General Motors Corporation, and Delco-Remy Corporation

In the Matter of GENERAL. MOTORS CORPORATION, AND DELCO-REMY CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 146 Case No. C-681.-Decided August 3, 1939 Automobile Parts and Electrical Egtripnaent 3Lannfacfnri.ng Industry-Cona- pany-Dominated Union: domination of, support of, and interference with, for- mation and administration , before effective date of Act : changes in administra- tion after effective date of Act ; incorporation ; domination of, support of, and interference with, administration continued-Interference, Restraint, and Coer- cion: use of labor espionage service and spies ; distribution to employees of statement showing hostility toward outside union, moulding public opinion against that union, and interfering with rights of employees guaranteed in Act ; assistance and encouragement of Citizens League, charges of, dismissed ; respon- sibility, of Company of eviction of outside-union eulplgyees from plant,while at work by other employees : (1) incitation and encouragement given evictors by printed statement of Company distributed to employees , by Company's toleration of making and carrying of dangerous weapons in plant by employees and fore- men, by Company's condonation of mass exodus of employees from plant during working hours for purpose of preventing arrival of outside-union organizers in city, and by foremen's participation in, approval of, and sympathy with, evic- tions; (2) Company's failure to fulfill duty reasonably to safeguard employees in plant; evictions continue only so long as company officials fail to take reasonable steps, such as discharges or threats of discharge , to prevent them ; threats, or impositions , of penalties when resorted to by company officials do not provoke riots, but instantly terminate evictions-Company-Dominated Union: reorgani- zation insufficient to free union from company domination, where name, cor- porate charter, and majority of officers are unchanged , and where purpose of reorganization reveals it is consequence of, and an,attempt to effectuate , immedi- ately preceding intense anti-outside union activity of Company-Agreements: preceding filing of charges , between Company and complaining union, to which Board not a party, for settlement of unfair labor practices ; 8 (2) charges not included therein ; no effect on power of union to file, or of Board to accept, charges ; refusal to exercise discretion to dismiss complaint because of private agreements ; issuance of Board order necessary to prevent continuance of com- pany-dominated union and to remove effects and prevent recurrence of other unfair labor practices-Remedy: Company ordered to furnish employees reason- able protection in plant against threats or assaults directed at union membership or activity, and to forbid such threats and assaults and also carrying or making of dangerous weapons in plant ; company-dominated union ordered disestablished as agency for collective bargaining. Mr. Colonel C. Sawyer and Mr. Lester M. Levin, for the Board. Mr. Ernest S. Ballard and Mr. Merrill Shepard, of Chicago, Ill., Mr. Wade H. Free, of Anderson, Ind., and Mr. Denton Jolly, of Detroit, Mich., for the respondent. 14 N. L. R. B., No. 8. 113 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Earl Heaton, of Anderson, Ind., and Davidow c6 Davidson, by Mr. Larry S. Davidoty, of Detroit, Mich., for the United. Mr. Clarence O. Davisson, of Anderson, Ind., for the Association.. Mr. Robert Kramer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, herein called the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (In- dianapolis, Indiana), issued its complaint, dated February 8, 1938,. against General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, and Delco- Remy Corporation, Anderson, Indiana, herein collectively called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were 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 National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of a hearing to be held on February 21, 1938, at Anderson, Indiana, were duly served upon the respondents, the United, and Delco-Remy Employees' Associa- tion, Inc., Local No. 1, National Independent Unions of America,. Inc., herein called the Association. On February 12, 1938, the Re- gional Director ordered that the Association, pursuant to its motion, dated February 10, 1938, be permitted to intervene in this proceeding. In respect of the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that in 1933 the respondents initiated, formed, and sponsored a labor organization of their employees known as Delco- Remy Employees' Association and thereafter dominated, interfered with, and contributed support to its administration; (2) that on or about January 4, 1937, the respondents locked out all their employees. at their Delco-Remy plant and refused to reemploy them until on or about January 16, 1937, in order to prevent these employees from becoming or remaining members of the United and engaging in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (3) that the respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by the above and various other acts, such as : hiring labor spies to keep under surveillance the meetings GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 115 of the members of the United in their employ; permitting and en- couraging, during January and February 1937, employees who were members of the Association to evict from the Delco-Remy plant em- ployees who were members of 'the United; permitting and assisting in the manufacture of blackjacks and other weapons in the Delco- Remy plant during working hours for the purpose of intimidating and injuring employees who were members of the United; and en- couraging and assisting the Citizens League for Industrial Security of Anderson in attempts to force employees at the Delco-Remy plant to withdraw from membership in the United and in attempts to encourage mob violence and bodily harm against the duly designated representatives of the United in Anderson, Indiana. The respondents filed a motion, dated February 17, 1938, to dismiss the complaint on the grounds: (1) that the Board was without power to accept the amended charges and to issue the complaint because International Union United Automobile Workers of America,' through its duly authorized officers, had entered into a series of written agreements with the respondents between February 11 and June 4, 1937, tinder the terms of which the International Union had agreed not to present to the Board the charges on which the complaint is based; (2) that the Board should, in its discretion, dismiss the complaint because the agreements between the respondents and the International Union were the result of collective bargaining, and therefore, by accepting the charges filed by the United contrary to the terms of these agreements, the Board was obstructing instead of fostering the process of collective bargaining which the Act is de-. signed to protect. The respondents filed a supplemental motion to dismiss, dated February 20, 1938, alleging that the Board was without authority to prosecute this proceeding, because the amended charges filed with the Board were a nullity, inasmuch as the United, as a result of these agreements between the International Union and the respondents, lacked the authority under its charter and the constitu- tion and bylaws of the International Union to file the amended charges on which the Board's complaint is based. The respondents filed an answer, dated February 17, 1938, stating as defenses the grounds on which the motion and supplemental motion to dismiss were based, and denying that the respondents were engaged in inter- state commerce within the meaning of the Act and that they had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The answer stated affirmatively that on November 30, 1936, Delco-Remy Corporation 1 Hereinafter referred to as the International Union to distinguish it from Local No. 146, International Union United Automobile Workers of America, herein referred to as the United. 