do not consider this a form of unlawful solicita- tion, and I so find. It is not necessary to allude to additional conduct, other than the beer party mentioned below, of Cassesa prior to October 25 which Respondent relies on to subvert the affilia- tion election. I find that none of it can be described as having attributes which the Board has held to be sufficient to con- demn an affiliation vote. Cf. National Carbon Company, a Division of Union Carbide and- Carbon Corporation (Edgewa- ter Works), 116 NLRB 488 (1956). But I do wish to briefly advert to the beer party which Cassesa promised if the vote to affiliate was successful. In this respect I credit Respon- dent's evidence that Cassesa promised to give a beer party if the vote favored affiliation with the UAW and that, following the election he fulfilled said promise. While I personally do not approve of beer parties to induce voters to endorse an affiliation movement, I cannot find that it is so reprehensible as to nullify or taint an otherwise valid election. While not precisely applicable, Cochran Co., Inc., 112 NLRB 1400 (1955), suggests the foregoing conclusion. Nor do I find that Cassesa acted improperly in suggesting that he be invited to the meeting of October 25, 1972. On this issue I find, crediting Respondent's evidence, that he made known that he wanted to be invited to said meeting and that as a result of such disclosure he was asked in writing to come to said meeting. (See G.C. Exh. 2.) But I find that he exerted no intimidating pressure or undue influence to induce the committeemen to execute said General Counsel's Exhibit 2. Merely because he indicated that he desired to be present, and that he felt he could not attend without being asked to come, does not amount to that quality of improper solicitation which the Board has found to constitute unlawful pressure or undue influence. Accordingly, I find "all the requirements considered im- portant by the Board, such as proper notice, discussion of issues, and a secret ballot, were met." See Newspapers, Inc., Publishers of the Austin American and the Austin Statesman, 210 NLRB 8 (1974). Although the cited case is not precisely in point, in my opinion it is relevant in determining whether the affiliation vote of October 25 was valid. b. Whether the procedure preceding the October 25 balloting was valid A notice was mailed to a great number, but not all, em- ployees, and it was also posted in various places at the plant, that a meeting would be held to vote on the question of affiliating with UAW. (G.C. Exh. 7.) I find that such notice was thus communicated to a sufficient number of employees to assure that practically all became aware of the date of the meeting and its purpose. See Hamilton Tool Co., supra at 572. Indeed a large majority voted. See General Counsel's Exhibit 10. In my opinion Respondent's argument to the contrary is not'well taken. At most there were 90 in the unit (see G.C. Exh. 12 and 13), and 63 actually went to the meeting and voted. This was a large enough number to assure a valid election. See the East Ohio Gas Company, 140 NLRB 1269, 1270 (1963). Nor is there merit to the argument that the place of said meeting was inconvenient, especially since no evidence was introduced at the trial that the Rod and Gun Club was situated at an inaccessible location or that anyone complained of the site. Nor do I find that the notice was inadequate to inform employees of the essence of the meeting and of the balloting to take place there. Further, I find that the meeting was conducted in a regular manner, with Neal (a witness for Respondent) presiding. (See G.C. Exh. 11.) Cassesa's presence, I find, did not destroy the regularity of the meeting or interfere with the free will of the employees present. See Hamilton Tool Co., supra. And the fact that Cassesa,answered some questions did not destroy the free atmosphere of the meeting. In fact, when questions were asked from the floor of Neal he testified, and I find, that he determined which questions he would answer and which he would refer to Cassesa. See, also, General Counsel's Exhibit 11 to the same effect. It is true that Cassesa requested Neal to refer questions to Cassesa in case Neal did not want to respond thereto, and Neal did so; but Neal also answered questions himself without passing them on to Cassesa. Hence I find that no impropriety occurred merely because Cassesa offered his assistance in answering inquiries propounded by employees at said meeting. Cf. Hamilton Tool Co., supra. And I expressly find that Cassesa did not control the meeting. On this issue I find that Cassesa's conferring with the committeemen prior to October 25, 1972, did not amount to participation in the affairs of the Employee Representatives BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO or constitute a "schism" as set forth in Respondent's brief. See Hamilton Tool, Co., supra c. Whether the October 25 vote to affiliate was