National Meter Co.

In the Matter of NATIONAL METER COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1223 Case No. C-743.-Decided February 15, 1939 Meter Manufacturing Industry Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: oppo- sition to outside union expressed through suggestion that employees elect committee to bargain with respondent-Company-Dominated Union: employees' collective bargaining committee initiated and sponsored by employer ; domina- tion of and interference with formation and administration ; support; disestab- lished, as agency for collective bargaining ; contracts invalidated-Contract: depriving employees of right to demand written contract or closed shop with outside union and to protest against discharge for union affiliation or activity, invalid-Discrimination : charges of, dismissed. Mr. Jacob Blum, for the Board. Kotzen, Mann d Siegel, by Mr. Abraham Mann, of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. Robert Burstein, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1223, herein called the Union," the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore M. Herrick, Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated December 20, 1937, against National Meter Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served 3 The Union is referred to in the original charge as United Electrical and Radio Work- ers of America, Local 1223. Since the date of the original charge its name has been changed to United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1223, and it so appears in the amended charge. During the hearing the complaint was amended by substituting the present name of the Union for the former name. 11 N. L. R. B., No. 30. 320 NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL . 321 upon the respondent, the Union, and the Collective Bargaining Com- mittee of the Employees of National Meter Company, herein called the Committee. In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that on or about September 29, 1937, the respondent dis- charged and refused to reinstate George Green and Alois Wiedemann for the reason that they had joined and assisted the Union; that on or about June 25, 1937, the respondent initiated, formed, and spon- sored a labor organization*or plan for the purpose of dealing with its employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, and conditions of employment, and dominated and interfered with its administration and contributed support to it; that the respondent attempted to coerce its employees into signing individual contracts of employ- ment in order to discourage membership in the Union; and that by the afore-mentioned acts and by other acts the respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, and now is so in- terfering with, restraining, and coercing them, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed an answer dated December 24, 1937, denying in substance that the respondent had engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices, and requesting that the complaint be dismissed. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York City on May 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1938, before William Seagle, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved that the complaint be conformed to the proof. The motion was granted. At the conclusion of the Board's case and at the close of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the original charge was not attached to the complaint pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended. The motion was denied. Article II, Section 5, of the Rules and Regulations, provides that "a copy of the charge shall be attached to the complaint." Since the amended charge in the instant case superseded the original charge and inasmuch as a copy of the amended charge was attached to the complaint, we find that the procedure adopted is in accordance with the provision of the said Rules and Regulations. Moreover, the respondent could not have been prejudiced by the alleged defect and does not contend that it has thereby been prejudiced. The ruling of the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed. 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Counsel for the respondent also made separate motions that the several allegations of the complaint be dismissed on the ground that they were not sustained by the evidence. The Trial Examiner granted the motion to dismiss the complaint in so far as it charged that the respondent, kept under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of members of the Union, denied the motion with respect to domina- tion of a labor organization, and reserved ruling on the motion per- taining to the alleged discriminatory discharges of Green and Wiedemann.2 We have reviewed the above-mentioned rulings and all the other rulings made by the Trial Examiner on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On July 1, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act but not within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices so found, and withdraw recognition from and disestablish the Committee as a representative of its employees. Thereafter the respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report. The parties, although accorded an opportunity for oral argument before the Board, made no request therefor. The Board has considered all the exceptions of the respective parties to the Intermediate Report and in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds them 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 is a New York corporation having its principal office and place of business and operating its only manufacturing plant at Brooklyn, New York.3 It is engaged in the business of manufacturing meters and accessories for water and other liquids. At the date of the hearing the respondent employed at its plant ap- proximately 185 production employees. The raw materials used by the respondent at the plant in the course of manufacture consist of bronze ingots, molded hard rubber, cast- 2 Thereafter, in his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner granted the motion to dismiss as to Green and Wiedemann. 