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had surrendered its charter and had been dissolved, General Motors Corporation thereupon acquiring all the assets and assuming all the liabilities of Delco-Remy Corporation; that the Delco-Remy plant had been shut down from January 4 to 18, 1937,, solely because of the decrease in orders for products received by it from other plants of the respondents which then were closed by sit-down strikes; that in. 1933 the respondents aided in certain specified ways the formation of the Association among their employees, and thereafter contributed certain specified support to the Association until the passage of the Act on July 5, 1935; that between July 5, 1935, and February 1937, the respondents largely ceased to contribute this support to the Asso- ciation; and that since February 1937, the respondents had not con- tributed any support to the Association. The Association filed an answer, dated February 5, 1938, denying that the respondents had initiated, formed, or sponsored it but ad- mitting that the respondents in 1933 had aided and assisted in its formation. The answer stated affirmatively that after the passage of the Act the Association had incorporated and thus become' an organization' separate and distinct from that formed, in .1933. . The answer denied that the respondents had in any way dominated, inter- fered with, or contributed support to the administration of the Asso- ciation after its incorporation and stated that any acts committed by members of the Association against members of the United were done independently of the respondents. The answer further stated that the Association had as members a majority-over 7,000- .of the employees of the respondents at the Delco-Remy plant and on June 17, 1937, had filed with the Regional Director a petition request- ing an investigation and certification of representatives of employees at the Delco-Remy. plant. pursuant-.to Section 9 (c) of the Act. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Anderson, Indiana, from February 21 to March 17, 1938, before George Bokat, duly designated as Trial Examiner by the Board. The Board, the re- spondents, the United, and the Association were represented by . ounsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all the parties. At the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion and supplemental motion to dismiss the complaint filed on February 17 and February 20 by the respondents. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner denied these motions. For reasons hereinafter set forth,2 the rulings are hereby affirmed. During the hearing the 2 See Section III• E, infra. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 117 respondents moved to dismiss the entire complaint on the ground that the Board had failed to prove the allegations contained therein. The Trial Examiner denied this motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed. The respondents also moved to dismiss the allegations of the com- plaint in regard to the lock-out of the respondent's employees from January 4 to 16, 1937, on the ground that the Board had failed to prove these allegations. Counsel for the Board joined in this motion, which was granted by the Trial Examiner. The ruling is hereby affirmed. The Association moved to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged that the respondents had dominated, inter- fered with, or contributed support to the administration of the Asso- ciation, on the ground that the evidence adduced by the Board failed to sustain such allegations. The Trial Examiner denied this motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed. Counsel for the Board moved to dis- miss the complaint in so far as it referred to Delco-Remy Corporation as a respondent, on the ground that Delco-Remy Corporation was legally dissolved in 1936. The Trial Examiner granted this motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed.3 During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number-of rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On May 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the United, and the Association, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom- mended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and that it withdraw all recognition from the Association as a representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish the Association as such representative. Thereafter the respondent and the Association filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to various rulings of the Trial Exam- iner. The respondent also filed a brief in support of its exceptions. On September 29, 1938, pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, oral argument on the exceptions and the record was had before the Board in Washington, D. C., by the respondent, the United, and the Association. The Board has reviewed all the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the rulings of the Trial Examiner and s Hereinafter General Motors Corporation is referred to as the respondent. 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD finds them to be without merit, except as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, General Motors Corporation, is a corporation organized in 1916 under the laws of Delaware. Its principal office and place of business is at Detroit, Michigan. It is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and financing of automobiles, trucks, tractors, diesel locomotives, household electric refrigerators, heating and air-conditioning systems, electric light and power plants, and elec- tric motors. It operates plants at Detroit, Lansing, Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw, Michigan; Dayton, Cleveland, and Warren, Ohio; Rochester and Lockport, New York; Newark, New Jersey; Bristol, Connecticut; La Grange, Illinois; and Indianapolis, Kokomo, and Anderson, Indiana. At Anderson, it has two plants-the Guide Lamp Division and the Delco-Remy Division. These plants are lo- cated in different parts of this city and are operated as separate units, each having its own manager who is responsible only to the officers of the respondent at its main office in Detroit. The principal raw materials used at the Delco-Remy plant are steel, copper, brass, molding and insulating materials, die castings, bendix pinions, ball bearings, lacquers, paints, coal, and shipping containers. In 1937, the total value of the raw materials used at this plant was $18,252,000. The total value of the raw materials shipped to this plant during 1937 from points outside the State of Indiana was $17,029,000. The chief operations performed at the Delco-Remy plant are molding, machining, plating, painting, stamping, assem- bling, heat. treating, and welding in the manufacture of automatic and manual choke controls, coils with ignition locks, electric gen- erators, horns, ignition systems, locking devices, spark advance con- trols, electric starters and controls, switches, throttle controls, volt- age regulators, wiring harnesses, and pistons for diesel engines. The average time for processing the raw materials at this plant is 15 days. In 1937 the total value of the finished products of the Delco- Remy plant was $29,236,000. Ninety-seven per cent of these products were shipped outside the State of Indiana to other divisions of the respondent and to customers. None of these products were further processed after leaving the Delco-Remy plant, most of them being used in the assembly of finished automobiles and other manufactured products which thereafter were shipped throughout the United States and to foreign countries. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION - 119 From 1926 to 1934 the previously described operations at the Delco-Remy plant were carried on by Delco-Remy Corporation, a. Delaware corporation which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Gen- eral Motors Corporation. On January 1, 1934, General Motors Cor- poration acquired all the assets of the Delco-Remy Corporation; on November 16, 1936, all the receivables and book accounts of Delco- Remy Corporation were transferred to General Motors Corporation; and on November 30, 1936, Delco-Remy Corporation surrendered its charter and was dissolved.4 In 1937 the annual pay roll at the Delco-Remy plant amounted to $13,824,000. In January 1937, there were 8,012 hourly rate factory employees at this plant. In addition, the respondent employs about 3,000 persons at the Guide Lamp plant.' Thus, in Anderson-a city of 40,000 inhabitants-over 11,000 are employees of the respondent. The close relationship between the operations of the respondent and 'the economic welfare of Anderson is patent. Since ' 1929, Frederick C. Kroeger has been the general manager of the Delco-Remy plant. Ollie Badgley is the assistant manager. The Delco-Remy plant covers 40 acres and in January 1937 consisted of six individual. plants-numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8-each housed in a separate building. All six buildings are adjacent. Each. plant is under the control of a superintendent and an assistant superin- tendent, who are directly responsible to Kroeger and Badgley. In plant 1 only-the largest of the six plants-there are three super- visors, each of whom has charge of several of the sixteen depart- ments in this plant. All the plants are divided into departments, each of which is under a foreman who has the power of initiating discharges and discipline. Usually, there is an assistant foreman in each department, and also a group leader. The group leaders are general utility workmen who assist the foreman in keeping constant the production, output. The Delco-Remy plant is completely surrounded by walls and fences. The only entrances or exits are gates which are constantly guarded 'by uniformed plant police. Leland Kaufman is the chief of the plant police, of whom there were 57 in January 1937. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, which filed the charges upon which the complaint is based, is a labor organization. During the period involved in this proceeding, it was affiliated with the.Committee for Industrial Or- 4 Hereinafter , whenever used in connection with events occurring before November 30, 1936, respondent refers to De1co -Remy Corporation ; whenever used in connection with events occurring after November 30, 1936, respondent refers to General Motors Corporation. 190935-40-vol. 14-9 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ganization. It admits to membership employees of the respondent at the Delco-Remy plant. Delco-Remy Employees' Association, Inc., is a labor 'Organization, incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana in 1936. In August 1937, it affiliated with National Independent Unions of Amer- ica, Inc., an organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana in July 1937. The Association admits to membership non- supervisory employees of the respondent at the Delco-Remy plant only. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR 7'RACTICES A. The formation and administration of the Association prior to January 1, 1937 1. The history of the Association prior to the effective date of the Act Although the Act applies only to practices occurring on or after July 5, 1935, in cases where such practices have their origins in events prior to that date, knowledge of that background of events may .be vital to a proper evaluation of the present practices. Consequieiltly, in this and other parts of the findings of fact reference will be made to events prior to July 5, 1935, wherever it is necessary for this purpose.5 In 1933, shortly after the passage of the National Industrial Recov- ery Act, Charles Gross, a supervisor of maintenance , during working hours told Guy Lennen , an employee in plant 1, that Lennen had been appointed a temporary employee representative and ordered him to attend a meeting to be held in the plant during working hours. Gross asked Lennen for the names of other workers suitable for, this purpose, and at Lennen's suggestion appointed . two other employees, Otho Elliott and Calvin Meredith , to similar posts and ordered them to attend this meeting . About fifteen temporary representatives at- tended. Gross addressed the group and advised them to organize, explaining the nature of the proposed Association . A few days later at another meeting held in the plant during working hours an em- ployee Childers, was elected chairman. Shortly thereafter Childers called a meeting of about 80 temporary representatives in the plant during working hours. Badgley, Albert Gilgour, superintendent of plant 1, Wilbur Hulse, assistant superintendent of plant 1, Everett Vinson, a supervisor, and George Coburn, head of the personnel and employment department of the entire Delco-Remy plant, were present. B Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., Greyhound Management Company, Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway.and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 1, order enforced, National Labor Rela- tions Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines Inc. and Greyhound Managements Company, 303 U. S. 261 ( 1938). GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 121 Coburn asked the representatives to tell him of any complaints they had concerning the working conditions in the plant. About 6 weeks later the first elections for permanent officers were held. Lloyd A. Breese, an employee in plant 2, was called over to the desk of his foreman , Verle Linville, the day of the elections. Linville asked Breese why he had not voted, and when Breese said that he did not "believe in it," told him : "I think you ought to take an active part in it; it means as much to you as it does 'to us; I think you have the wrong attitude." Breese voted. Warren S. Pickett and Wilbur L. McCartney , as well as all except 2 of the 16 employees in their department in plant 5, refrained from voting the day the election was held. McCartney and most of the 16 employees in this department were members of a Federal Labor Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, which was beginning to organize