valid It is my opinion, and I find, that the vote to affiliate with the UAW was valid. The fact that three persons voted at one time at a counter is not enough to nullify the vote, since it was 12 feet in length. And the fact that three others remained in the voting area to oversee that voters did not crowd each and placed ballots in the ballot box is not improper. Neal's tes- timony that people were milling around in the room is not credited, especially since no one else (whether testifying for the General Counsel or the Respondent) corroborated him. Rather, I believe that the persons milling around were these three overseers. In any event the presence of said overseers did not disturb anyone as no one complained about their being in the voting room. The absence of voting booths does not affect the validity of the election since the voters were far enough apart at the counters to be assured of privacy. I find that such arrange- ment was proper absent evidence that any voter complained that it interfered with the secrecy of the voting. Cf. Equip- ment Manufacturing, Inc., 174 NLRB 419 (1969); Cochran Co., supra at 1409. It is true that Neal testified he saw how one employee voted. But I do not credit him because at no time did he mention this or complain about this alleged lack of secrecy to the Board or Respondent or the overseers prior to testifying at the trial. Assuming he did see how such person voted it is apparent that Neal must have deliberately ap- proached such voter closer than necessary and in a manner which escaped the scrutiny of the overseers in the room. Moreover, the persons in charge of the election caused each voter to sign his name as he entered the voting room. (See G.C. Exh 10.) Such persons in charge also saw to it that nonemployees did not vote and that no employee voted more than once. This procedure has been approved by the Board. See Hamilton Tool Co., supra. Since each voter placed his ballot in a ballot box I fmd that the secrecy of the voting was preserved. And the fact, which I find, that after voting an employee left the room by another door than that used to enter it demonstrates that an orderly atmosphere was maintained at the election. Although the meeting may have continued in session by having the ques- tion-and-answer period going on while the voters were in the polling room this did not affect the validity of the election. See Hamilton Tool Co., supra. Finally, on this phase of the case I fmd that if Cassesa provided the committee with a written announcement of the results of the election to be transmitted to the Respondent this does not rise to the stature of unlawful assistance to the committee or unwarranted interference with its internal af- fairs. (See G.C. Exh. 9.) It does no more than show that he was saving the committee the trouble of composing a letter reciting a series of events which actually occurred. However, Neal testified that he prepared this letter. See p. 365 of the transcript. But I make no finding as to who actually wrote General Counsel's Exhibit 9 because even if Cassesa did he acted lawfully. 639 d. Whether Respondent lawfully dealt with employee representatives from October 25, 1972, to the disaffiliation vote in February 1973 It is undisputed, and I fmd, that grievances and other matters arising under the contract between Respondent and the Employee Representatives, which was still in effect dur- ing the above period, were entertained by Respondent. They were presented to it by the very same person who composed the committee of the Employee Representatives. When such committee presented such items to Respondent the latter's officers asked said committeemen whether the committeemen appeared on behalf of the UAW or the Employee Representa- tives. Each time said committeemen answered that they were acting for the Employee Representatives. I find no violation of the Act in Respondent's dealing with said committeemen as agents of the Employee Representatives. The reasons for such finding may be succinctly stated in the remainder of this subparagraph (d). In the first place, at no time did the UAW seek to attend any of said meetings with Respondent after the affiliation vote of October 25. Hence, I find UAW allowed the commit-, tee to function as it had in the past. Also the identical group which represented employees prior to, continued to represent them after said affiliation vote of October 25. See Newpapers, Inc., supra. It would seem that such exact identity was sanc- tioned by the UAW as it did nothing to alter the composition of the committee; or to advise the Respondent that some other group now was the only authorized representative of the employees. Thus the same bargaining entity met with Re- spondent. Secondly, the contract between Employee Representatives and Respondent (see G.C. Exh. 5), which did not expire until March 1, 1974, was still adhered to by Respondent and the committeemen. Since such contract was binding