Emsco Derrick and Equipment Co.

In the Matter of EMSCO DERRICK AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY (D & B DIVISION ) and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Case No. C-728.-Decided February 9, 1939 Oil Field Supplies Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion : anti-union activity by supervisory employees during working hours and on company property ; anti-union petition , circulation of among employees ; refusal to negotiate with representatives ; threat to close plant unless union organization cease-Company-Dominated Union: domination of and inter- ference with formation and administration ; soliciting membership in by super- visory employees ; responsibility for allegedly unauthorized activities of super- visory employees ; testimony of majority of employees concerning voluntary joining of, without company interference , immaterial under circumstances ; disestablished , as agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination : discharge: charges of, not sustained. Mr. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., for the Board. Vinson, Elkins, Weems and Francis, by Mr. Wharton Weems and Mr. C. M. Hightower, of Houston, Tex., for the respondent. Mr. H. E. Spafford and Mr. Franklin E. Spafford, of Dallas, Tex., for the Union of Employees. Mr. H. A. Rasmussen, of Houston, Tex., for the S. W. O. C. Mr. Harry Brownstein, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges, amended charges, and supplemental charges duly filed by the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint, supplemental complaint, and amended complaint, dated respectively, February 14, 1938, March 2, 1938, and March 17, 1938, against the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, herein called the respondent, D & B Division, Dallas, Texas,' alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- 1 The original complaint incorrectly designated the respondent as the "D & B Pump and Supply Company," and was amended for the purpose of malting the appropriate correction. 11 N. L. R. B. No. 17. 79 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint, supplemental complaint, and amended com- plaint, and the notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the S. W. O. C. The complaint, as supplemented and amended, alleged, in substance, that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization known as the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Derrick and Equip- ment Company; 2 discharged and refused to reinstate one Jim Bragg on account of his union activities, thereby discouraging membership in the S. W. O. C.; and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. On March 18, 1938, the Union of the Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, hereinafter referred to as the Union of Em- ployees, duly filed a motion to intervene with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. The Regional Director, by order, per- mitted the intervention, and a copy of said ruling was duly served upon each of the parties to the proceeding. On March 21, 1938, the respondent filed an answer to the supplemented and amended complaint, admitting certain allegations as to the nature of its busi- ness but denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices as alleged. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Dallas, Texas, on March 21, 22, and 23, 1938, before L. Richard Insirilo, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union of Employees were represented by counsel, and the S. W. O. C. by its subdistrict director, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved, without objection by the respondent, that the pleadings be con- formed to the proof adduced at the hearing. The Trial Examiner did not rule on this motion, which is hereby granted. At the same time, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint as supplemented and amended, and the Union of Employees moved to dismiss the complaint in so far as it related to unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. The Trial Examiner reserved his rulings on these motions for his Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on objections to the admission of evidence and on motions 2 Incorrectly designated in the supplemented and amended complaint as the "Union of Employees of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company (D. & B. Division) " EMSCO DERRICK AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY ET AL. 81 of the parties. The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On June 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, a copy of which was duly served on all parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Sec- tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, overruling the aforesaid separate and several motions for dismissal made by the respondent and the Union of Employees. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, reinstate Jim Bragg with back pay, disestablish the Union of Employees as a bargaining representative of its employees, and take certain other affirmative action. Excep- tions to the Intermediate Report were thereafter filed by the respond- ent and by the Union of Employees. Oral argument upon the excep- tions was requested by the respondent and was granted by the Board upon due notice to all parties. On November 22, 1938, the date for which the argument was set, neither the respondent, the S. W. O. C., nor the Union of Employees appeared. The Board has considered the exceptions of the Union of Em- ployees to the Intermediate Report and to the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and finds them to be without merit. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent to the Intermediate Report and to the rulings of the Trial Examiner and hereby sus- tains, for reasons hereinafter stated, those exceptions of the respond- ent relating to the Trial Examiner's findings regarding Jim Bragg's alleged discriminatory discharge. In all other respects, the Board finds the exceptions of the respondent to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, a California corporation having its domicile and principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of oil-well pumps, pump fittings, and rods. It owns, maintains, and operates a plant in Dallas, Texas, known sometimes as the D & B Division, and sometimes as the D & B Pump and Supply Company, with which this proceeding is concerned. In 1937, the respondent's purchases of steel, represent- ing 98 per cent of the raw materials used by it, amounted to between $500,000 and $600,000. Ninety-five per cent of the steel used by the respondent at its Dallas plant is purchased and shipped from con- cerns located in States other than the State of Texas. All the re- spondent's products manufactured at its Dallas plant, with the ex- 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ception of about 8 per cent shipped to the respondent's plant in Los Angeles, California, are placed in stock for the purpose of sale to the Continental Supply Company of Dallas, Texas, its e$clusive sales agent. Sixty-five per cent of this stock is shipped by the re- spondent to stores or customers of the Continental Supply Company in States other than the State of Texas. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The S. W. O. C. is a labor organization affiliated with the Com- mittee for Industrial Organization, admitting to membership all working employees in iron and steel manufacturing, processing, and fabricating mills and factories, excluding any person employed as foreman, superintendent, or general manager of any mill or factory. The Union of Employees is an unaffiliated labor organization, ad- mitting to membership the respondent's employees at its Dallas plant, excluding any employee having or exercising any supervisory power or authority over any other employee. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The S. W. O. C. began to organize employees of the respondent at its Dallas plant in the fore part of August 1937, and held its first meeting on August 5, 1937. A few days later, the president of the local organization of the S. W. O. C. asked H. A. Fife, plant super- intendent, for a conference with the respondent. Fife refused, and according to his own testimony, replied : "We are not interested in discussing union matters . . . because I think they (C. I. 0.) * are too radical." Between the first meeting of the S. W. O. C. and a second meeting scheduled to be held 1 week later, Roy Parker, supervisor of the plunger department at the Dallas plant, procured during working hours and on the respondent's premises, signatures of employees to a petition dated August 10, 1937, which called for the maintenance of existing working conditions and the removal of any foreign elements or C. I. O. agitators." The petition was cir- culated, not only with respondent's knowledge and sanction, but with *Our parentheses. The petition read as follows : TO EMPLOYERS OF D & B PUMP AND SUPPLY COMPANY AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We the under signed employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company of Dallas, Texas do this day declare ourselves free and independent employees of said plant, in so much as we are highly pleased with the present working conditions and manage- ment of said plant. Where as we petition this company for whatever protection it may afford us in our employment that such conditions may continue to exist, and if there be any foreign elements or C. I. O. agitators in this plant that such may be removed that we may continue to serve this company unbiased by outside labor influ- enoe, where as this plant may continue to operate as business permits. EMSCO DERRICK AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY ET AL. 83 the approval of Fife, who remarked, in the presence and hearing of an employee, and for his benefit, that "everyone ought to sign it." Occasionally, Parker suggested to employees who had signed the pe- tition that they now had better get rid of their C. I. O. membership cards, adding that the C. I. O. was going to be eliminated from the plant. The petition bore the signatures of 57 of the respondent's 65 employees. Parker then formally presented it to the management. About August 9, 1937, two employees, charter members of the S. W. O. C., were discharged by the respondent following contro- versies with Parker and Ervin Sexton, plant foreman, concerning the S. W. O. C. and the signing of the petition. The S. W. O. C., as a result thereof, filed charges with the Board (Sixteenth Region). In the first week in October a conference was held between the Regional Director of the Board for the Sixteenth Region and E. E. Stevenson, the respondent's vice president. The respondent agreed to reinstate the two discharged employees. Upon reinstatement, the Regional Director closed the case. On October 8, 1937, the respondent pub- lished a statement designed to inform the employees of its recogni- tion of their rights under the Act, and at the same time explained the reinstatement of the two discharged employees, which it asserted it reinstated on probation. Upon the Regional Director's suggestion, this statement was removed, and on October 20, 1937, another state- ment of policy, prepared by the Regional Director, was issued in its place. Acts and statements of the respondent's officers and supervisory employees, however, were not in