the employees at the Delco-Remy plant. The following day, Pickett was requested to cast a ballot by his foreman, Edgar Richardson . When he refused , Richardson sent him to B. A. Dollens, superintendent of plant 5 , who told him : "It [voting] is voluntary, but I have had to let some go out there , and I may have to let some others go." Pickett immediately voted. Foreman Rich- ardson next told McCartney : "The Company tells me to tell you if you don't want to cooperate they will get somebody that will. There is just two of you that hasn't voted, you and Pickett. Pickett is in the office now talking to B. A. [Dollens ]. I don't want to have to send you up there." McCartney then voted. Charles Kade, also a member of the Federal Union, refused to serve when elected to an Association office. He was immediately laid off for a week , and when he attempted to return to work before the expiration of his lay-off, he was permanently discharged . Roscoe Hutton , another Federal Union member, was also discharged at this time . Shortly thereafter, the Federal Union at the Delco-Remy plant became extinct. Supervisor Gross frankly told Lennen, "Under this N. R. A., we are going to have to organize, and if we don't organize, someone will organize us." In fact, the respondent's answer states that the "re- spondent admits that in August 1933, its predecessor in interest, Delco-Remy Corporation, submitted to the employees at said Delco- Remy plant a proposal for the formation of Delco-Remy Employees' Association ... Said plan was thereupon adopted by the employees of said Delco-Remy plant by participating in the first elections at which councilmen were elected under said plan ." The Association's answer also admits that "the respondents did aid and assist said organization [the Association] in its formation." The Association consisted of six councils , one for each plant, com- posed of one councilman for every 200 employees . These councils 122 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD elected their own chairmen and other officers. The chairmen of the six plant councils composed the general council, which in turn elected its own chairman and officers. The councils were the governing body of the Association, carried on all its business, and conducted all its negotiations with the respondent. Each department also had a rep- resentative whose duty it was to present employee grievances to the councils. The representatives and the plant councilmen were elected annually. Only non-supervisory employees at the Delco-Remy plant could vote or hold office. The elections were held on company property during working hours without any loss of pay to the voters, and the respondent paid all the expenses of the elections in 1933 and 1934. Indeed, the re- spondent paid all the expenses of the Association, such as those in-. curred in printing its Articles in 1934, inasmuch as the Association had no dues or money of its own. Aside from voting at the annual elections or holding an office, there were no iudicia of Association membership. Membership applications or cards were unknown. The councils met and transacted all business of the Association during working hours in the plant and the councilmen were paid their hourly wages for time thus spent. All records of the Association were kept in the plant. The totality of the respondent's support of the Asso- ciation during this period is thus summed up in the respondent's answer : [The respondent] gave certain support to said Association, which included printing copies of the articles of association, printing ballots and other stationery, permitting the Association to conduct its elections on plant property, permitting the use of plant bulletin boards, permitting the employees' plant councils and the officers and other committees of the Association to meet on plant property for their own purposes, paying members of the employees' plant councils their hourly rates for time devoted to Association business, paying employees their hourly rates for time spent in voting at Association elections, furnishing steno- graphic and clerical assistance, and furnishing copies of the plant pay roll for use as election lists. The uncontradicted evidence and the admissions of the respondent and the Association, set forth above, reveal the determination of the respondent.to institute a company-dominated organization, its thor- oughness in executing that design, and the compulsions used by it to achieve this purpose. The employees did not request or originate the Association and the respondent gave them no opportunity freely to indicate their approval or disapproval of it. In fact, the respondent - ' GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 123 by discharges and threats of discharge compelled the employees to participate in the elections, forcing them to choose between their jobs and the Association. Moreover, at its very inception, the respondent openly used the Association as a weapon to crush an outside labor organization of its employees. And it would be difficult to conceive how the respondent could more completely have dominated and sup- ported the Association during these first 2 years of its existence. Not only did the respondent pay all the expenses incurred by the Associa- tion, but it also reimbursed Association' members for all the time they spent in Association tasks, either as voters or officers. In effect, the respondent was treasurer and paymaster of the Association. Every activity of the Association-its elections and the meetings of its councils-occurred during working hours in the plant under the watchful eyes of the respondent's officials.6 The structure of the Association prevented participation by "outside" representatives in its affairs and limited contact between the employee representatives and the great mass of employees to the annual elections, in contrast with the constant relations of the representatives with the respondent which reimbursed them for their Association work. Finally, by forg- ing the strong links between it and the Association before the very eyes of its employees, the respondent made clear to them and indelibly stamped upon their minds its sponsorship of the Association and its aggressive hostility toward "outside" organizations. 2. The history of the Association from July 5, 1935, until January 1, 1937 The respondent and the Association contend that after the Act went into effect on July 5, 1935, the Association gradually became inde- pendent of the respondent. In considering this contention, it must be remembered that during the preceding 2 years the respondent had so woven itself into the fabric of the Association as to make inde- pendence for the latter extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, even if decisive steps were taken for that purpose. Shortly after July 5, 1935, John Dunbeck, then chairman of the Association's general council, and Fred Mote, a plant councilman, prepared it statement which the Association councils thereafter had printed and distributed to every employee in 'the Delco-Remy plant. There is no evidence that the respondent in any way suggested or aided in the preparation or distribution of this bulletin, which was 'There were even more watchful eyes than 'those of the respondent's officials, since at this time the respondent had a labor spy in this plant, as hereinafter set forth. 