8 In addition the respondent maintains and operates service or sales branches in Boston, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, each carrying a small amount of stock. NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 323 iron castings, nuts, bolts, and screws. Between May 1 and Novem- ber 1, 1937, the respondent secured raw materials aggregating $128,540 in value, and representing 72 per cent of all such materials used by it, from States other than the State of New York, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Illinois. During that same period finished products aggre- gating $484,092 and constituting 89 per cent of the respondent's total output were sold and shipped outside of the State of New York. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED ' United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1223, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Indus- trial Organization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. The Collective Bargaining Committee of National Meter Company is a labor organization of the respondent's employees. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The formation of the Committee; the, contracts; interference, restraint, and coercion In the latter part of May or early in June 1937, the Union com- menced organizational activities among the respondent's employees and succeeded in enrolling a number of them as members. Alexander Whittaker, vice president of the respondent in charge of production, soon became aware of these activities. He testified that at some time during June a number of employees, whose names he could not recall, complained to him that they were being threatened with violence and loss of their jobs if they did not sign up with the Union. According to his testimony he informed them that he could not offer them any advice, because it was "none of [his] business." Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, he and Norbert Kenny, the respondent's president and treasurer, discussed the situation with officers of several other firms in Brooklyn. Following these discussions, they went to the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, of which the respondent had been a member for many years, and conferred with Galvin, its executive vice presi- dent, and L. L. Balleisen, industrial secretary.4 From the latter's desk they "picked up" copies of statements purporting to set forth the rights of employees under the Act and forms of agreements which had been used in, other firms. On June 22 the foremen were instructed by Whittaker to notify the employees of a meeting to be held that afternoon. Accordingly, * Referred to in the transcript of the hearing as L. L. Balliston, Industrial Consultant of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce. 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at 2 o'clock, the power was shut off and the employees assembled on the first floor. They were addressed by Kenny who read from a statement which had previously been prepared by him and Whittaker and was based on the statement secured from Balleisen. He called the attention of the employees to the Act, advised them of their right to bargain collectively, and stated that the respondent was in com- plete agreement with the theory of collective bargaining. He pointed out that the respondent had for many years enjoyed peaceful rela- tions with its employees and desired them to continue. Kenny then read : Interruption of work or loss of time in this plant will not help either you or the management. For that reason we are offering the following suggestions which you are free to accept or not, as you see fit. We would be pleased to bargain collectively with a committee of your fellow workers of your own choosing, provided a majority of our employees so desire. If you elect and choose such a com- mittee, we would be glad to negotiate and enter into a written contract with this Committee on your behalf, and with each one of you individually. You are entitled, under the Law, to join a union or not as you see fit and we may not and will not discriminate against you on account of any union activities. Your Company has considered this subject fully and is anxious and willing to enter into a written contract with its employees. We must, however, state at this time that we will not sign a con- tract with any union or have a closed shop in this plant. We believe a contract made with outsiders, and a closed shop, would be against the best interest of both the Company and its employees. Outlining the contents of the suggested contract with a committee of the employees, Kenny stated that it would cover rates of pay, hours of work, "no lockouts, no strikes," and the peaceful settlement of all disputes "by mediation between ourselves, and, if we cannot agree, by arbitration." He commented : "This type of contract will insure last- ing peace and eliminate industrial warfare. Industrial warfare is as much out of date as war between nations. No one has ever won a war and no one has ever won a strike. Both sides always lose. Sensible people do not have to blow each other's heads off to arrive at a fair understanding. We sincerely hope that you will give this matter your deep consideration and we will be glad to abide by the wish of the majority of the workers in this respect." At the conclusion of the address the employees were invited to take copies of the statement which had previously been mimeographed by NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 325 the respondent, and were instructed to return to their departments and elect representatives. Fourteen representatives, one for each depart- ment, were elected and constituted the Committee. The record does not disclose whether, prior to the election of the representatives, a vote was taken to determine the reaction of all the employees to the pro- posed plan. In the toolroom the election was prefaced by a discussion in which some employees, headed by George Green ,5 voiced their opposition to the plan. A total of 2 hours' time was consumed by the meeting and the elec- tions. The employees