conformity with the respondent's declared intention to maintain a policy of impartiality toward labor organizations at its plant. An employee testified that toward the close of 1937, Fife stated that if the S. W. O. C. successfully or- ganized the respondent's employees, it would necessitate shutting down the plant. Upon examination, Fife generally denied that he had done anything to interfere with the employees' right to self- organization, but he did not specifically deny that he had made this statement. In view of this, and the Union animus he exhibited in other acts and statements heretofore mentioned, we find that Fife did substantially make such a statement. Fred Smith, an employee, testified that in November 1937, Ervin Sexton, general foreman, to- gether with Fred Ritchie, brother of Clay Ritchie, supervisor over the bundling table, and the witness, kept a S. W. O. C. meeting under surveillance to see what employees of the respondent attended. He also testified that in the same month, Sexton told him that he ought to join the Union of Employees, and "wipe out the C. I. O. boys." Sexton generally denied that he had in any manner interfered with union activities of the employees, though he did not specifically con- tradict Smith's testimony. In November and December 1937, Sexton 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD expressed hostility toward the S. W. O. C. to a witness who was connected with neither the S. W. O. C. nor the respondent. We credit the testimony of Smith, and find accordingly. The respondent asserts that it is erroneous to consider in this case any evidence pertaining to a time preceding October 8, 1937, upon the ground that that was the date upon which the first unfair labor prac- tice was alleged in the complaint to have been committed, and more particularly that it was error to admit evidence relating to the dis- charges which previously had been settled by conference with the Regional Director, since it was a matter already concluded. The re- spondent's contention is without merit. The complaint was amended to conform to the proof, and thus included within the scope of the pleading relevant acts occurring prior to October 8, 1937. Moreover, we are making no findings or order with respect to any matter already settled and not in issue, viz, the previous discharges of the two em- ployees. Evidence relating to the petition of August 10, 1937, and the activities of the respondent's supervisors and officers, which had the necessary effect of restricting the employees in their right freely to select a bargaining representative, is material and relevant within the pleadings and hence here admissible.4 We find that the respondent, by its conduct in connection with and surrounding the circulation among its employees of the petition of August 10, 1937, and by the above-described statements and acts of its supervisor, foreman, and superintendent, has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, and assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bar- gaining and other mutual aid and protection. B. Domination of and interference with the Union of Employees J. B. Long, supervisor of the machine shop, and O. N. Erickson, an employee, conceived the idea of forming an independent union after the respondent's statement of policy of October 8, 1937, was issued. The first meeting of the Union of Employees was held on October 15, 1937, at the home of James Vencil, supervisor of the plunger depart- ment. Long arranged with Vencil for the place of meeting and in- formed the respondent's employees thereof. That afternoon Long, together with Erickson, arranged for a speaker at the evening's meet- ing. At a second meeting of the Union of Employees on October 19, 1937, a bargaining committee was elected. Two of the three commit- teemen were Long and Lloyd Utley, a supervisor over the forging de- * Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Tewtile Workers Organizing Committee, 5 N L R B. 908. EMSCO DERRICK AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY ET AL. 85 partment. Parker, who had earlier solicited the signatures to the petition of August 10, 1937, together with several others who met at his home, drafted bylaws for the Union. The bylaws provided, in part, that "the purposes for which this Union is formed is to preserve the favorable conditions under which we are working, and to have and exercise the sole and exclusive right of collective bargaining . .." On December 17, 1937, the Union of Employees had a conference with the respondent and requested recognition as the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees at its Dallas plant. Fife testified that, upon Long's request for this conference, "I told him, sure, we would meet him." The respondent was not satisfied with the showing of majority that the Union of Employees presented to it. On January 25, 1938, the respondent, at another conference, furnished the Union of Employees with a sample of a petition on which it could show a proof of a majority.5 After submission to its attorney for approval, the Union of Employees retained and used an identical copy. Signatures of a majority of the respondent's em- ployees were thereupon obtained and submitted to the respondent. On February 2, 1938, the respondent, after checking the signatures with the company pay roll, and determining that they were authentic and represented a majority of employees, recognized the Union of -Employees as exclusive representative of its employees for the pur- - pose of collective bargaining. Since its formation the extent of collective bargaining by the Union of Employees has been confined to a request to use the respondent's bulletin board for announcements. Upon the foregoing facts