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD issued in the name of the Association. The bulletin quoted certain sections of the Act and then said : ... we can maintain our present organization-Delco-Remy Employees' Association-providing : 1. We hold an Election on our own time .. . 2. We finance our own printing of ballots, hand bills such as these, and all other incidental expense .. . 3. We serve voluntarily and without pay on Election Boards. Shortly after the issuance of this bulletin, the Association adopted and had printed new Articles and Bylaws, which, with certain excep- tions hereinafter discussed, were virtually identical with those in effect before July 5, 1935. The answer of the respondent alleges that after July 5, 1935, the respondent ceased to support the Association except that "it permitted the Association to conduct its elections at the expense of the Association and outside of working hours on plant property, permitted the plant councils and the general council to maintain their permanent file' of records in the room on plant property in which collective bargaining meetings were held, and paid members of the plant councils and the general council their hourly rates for time used in investigating or adjusting grievances." The evidence introduced at the hearing showed that the following changes were made in the administration of the Association shortly after July 5, 1935: (1) As set forth in the Association's bulletin and the respondent's answer, the Association elections in 1935 and 1936 were held on plant property, but not during working hours; (2) the Association was not permitted to install bulletin boards in the plant, the respondent denying its request for this privilege in September 1935; (3) as set forth in its bulletin, the Association paid all its own expenses, including those for its elections, but all meetings of its councils as well as its elections were held in the plant, where all its records were kept, and, contrary to the allegation in the respondent's answer, the councilmen were paid their hourly wages for the entire time spent at such meetings regardless of whether grievances were being investigated and adjusted or other Association business was being transacted. On February 11, 1936, the plant 8 council petitioned the general council to incorporate the Association in order to protect its officers and members against possible lawsuits arising out of accidents oc- curring at Association dances or other social functions. Lennen, the member of the plant 8 council who first suggested the need for incor- poration, gave as his sole reason therefor the one set forth in the petition, as did Charles Robertson, Jr., chairman of the council and secretary-treasurer of the general council. Robert Barber, also a GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 125 member of the plant 8 council, testified that the real reason for this petition was an endeavor to make the Association more permanent and independent, although he admitted that the reason advanced by Lennen and Robertson was the one most discussed at this time. Whatever may have been Barber's secret reason, we are convinced by the evidence that the view of Lennen and Robertson was the one }vhich was publicly advanced for the change and which led the gen- eral council to sanction the incorporation of the Association under the laws of the State of Indiana on April 13, 1936. In its answer, the Association contends that by reason of its incorporation it became a new entity and that, therefore, the fore- going incidents have no relation to it. However, as we have pointed out, most of the Association officers viewed the incorporation merely as a safeguard against individual liability for tort damages. More- over, no change other than the assumption of the corporate form appears to have taken place when the Association was incorporated. Although a board of directors was created, it admittedly never func- tioned in any manner; otherwise the officers, the Articles and Bylaws, the method' of operation, and the financial arrangements, so far as the record discloses, remained the same. It is plain that the mere fact of incorporation could not wipe out the respondent's far-reach- ing domination, interference, and support. While the Association was thus taking some steps which might be viewed as attempts-albeit feeble ones-to break away from the re- spondent's domination and support, the respondent did nothing prior to October 1936, except for its refusal in September 1935 of the Association's request for permission to install bulletin boards in the plant, to indicate to the Association or the employees that the re- spondent considered that the Act had caused a change in its labor policies. There is no evidence that the respondent, prior to December 1936, announced publicly that it would not interfere with the right -of the employees to select representatives of their own choosing. Such silence was eloquent. To the employees, in view of the con- tinued existence of the Association, whose outward guise had changed but little, it could mean only that the Association still represented the will of the respondent. Moreover, the evidence strikingly shows that the respondent during this period continued to behave toward the Association as its offspring. . McCartney, who was an Association councilman for plant 5, to- gether with an Association representative, Aubrey Unter, and Pickett and James Kaster, all fellow employees in McCartney's department, asked Foreman Richardson for a wage increase in the spring of 1936. Richardson took McCartney to see Superintendent Dollens, who told McCartney : "You could stop that stuff out there, petitions like that, you know when you are getting the top rate, you don't have to bring 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them in here. You talk those boys out of these grievances like that." When McCartney replied that it was his duty as plant councilman to present grievances and that he would refer the matter to the general council, Dollens retorted : "It ain't going to plant 1 [the general coun- cil], I can tell you that, it will stop right here. I will stop it right here." Despite this threat, McCartney had Charles Locke, chairman of the plant 5 council, present the grievance to the general council. A few days later Dollens sent for McCartney, and with McCartney's clock card and the grievance petition on his desk, said : "Why don't you quit before I have to can you? Here is this grievance that I thought we had already settled in here.... Stewart [the assistant to Badgley who conducted all negotiations for the respondent with the general council] wants it straightened out. There is the grievance, what are you going to do with it?" McCartney's testimony of his subsequent conduct is a biting commentary on the helplessness of the Association when it did not comply with the respondent's desires : I just thought a minute, I felt, well, I have no backing, I said, "Well as far as I am concerned" I just reached over, got it [the petition], tore it in two, threw it in the wastebasket.... Q. Did you report to your men? A. Went back and told them what happened. They said, "Well there is nothing to do." I said, "What shall I do, resign?" I said, "I can't go in there and get anything." They said, "don't do that, no use to send anybody in there," they said, "You go ahead and serve your term out, go ahead and attend the meetings, set down, talk about baseball, whatever comes up, get