received full pay for such time. The following day, June 23, Whittaker called a meeting of the com- mitteemen. The negotiations were perfunctory. The committeemen requested a wage increase but it was refused. Shortly after the meet- ing Whittaker and Kenny prepared a contract, using the form secured from Balleisen "as a guide," and presented it to the Committee. It was rejected for the reason that it did not grant any wage increase and contained nothing of benefit to the employees. Within a few days a second contract was prepared providing for a week's vacation with pay and a wage increase of 5 cents an hour. This contract was signed by the Committee and copies of it were distributed among the indi- vidual employees for their signature. The contract purported to be an agreement between the respondent, "and the duly elected collective bargaining committee consisting of the employees of said corporation . . .," but it was expressly intended for individual signature by the employees. In addition to the above provisions and provisions for maximum hours and overtime, the con- tract provided that the respondent would not lock out any of its employees because of any dispute arising thereunder. The employees in turn agreed not to go out on strike during the period of the contract, to July 1, 1942. A system of arbitration was included with the proviso that the discharge of any employee and "the propositions and ques- tions of a closed shop and signing of an agreement with any union" were not subject to arbitration. Paragraph "Sixth," which prescribed the rights of the employees, read as follows : Any Employee has the right to join any union of his own choos- ing, or to refrain from joining any union. The Employees, or any of them, shall not and have not the right to demand a closed shop or a signed agreement by his Employer with any union. This does not in any way restrain the Employees from having a union representing them or advising them in collective bargaining, and the Employer has the absolute and unqualified right to hire or discharge any employee or employees for any reason, or for no reason, and regardless of his or their affiliation or non-affiliation c See Infra , Section III, B. 164275-39-vol x1-22 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with any union. The Employer agrees that no Employee will be discharged because of legitimate union activities or affiliation with any union .. . The circulation of the contract among the employees began about June 28 and within a week all but four of the employees had signed it. Those who did not sign were not given its benefits. Thus George Green, who at first refused to sign the contract, did not immediately receive any raise in pay. However, when he finally signed it on July 12, he was given the wage increase as of June 30, the effective date of such increase. The Committee had no rights or duties under the contract and engaged in little activity after the signatures on the contracts were obtained, although Whittaker testified that individual commit- teemen came to him regarding problems involving their particular departments. On one occasion the employees of the toolroom delegated George Green to confer with Smith, the foreman of that department, in an attempt to obtain the removal of Carl Eckhardt 6 as committeeman. Smith consulted Whittaker who stated that he had no objection to the selection of another committeeman in Eckhardt's place and that it was up to the employees themselves. Smith, however, suggested to Green that the election be postponed until his (Smith's) return from vacation which he was about to take, on the ground that he did not wish the temporary foreman to be unduly "burdened." By the time Smith returned the opposition to Eckhardt had apparently died down and nothing was done. As far as the record shows, the Committee met only twice during the period between the signing of the contract and the date of the hearing. On both occasions, it was summoned by Whittaker. The first meeting was called in the fall of 1937 to permit Eckhardt and Saake, two em- ployees of the toolroom, to clear themselves of charges of being labor spies and the second one, in December 1937, when the complaint in the present proceeding was served upon the respondent. The sequence of events and the methods used by the respondent as outlined above have all the earmarks of the system of anti-union cam- paigns considered and condemned by the Board in a number of cases.7 The evidence clearly establishes that the respondent's course of con- duct, following the Union's attempt to organize, was calculated to 6 Eckhardt had been under investigation by the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee as a labor spy but was exonerated. 7 Matter of The Jacobs Bros Co., Inc. and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 1226, and cases there cited , 5 N. L R. B. 620 ; Matter of Federal Carton Corporation and New York Printing Pressmen's Union No 51, 5 N. L R B. 879; Matter of David E. Kennedy, Inc. and Isidore Greenberg, 6 N. L R. B. 699 ; Matter of Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc. and Committee for Industrial Organization, 10 , N L. R. B. 288 1 NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 327 circumvent the Act by discouraging organizational activities, initiat- ing the respondent's own form of collective bargaining, and imposing a contract which did not result from the processes of collective bar- gaining. The entire plan was devised by the respondent after con- sultation with Balleisen. Through the speech read by Kenny on June 22 the respondent abundantly indicated its hostility to unions. Under no possible interpretation can this speech be deemed an unbiased pres- entation of the rights guaranteed employees under the Act. The statements that under the Act the employees were free to join a union and the respondent was required to confer with representatives of a majority of its employees are rendered meaningless by the assertion that the respondent will not sign a contract with any union or have a closed shop at the plant. The bare right to join a union is obviously of little value without