and the record, we find that the Union of Employees is not the free representative of the respondent's em- ployees which the Act contemplates. Immediately upon the organi- zation of the S. W. O. C. the respondent, by Parker, a supervisor, circulated a petition designed to stifle the movement, while Fife and -Sexton, persons with high rank in the respondent's employ, made known to the respondent's employees their intention not to tolerate the presence at the plant of any outside labor organization. The supervisory interference did not operate as a complete deterrent to the S. W. O. C. organizational movement. Thereupon the respond- ent sought to propel its employees into the Union of Employees. This was accomplished through the initiative and leadership of the respondent's supervisors. Thus Long, a supervisor, supplied the .original impetus to the Union of Employees, the first meeting of 5 The form suggested by the respondent was as follows GENTLE MEN : Being aware of the rights and privileges accorded me through the Wagner Act , I hereby authorize you to recognize Mr. Burgess , Mr. Long, and Mr. Ritchie as my freely chosen and exclusive representatives with respect to grievances and for purpose of collective bargaining with the D & B Pump and Supply Company. The Ritchie named in this petition was a brother of Clay Ritchie, a supervisor of the bundling table, and was selected by the Union of Employees to succeed Lloyd Utley, here- tofore referred to, who had earlier resigned from the bargaining committee. 164275-39-vol x[--7 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which was at the home of Vencil, also a supervisor. Parker, a super- visor, and from the outset overtly antagonistic toward the S. W. 0. C., aided in drafting the bylaws of the Union. The bargaining commit- tee chosen was dominated by supervisory employees. We have fre- quently held, and we hold here, that such supervisory participation in and control of a labor organization of the employees whom they supervise is prohibited by the Act.6 The supervisory employees were assisted in their domination and control of the Union of Employees by the respondent's superintendent and general foreman. Moreover, Fife's outspoken opposition to and refusal to meet with representa- tives of the S. W. 0. C., as contrasted with his ready willingness to discuss matters pertaining to the Union of Employees with its representative, evidenced the favored position of the latter group. The respondent's support of the Union of Employees was further brought home to its employees by its tender of assistance in the preparation of the form for the proof of majority. The respondent contends that the employees referred to herein as supervisors, are not, in fact, supervisors, and even if they are, their acts cannot, in any event, bind the respondent. Both contentions are without merit. In 1936 the respondent posted a blue-print at its Dallas plant des- ignating one Johnson as plant superintendent, Fife as general fore- man over the rod department, Sexton as supervisor over the forging department, Long as supervisor over the machine shop, Parker as supervisor over the plunger department, and Grant Holder as super- visor over the screw machines. Holder testified that Johnson, at a group meeting, denominated each as keymen in the plant, each, according to his understanding, having authority over his respective department. Thereafter Fife was made plant superintendent, Sex- ton general foreman over the rod department, Utley supervisor over the forging department, and Ritchie supervisor over the bundling table. Although Fife stated that he followed a different set-up than Johnson, he admitted that he made no announcement of any change. Thus, the respondent by its own designation of the individuals in question established their supervisory status. In addition to the blue- print designation, the evidence shows that the persons listed on the blue-print often gave orders, had charge of the distribution of the work, "would tell us when to change [rods]," and " . . . how to, carry on the work, how to test the rods, so on and so forth." Their wages were generally higher than the other employees in their re- spective departments. We find that the employees whose status the 0 Matter of Eagle Manufacturing Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 0 N L R. B 492 , aff'd. as modified , 99 F. (2d ) 930; Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates aiul Pilots of America, No 9, etc, at at., 8 N L R B. 730 , aff'd as modified, 101 F. (2d) 103. EMSCO DERRICK AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY ET AL. 87 respondent questioned are the respondent's supervisory employees, and were so accepted by other employees in the plant. We shall examine the respondent's second contention that the acts of the supervisors are not binding upon it. Stevenson, the respond- ent's vice president, stated that he transmitted instructions to those in charge of the Dallas plant to maintain a strictly neutral and "hands off" policy with respect to labor organizations. This may well be, but the real question is whether such policy was translated into a course of conduct at the Dallas plant consistent with the dec- laration of Stevenson. This was not done. As we have frequently stated in analagous situations, the supervisor acts as an agent for the employer, and his acts are necessarily those of the employer unless effectively disavowed. Supervisors "are in constant associa- tion with employees, who take orders from them and commonly learn from them the company's policy on other matters." 