in your time, come back to work." A few days later Byron Stewart sent for both McCartney and Locke and, after they had, at his request, told him about the grievance and its disposition, said : "You seem to be pretty intelligent and it looks like you are kind of on the wrong track over there. You better go back over there and watch your step. I could lay you off now, but I won't do it, I will give you another chance. You go back over there, watch your step, forget about this." McCartney never again pre- sented a grievance to the respondent. The respondent did not rely solely upon the eyes and ears of its own supervisory officials to keep it informed of the sentiments of the employees and of whether the Association was functioning in accord- ance with the respondent's desires. In 1929, Kroeger, on his own initiative, but with the consent of his superiors in Detroit, had engaged the services of the National Metal Trades Association to furnish him with reports from 2 to 4 times a month on plant efficiency, safety hazards, unexpressed employee complaints, "communistic activities .either in the plant or in the community generally" and "information GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 127 as to the general feeling regarding labor organizations" in the Delco- Remy plant. Between July 1935, and January 1, 1937, an average of $185 a month was paid by the respondent for this service. The Metal Trades Association furnished an operative, Lorain Butterfield, who was employed in the time-keeping department at the Delco- Remy plant. Kroeger testified that Butterfield was ordered not to join any labor organization. Although the exact nature of the serv- ices rendered by the Metal Trades Association and operative Butter- field was not fully disclosed at'the hearing, Kroeger's testimony con- cerning the matters on which he requested the Metal Trades Asso- ciation to report to him shows that labor espionage was a part of their work. Kroeger discontinued this service on January 1, 1937, at the express order of the Detroit officers of the respondent, but it is admitted that this spying on the employees continued for almost a year and a half after the effective date of the Act. In the summer of 1936, the United began an intensive campaign to organize the employees at the Delco-Remy and Guide Lamp plants. Thereupon the respondent indicated to its employees that its hostility to labor organizations other than the Association was as powerful and aggressive in 1936 as in 1933. Riland Males, an employee, was elected secretary-treasurer of the plant 8 council in September 1936. That same month he joined the United. In December 1936, Foreman Willard James and Assistant Foreman Ray Wiley sent for him, and after James had rebuked him for cutting some wire too short, Wiley asked him if he belonged to the United. Males admitted that he did. Wiley then asked him why he belonged to it after having been elected to the Association's plant council, and said : "You are either going to belong to or be in the Council or belong to the U. A. W. A. Why don't you drop one or the other?" Wiley and James both then told Males that he could not "carry water on both shoulders." If the respondent had ceased to dominate and support the Association it admittedly would not have been concerned whether Males belonged to any number of or- ganizations in addition to the Association. On December 16, 1936, the respondent issued the first public state- ment on its labor policies since the effective date of the Act. The following notice was placed by it on all plant bulletin boards. Delco-Remy Division, General Motors Corporation Notice To be sure that everyone understands the policies of the com- pany, the Management desires to state that there are to be no 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD solicitations on the part of any organization for memberships on, the premises of this company. A violation of this rule will result in the dismissal of the employee who_ solicits such memberships. It is the policy of this company to deal with all employees alike, regardless of affiliation or non-affiliation. Your job does, not depend upon being a member of any organization. It must be remembered that at this time the Association had no membership applications or cards amid had never solicited or cam- paigned for members. Consequently the first paragraph of . this bulletin clearly could refer only to the organizational activities of the United. Membership in the Association, moreover, was a vague and indefinite thing the sole indication being either voting or hold- ing an office. It is apparent, therefore, that the second paragraph refers primarily to the United, and was not intended to disavow the respondent's domination and support of the Association. Under these circumstances, to employees reading it, the notice was a clear rebuke and warning to the United about its activities among the workers at the Delco-Remy plant. Late in December 1936, the respondent announced to the secretary of the general council that all Association files must be removed from the plant and that in the future all council meetings must be heldi outside the plant. Such announcements came too late, however, to effect any changes before January 1, -1937. A brief analysis of the original form of the Association and of the changes made therein prior to January 1, 1937, shows that the re- spondent's domination, interference with, and support of, its admin- istration were complete and continued without diminution after the effective date of the Act. Association membership was limited to non-supervisory employees at the Delco-Remy plant and automatically terminated upon discharge. The Association's Articles state that membership "shall be voluntary," and that members shall have certain rights, such as voting or holding office. The Articles do not state how an employee could become a member. The Association, after the Act became effective, still had no dues, no fixed and certain annual income of its own ; its expenses were met by admissions charged for social affairs sponsored by it. The Articles of 1935 provided for the establishment of a finance committee,, but this committee apparently never functioned. The vague nature of membership in the Association and the uncertain and varying amount of its income rendered it helpless whenever vigorous collective action was needed in dealing with the respondent. The treatment of McCartney by Dollens and Stewart is a specific illustration of this, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 129 point; McCartney tore up his petition because he felt that he had no "backing." Moreover, the very representatives who were charged with the task of acting for the employees-were reimbursed by the respondent for the work they performed in such capacity, inasmuch as at all times prior to January 1, 1937, the respondent paid the Associa- tion officers for all time spent on Association business, although after July 5, 1935, employees were no longer paid for the time spent in voting in Association elections. In addition, the respondent furnished places for the councils to meet and keep all the "records of the Association. Since the Articles and Bylaws contained no provisions for employee meetings, the employees had no regular method of formulating. the views and desires of ,the entire group. Similarly, the employee repre- sentatives had no regular method of receiving