the possibility of a contract which normally constitutes the primary goal of union membership and activity; nor can collective bargaining as contemplated by the Act take place when the employer sets forth such a bar. In effect the employees were told that there would be no collective bargaining except through a com- mittee of the employees and pursuant to the plan offered by Kenny. The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the suggested plan indicate the extent to which the will of the respondent had been im- posed on its employees. Although Kenny, in his address, stated that the adoption of the plan was subject to approval by a majority of the employees, there was no method provided to ascertain such approval. Moreover, at the conclusion of the address, he instructed the employees to return to their departments and elect representatives. It is apparent from the record that the contract which was thereafter signed by the Committee and the individual employees was not a result of the proc- esses of collective bargaining contemplated by the Act. The Com- mittee's acquiescence without protest to a form of contract which, as we find hereafter, deprived the employees of the rights guaranteed under the Act confirms our conclusion that it did no more than go through the form of bargaining and that it acted as a tool of the re- spondent rather than as the representative of the employees.8 The domination of the Committee by the respondent thereafter is attested to by the incident relating to the attempted removal of Eckhardt as committeeman. Smith testified that the employees in the toolrooin department could have elected another representative without asking his permission. It is significant, however, that the employees felt compelled to consult him and that he requested them to postpone the election until his return from vacation. 8 See Matter of David F Kennedy, Inc and Isidore Greenberg, 6 N L R B. 699; Matter of Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc. and Committee for Industrial Organization, 10 N. L R . B. 288. 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The contract signed by the Committee and the individual employees also bears a close resemblance to other contracts considered by us in a number of cases.9 We have held these contracts to be invalid on the ground that they constitute anti-union or "yellow dog" contracts and discourage membership in a labor organization. Despite the lip- service rendered by the terms of the contract to the right of an em- ployee to join any union of his own choosing, the agreement deprives the employees of fundamental rights inherent in union affiliation and activity. The employees relinquish the right to protest against the re- spondent's exercise of its most powerful anti-union weapon, discharge for union affiliation or activity, and the right to demand a signed agreement or a closed shop with any union. The burdens of the contract are such as to leave no practical field of activity open to the Union. We find that the respondent, by its activities described above, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Com- pany, and has contributed support to it; and by such conduct has dis- couraged union membership. We further find that the contracts described above are invalid and of no effect. B. The alleged discriminatory discharges of Green and Wiedemann George Green and Alois Wiedemann began work for the respond- ent on January 28 and April 19, 1937, respectively. They were both employed in the toolroom as tool makers and worked for the most part on fixtures and drill jigs. During the course of their employ- ment they had each received two increases in wages, one on June 2 and another at the time of the signing of the contract. Green joined the Union in about the middle of June, and was the most active employee in its organizational efforts. He succeeded in signing up a large number of employees, was opposed to the election of a committeeman in his department, and refused to sign the con- tract until July 12. Although his organizational activity ceased on about July 5, he continued to wear his union button thereafter. On one occasion Smith said to him, "George, if I was you, I would not wear the button." Wiedemann also joined the Union in the middle of June, and was active in soliciting members, although not to the same extent as Green. He wore his union button only for a couple of weeks. He was on vacation when the contracts were first distributed for signa- ture by the employees. He signed one, however, upon his return on 9 See cases cited in footnote 7. NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 329 about July 12. He testified that his union activity continued thereafter and that he signed up a few employees in the Union. Both Green and Wiedemann testified that after they joined the Union they were singled out and "picked on" by Smith. Green testified that before he had joined the Union he never experienced any difficulties with Smith because of his work but that thereafter Smith repeatedly found fault with him. Green admitted that he occasionally made mistakes in his work but asserted that they were not serious and were frequently made by other employees. Smith, however, testified that the only occasion on which he criticized Green's work was when Green had to go over a jig which he was assigned to make four successive times before it finally passed inspec- tion. Smith further testified that he thereafter assigned Green to simpler work consisting of roughing tools and had no further occa- sion to criticize his work. Both Green and Wiedemann testified that they were upbraided for using a certain type of tool in measur- ing their work. According to Smith's testimony, these particular tools or blocks were to be used only in connection with the most accu- rate work and most employees had to be cautioned in this respect. Green and Wiedemann advanced as further evidence of Smith's bias towards them the circumstance that after they had joined the Union he transferred Wiedemann, who had theretofore been working next to Green, to the other side of the room. Smith testified that he did so