upon the UAW until it expired no harm resulted when Respondent abided by its terms, regardless of whether the agent of the employees acting pursuant to said contract called itself UAW or Employee Representatives. It is true, and I find, that Respondent refused to recognize the UAW. (see G.C. Exh. 3.) But all that the UAW did about this refusal was to threaten to file charges with the Board. (See G.C. Exh. 4.) Thus it was natural for Respondent to continue to process grievances with the committeemen in order to fulfill its contractual obligations. Said obligations had to be performed because the contract was still in effect regardless of whether UAW or the committee was the bar- gaining agent for the employees. And I further find that the committeemen, on the first occasion of being asked who their principal was, replied that they were representing the employees and not UAW because they wanted to be certain that Respondent would deal with them. According to Gait, such reply was made "in order to conduct our business." But this does not excuse the commit- teemen for misrepresenting the UAW; they should have said no. Their statement that they did not act on behalf of the UAW could be relied on by Respondent. Hence, I fmd that Respondent dealt with the committeemen at the latter's re- quest as officers of the Employee Representatives and that this did not derogate from the authority of UAW as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees. Pat- 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ently Respondent was warranted in treating the committee- men under these circumstances as agents of the Employee Representatives. Accordingly, I find that paragraph 10 of the complaint has not been established. 3. Whether the vote to disaffiliate is valid Initially, I am of the opinion that disaffiliation may occur at any time provided the steps preceding the vote are proper and the mechanics of voting conform to the Board's criteria surrounding a vote to affiliate. On this preliminary question of law I concur in Respondent's argument that Section 9(c)(3) of the Act is not pertinent, so that a year need not elapse after an affiliation vote. This is because the "valid election" referred to in Section 9(c)(3) is a Board-conducted election held pursuant to Section 9(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Also, an affiliation vote does not change the labor organization representing the employees but, rather, gives a new label to the same group. It is similar to the situation when A, a registered Republican, changes his registration to that of Democrat; but patently A himself has not thereby become another person physically. A'critical analysis of that part of the record pertaining to the vote to disaffiliate on February 24, 1973, convinces me, and I find, that it was valid. Thus, I find that the employees were adequately notified of the purpose, time, and place of the discussion and subsequent balloting, and that the evidence fails to show that the secrecy of the ballot was not preserved. See, also, Respondent's Exhibit 6. Further, I find that the evidence fails to indicate that Respondent did not remain neutral or engaged in any conduct which improperly in- fluenced the employees to favor disaffiliation. Additionally upon this aspect of the case I find that the disaffiliation vote was not tainted merely because the balloting was conducted upon the premises of respondent, i.e., in Respondent's lunch- room. Indeed, it is not uncommon for the National Labor Relations Board to hold elections pursuant to Section 9 of the Act upon the premises of the employer whose employees are the electors. In this connection I find, crediting that testimony consist- ent with this finding, that Cassesa, prior to the affiliation vote, expressly told the committee that notwithstanding a vote in favor of affiliation the UAW would recognize and be bound by a disaffiliation vote if the employees filed that they no longer desired to remain part of the UAW. Under such circumstances I find that, regardless of other considerations entering into my decision, this assurance by Cassesa amounted to a condition which gave the employees an option to prevent the affiliation from enjoying a status for a definite term or period of time. 4. Whether the employee representatives continued to exist following the affiliation vote On the record unfolded before me I find that the Employee Representatives continued not only to exist, but to function, following the affiliation with the UAW, which occurred on October 25, 1972. Thus I find that it processed grievances regularly for the employees, and, shortly before its contract with-Respondent expired, entered into negotiations with Re- spondent for a new collective-bargaining contract. Patently this labor organization under such circumstances may not be described as defunct. Cf. Mack Trucks, Inc., 209 NLRB 1038 (1974). It is true, and I find, that the committee of said Employee