instructions from the employees, of ascertaining their views and desires, or of imparting information to them. As a group, the employees came in direct con- tact with the Association only when they elected their representatives. Moreover, only Association members, and consequently only employees, were eligible for Association offices. Accordingly, no outside person or organization free from the possibility of coercion or intimidation could represent the employees. And, it is clear that even the sincerest employee representatives were at a hopeless disadvantage. On the one side were management representatives possessing complete informa- tion, statistical and factual, relating to the business, able to command the resources of a huge and efficient organization, and fully informed of employee feelings by a labor-espionage service. On the other were employee representatives with no information other than that which their working experience had given them. The assistance of outside persons skilled in such matters was unavailable.? Finally, although the Articles and Bylaws of 1935 contained extensive provisions in regard to collective bargaining, until November 1936, these provisions were apparently never used; the Association never had requested the respondent to enter into any sort of an agreement, oral or written, with it. On November 10, 1936, the plant 6 council, apparently because of the insistent demands of the three members of this council of five em- ployees who belonged to the United, requested the respondent to make a written agreement with the Association guaranteeing no reductions in wages during 1937. No action was ever taken on this request by the respondent., Thus the Association was imposed and foisted upon the employees by the respondent as a means of stifling genuine collective bargain- ing, and its structure and history shows that in accordance with the respondent's design it was incapable of serving as a genuine 7 See footnote 5, supra. 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representative of employees. During the 3 years of its existence up to 1937, continued effort by the respondent had driven deeply, if not indestructibly, into the mind of every employee the idea that the Association was a company-dominated union. In fact, the re- spondent had so firmly rooted in the minds of the employees the conviction that the Association was an arm of the respondent that the destruction of that conviction, since it would involve the elim- ination of the continuing effects of years of constant domination of an employees' organization and of interference with the rights of employees to self-organization, required scarcely less than the disso- lution of the Association itself. We find, therefore, that from July 5, 1935, until January 1, 1937, the respondent dominated, interfered with, and contributed support to the- administration of Delco-Remy Employees' Association, Inc., also known as Delco-Remy Employees' Association. We find that the respondent, by the acts and conduct set forth in the preceding paragraph and by other acts and conduct occurring between July 5, 1935, and January 1, 1937, set forth above, including the use of the services of National Metal Trades Association, inter- fered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,.to form, join, or assist labor organ- izations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, as guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The Citizens League for Industrial Security; and the "back-to- work" movements On Thursday, December 31, 1936, the Delco-Reiny plant closed for the New Year holiday, the employees being notified that it would reopen on Monday, January 4, 1937. The same day that the Delco- Remy plant closed, employees at the Guide Lamp plant who were United members began a sit-down strike. About the same time most of the other plants of the respondent situated throughout the United States were closed by strikes of employees who were members of the International Union. By Saturday, January 2, 1937, Kroeger had received so many cancelations. of orders for products of the Delco- Remy plant from the other plants of the respondent which were closed by these strikes, that he decided to keep the Delco-Remy plant closed indefinitely in order to take an inventory of the stock. On that and the following day all employees at this plant were notified that "due to notices from many of our customers stopping further shipments it is necessary to temporarily suspend operations in order to revise schedules after an inventory has been taken." At no time GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 131 was there ever a strike of any nature at the Delco-Remy plant. At the Guide Lamp plant of the respondent, however, which was also located in Anderson, the strikers remained in the plant until Jan- uary 16, 1937, and the strike was not ended until February 11, 1937. The Delco-Remy plant did not reopen until Monday, January 18, 1937. On Tuesday, January 5, 1937, a printed statement, signed by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., president of the respondent, was sent by mail by the respondent to every employee of the Delco-Remy plant. This statement had been sent to Kroeger from his superiors in Detroit with orders to have it printed and distributed among the employees. Kroeger wrote and signed the following statement by way of intro- duction to Sloan's remarks : I know that you, as a Delco-Remy employee, are greatly con- cerned about the general industrial situation particularly as it affects your own employment and outlook for the future. I am, therefore, printing below a statement from Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., President of General Motors Corporation, which points out the issues involved and declares the Corporation's stand on these issues. I believe you will recognize the logic of Mr. Sloan's state- ments and the definite position the Corporation is taking. Sloan pointed out that although there had never been a. greater demand for the respondent's products, several of the respondent's plants had been forced to close down, and then said: Yet under these conditions you are being forced out of your jobs by sit-down strikes, by wide-spread intimidation, and by shortage of materials produced by similar tactics in many allied industries. Your employment and wages and the welfare of your families are being endangered by actions beyond your con- trol and that of your company. The same ruthless tactics are threatening the general recovery of business . You are being told you had better join a union. You are being told that to bargain collectively you must be a member of a labor organization. You are being told that the. automobile industry is to be run as a closed shop. You are being told that if you do not join now it will be impossible for you to work in any automobile plant when the union wins . . . I want to say to you most frankly that this is positively not so. Do not be misled. Have no fear that any union or labor dictator will dominate the plants of General Motors Corporation No General Motors worker need join any organization to get a job or to keep a job . . . Neither is it necessary for you to join any organization in order to bargain collectively. General Motors is pledged to col- 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lective bargaining on the basis of absolute and uninfluenced free- dom of