because they were continually talking to each other, although he admitted that there was no rule prohibiting employees from talking occasionally. Shortly after the middle of September 1937, Smith informed Macllwaine, the respondent's production engineer, that there was a lack of work in the toolroom. After conferring with Whittaker, Macllwaine instructed Smith to lay off two men in his department. Smith thereupon on September 28, 1937, laid off Green and Wiede- mann. On the same day 14 other employees were laid off in the rest of the plant. Further lay-offs occurred thereafter, so that by Janu- ary 11, 1938, a total of 97 employees had been laid off in the entire plant, 7 of them from the toolroom. By the date of the hearing none of the employees laid off in the toolroom had been recalled; nor were any new employees hired to take their places. The testimony is uncontradicted that beginning in September 1937, production in the toolroom as well as in the rest of the plant was reduced due to business conditions, and that the reduction in pro- duction made feasible certain lay-offs on September 28. Smith testi- fied that Green and Wiedemann were selected for lay-off in the tool- room because they were less competent than other employees doing the same type of work. He stated in this regard that Green, having proved unsuccessful as a tool maker, had previously been assigned 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to simpler work roughing tools and that Wiedemann's work as a tool maker was not sufficiently accurate. Of the 13 men who were retained in the toolroom at the time Green and Wiedemann were laid off, all except 2, Klosterman and Pittner, had greater seniority, 7 having been in the respondent's employ for over 15 years and the remaining 4 since late in 1936. Whittaker testified that although seniority was always considered in making lay-offs, the determinative factor was efficiency considered in the light of the nature of the work available. Pittner, who began work on September 15, 1937, performed special gauge and die work, which was entirely different from the work performed by either Green or Wiedemann, and the record shows that neither Green nor Wiedemann was capable of performing the work done by Pittner. Klosterman, who was employed on May 12, 1937, did general machine work and according to Smith was a particularly competent employee. That neither Green nor Wiedemann was as qualified as Klosterman to do the machine repair work did not appear to be contested. In- deed, Green had seldom done any repair work and could not repair special machines. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that it has not been suffi- ciently established that the respondent discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment of Green or Wiedemann. The allegations of the complaint with regard to Green and Wiedemann will, therefore, be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A, above, occurring in connection with its operations 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 Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company, and has contributed support to it. Such an organization cannot, in view of the circumstances, operate as a true representative of the respondent's employees. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to withdraw recognition from it and to disestablish it as representative of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the re- spondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work. NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 331 Having found that the contracts signed by the Committee and the individual employees are invalid and of no effect, we will order the respondent to cease giving any effect to them. We will also order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the_ exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 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. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1223, and the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Em- ployees of National Meter Company are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter 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) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the 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, National Meter Company, Brooklyn, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Col- lective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support to the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Giving effect to the contracts made with the Collective Bar- gaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company and to the individual contracts made with its employees; 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw all recognition from the Collective Bargaining Com- mittee of the Employees of National Meter Company as a representa- tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and completely dis- establish the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company as such representative; (b) Personally inform in writing each of its employees who has entered into the individual contract of employment, that the obtain- ing of such contract by the respondent constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, that therefore the respondent is obliged to discontinue such contract as a term or condition of employment and to desist from in any man- ner enforcing or attempting to enforce such contract, and that said contract is void and of no effect; (c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; (2) that the respondent withdraws and will refrain from all recognition of the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company as a representative of any of its employees and completely disestablishes it as such repre- sentative; and (3) that the contract made with the Collective Bar- gaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company and the individual contracts made with its employees are void and of no effect; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. AND IT IS FURTHER oRDFnED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 1