Representatives on each occasion it met with Respondent was asked whether it appeared as an agent of the UAW or on behalf of the Employee Representatives. It may be argued that by incessantly propounding this inquiry Respondent sought to keep alive the organization known as the Employee Representatives. But I find that no coercion or undue influ- ence accompanied this question, so that the reply of the com- mittee reflected a free and voluntary act. That reply always was that the committee appeared as an arm of the Employee Representatives. It follows, and I find, that the Employee Representatives not only failed to lose its identity but also continued to serve the employees after October 25, 1972. In this connection it is significant that at no time after October 25, 1972, did the UAW make any effort to represent the employees of Respondent other than to write to Respond- ent protesting the latter's refusal to bargain with the UAW. See General Counsel's Exhibit 4. It would seem that the UAW itself did nothing to attempt to attend any of the meet- ings between Respondent and the committee. 5. Whether Respondent bypassed the UAW and dealt directly with employees Admittedly Respondent continued to deal with the com- mittee after October 25, 1972. This may be thought to consti- tute bypassing the UAW. But said committee had been im- pliedly, if not expressly, designated by the UAW to act for the UAW in representing the employees after said October 25. At no time did the committee in meeting with Respondent insist or -even assert that said committee was operating as an arm of the UAW. And at no time did the UAW seek to meet with Respondent. Although Respondent made known to the Em- ployee Representatives it would not recognize the UAW (see General Counsel's Exhibit 3), the UAW did nothing to at- tempt to attend meetings between Respondent and said Em- ployee Representatives. Hence I find that Respondent merely continued its past'practice of dealing with the Employee Representatives and, under the circumstances, did not bypass the UAW. One of those circumstances is that the UAW designated the committee to continue to meet with Respond- ent. Additionally, I find that after October 25, 1972, Respond- ent did not deal directly with its employees nor in any other manner disparaged or derogated the collective-bargaining representative of said employees. Although Respondent dur- ing this period dealt with the committee, such committee was a constituent part of the Employee Representatives and, as such, was part of a labor organization. On this issue I ex- pressly find that such committee was not an unorganized group of employees. And I further find that the record is bare of evidence that Respondent otherwise dealt with individual employees. Accordingly I find that the allegations of para- graph 10 of the complaint have not been established. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in this case, I make the following: BERNARD GLOECKLER NORTH EAST CO. 641 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. UAW, its Local 1461, and Employee Representatives each is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 21,6) and (7), of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees employed at the Respondent's North East, Pennsylvania, facility, exclud- ing all office clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 4. From October 25, 1972, to February 24, 1973, the UAW and its Local 1461 represented the employees in said unit by reason of a valid affiliation vote of a majority of the employees voting in said unit; and Respondent during said period was legally obliged to recognize and bargain collectively with said labor organizations as such representative. 5. By failing to recognize and bargain collectively with said labor organizations in regard to the employees in said appro- priate unit during the foregoing period Respondent has en- gaged in an unfair labor practice prohibited by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. No order is necessary to remedy the foregoing unfair labor practice because since February 24, 1973, said UAW and its Local 1461 have been lawfully succeeded by the'Em- ployee Representatives as the collective-bargaining represen- tative of the employees in said appropriate unit. 7. On February 24, 1973, a majority of the employees in said unit validly voted to disaffiliate from said UAW and its Local 1461, and to be represented by the Employee Represen- tatives as their collective-bargaining agent. 8. Since February 24, 1973, Respondent has validly recog- nized and bargained with said Employee Representatives as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in said appropriate unit. 9. At no material time since October 25, 1972, has Re- spondent dealt directly with employees in said appropriate unit while said employees were validly represented by a labor organization. [Recommended Order _ for dismissal omitted from publication.]