7 In the instant case, those to whom the employees properly looked for a man- ifestation or expression of company policy found, not impartiality, but an attitude of distinct hostility toward the S. W. 0. C. and marked favoritism toward the Union of Employees. As part of its case in chief, the Union of Employees, over objec- tion, called more than a majority of the respondent's employees to testify that they had voluntarily joined the Union of Employees without any coercion or interference on the part of the respondent. Contention is made that because of such testimony, allegations in the complaint as to employer interference and domination of the Union of Employees cannot be sustained on the evidence. Such testimony does not have any bearing on the issue here drawn, which is, concisely, did the respondent dominate or interfere with the forma- tion or administration of the Union of Employees or contribute aid and support to it? If the respondent did engage in such conduct prohibited by the Act, as we have here found, evidence that indi- vidual employees or groups of such employees were not coerced or interfered with by the respondent, or evidence concerning the effect or lack of effect of respondent's acts, is irrelevant and immaterial. We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Union of Employees, and has contributed support to it, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 'Matter of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. and Bookkeepers', Stenographers', and Account- ants' Union, Local No 16, etc., et al , 6 N L. R . B 216; Matter of Tennessee Copper Com- pany and A F. of L Federal Union No 21164, 9 N L. R. B 117; Matter of The Serrick. Corporation and International Union, United Automobile -Workers of America, Local No 459, 8 N L R B 621 ; Matter of The Baer d TVtil'de Company, and Swank Products, Inc and International Workers Union , Local 18, 9 N. L. R B. 420. 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The alleged discriminatory discharge Jim Bragg. Jim Bragg's employment was terminated on February 11, 1938, after he had been in the respondent's employ for about 13 years. He joined the S. W. O. C. upon its formation on August 5, 1937, and solicited membership among the respondent's employees. Previous to the termination of his employment, he was not other- wise active in S. W. O. C. affairs. The respondent states that Bragg was not discharged, but was laid off because of lack of work and inefficiency. At the time of his lay-off or discharge, Bragg's job was to place rods in a screw machine. He had been transferred to that job after being shifted from several other jobs about the plant. On occasions, Bragg had been found neglecting his work, and had been threatened with dismissal therefor. He was also involved in several minor accidents about the plant. Bragg's supervisor, a member of the S. W. O. C., testified that Bragg's work "has been fair, just fair, nothing to brag about, but just fair." At the same time it terminated Bragg's employment, the respondent laid off two other employees recently hired, who were members of the Union of Employees. We find that Bragg was not discharged because of his membership in the S. W. O. C. or his activities in its behalf. We shall accordingly dis- miss the allegations of the complaint in so far as they relate to Bragg. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III7 A and B , above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Union of Employees, and has contributed aid and support to it. That organization cannot, in view of the circumstances, operate as a true representative of the employees. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to withdraw recognition from and to disestablish the Union of Employees as collective bargaining representative for any of its employees." We 8 National Labor Relations Board V. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines , Inc., 303 U. S. 261, aff'g. 1 N. L. R. B 1; National Labor Relations Board v. Paeiflc Greyhound Lines, Inc., 103 U. S. 272, aff'g 2 N. L. R. B. 431. EMSCO DERRICK AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY ET AL. 89 shall further order the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate' the purposes and policy of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Steel Workers Organizing Committee, and Union of Em- ployees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division-of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin- istration of the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, and by contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) with respect to Jim Bragg. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company (D & B Divi- sion), Dallas, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and contributing support to the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Der- rick and Equipment Company, or to any other labor organization of its employees; 90, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, as representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or condi- tions of work, and completely disestablish the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, as such representative; (b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places at its D & B Division, Dallas, Texas, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and that the respondent will withdraw all recognition from the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of the Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company, as the representative of any of its em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and that the Union of Employees of the D & B Pump and Supply Company, Division of Emsco Derrick and Equip- ment Company, is disestablished as such representative; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3), with respect to Jim Bragg.