choice,on.the part.of any worker. to join.any organization without coercion, restraint or intimidation .. . I mention all this because efforts are being made, in various ways, to make you as well as the public believe that General Motors refuses to bargain collectively with its workers and exer- cises discrimination against men who elect to join one organiza- tion or another. Nothing could be further from the truth. ... [The] real issue is perfectly clear and here it is: Will a labor organization run the plants of General Motors Corporation or will the Management continue to do so? On this issue depends the question as to whether you have to have a union card to hold a job, or whether your job will depend in the future, as it has in the past, upon your own individual merit. In other words, will you pay to a private group of labor dic- tators for the privilege of working, or will you have the right to work as you desire. Wages, working conditions, honest col- lective bargaining have little, if anything, to do with the under- lying situation. They are simply a smoke screen to cover -the real objective. Sloan then summarized the respondent's position, stating in part : 1. General Motors will not recognize any union as the sole bar- gaining agent for its workers, to the exclusion of all others. General Motors will continue to recognize, for the purpose of collective bargaining, the representatives of its workers, whether union or non-union. 2. Work in General Motors plants will continue to depend on the ability and efficiency of the worker-not on the membership or non-membership in any labor organization whatsoever. This means that you do not have to pay tribute to anyone for the right to work . . . And, let me add, that General Motors will continue to keep its plants going just as long as we are able to obtain the essential materials from other plants on which we are dependent in order to build our various products. I realize what the situation means to you. It has been brought about through no lack of effort on the part of the management of General Motors Corporation to make the business a good one . . . for the workers . . . On Friday, January 8, 1937, a meeting of 300 businessmen was held at the Y. M. C. A., and the Citizens League for Industrial Security was organized. Homer Lambert, a local real-estate operator, was elected chairman and given complete power to formulate and carry out all future activities of the-League. That very evening and also GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 133 on the, following Sunday afternoon, January 10, 1937, Lambert spoke ever a local radio station and stated that'in Anderson 11,000 of 12,000 employees of the respondent desired to return to work and did not wish to be forced to join an organization under alien leadership; and that consequently in Anderson a very small minority of employees were keeping all employees of the respondent from returning to work. Lambert requested his listeners to show their support of the majority of employees who desired to return to work by joining the League. Over 17,000 people joined the League. Membership in the League involved no fees and apparently no duty other than approval of the League's purposes. George T. Hitz, secretary of the League, testified that the League's purpose was "to get the people back to work" and to adjust strikes; James R. Day, treasurer of the League, testified that its aim was "to create public sentiment and get it so that the people could go back to work," because of the general belief, expressed in Lambert's radio speeches, that a minority of employees were keeping all employees from returning to work. Lambert testified that the League was definitely opposed to sit-down strikes and to the United which the League considered responsible for the sit-down strikes. The chief activities-of the League.were Lambert's two radio speeches, a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper on January 10, 1937, repeating some of. the statements made in the radio speeches, an un- .accepted offer of aid to the mayor of Anderson during the subsequent riots, and a request to the Governor for the protection of the State militia. The expenses of the League were met by voluntary contribu- tions from local businessmen. Both Lambert and Kroeger denied that the League ever contacted the respondent or received financial aid from it. Kroeger testified that he knew of the League's activity but that neither he nor any other officer of the respondent belonged to, aided, or encouraged it. Throughout this proceeding, the respondent has taken the posi- tion that the events occurring in Anderson subsequent to January 5, 1937, were the result of the actions of the enraged Delco-Remy em- ployees and citizens of Anderson, that it was not responsible for their actions, and that it was not obligated and was powerless to pre- vent such occurrences. Unquestionably the respondent was well aware of the dependence of Anderson's economic welfare upon the operation of its plants. It knew that the closing of the Guide Lamp and Delco-Remy plants had alarmed the entire community. Because of the shut-down of the Delco-Remy plant, the sit-down strike at the Guide Lamp plant, and the strikes at the respondent's; other plants, Anderson seethed with rumors and excitement. The general feeling in Anderson was that the Delco-Remy plant was .closed because. the respondent feared a sit-down strike at it by the 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United if it were opened, rather than because customers had can- celed orders, as the respondent's official notices stated. There were other reports that the respondent was moving its plants elsewhere and that strikers from Michigan were marching on the city. By means of Sloan's statement the respondent made clear to all the vitally concerned citizens of Anderson its deep-seated hostility to- ward the United, thereby moulding public opinion in Anderson against the United. In fact, Sloan's bulletin contained statements that were plainly designed, and could not fail, to arouse hostility toward the United in the minds of many of the respondent's em- ployees and the other citizens of Anderson. The claim that a small minority of the employees were preventing all the employees from working, which was stressed so much by Lambert in his speeches, was one of the central themes of Sloan's statement on January 5. Like Sloan in his statement, the League attacked and sought to dis- credit this so-called minority of employees-members of the United and the International Union-who were asserted to be responsible for the shut-down. . This January 5, 1937, bulletin clearly interfered with and re- strained the rights of the employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Such statements as that the respondent would not recognize "any union as the sole bargaining agent for its workers," and that the "real issue" was whether the employees would be able to work as they wished or must pay a "group of private labor dictators"- the International Union-for the- privilege of working, constituted interference and restraint in violation of the Act. We find that the respondent by issuing this statement of Kroeger and Sloan, dated January 5, 1937, interfered with, coerced, and restrained its em- ployees 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 and other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The record, however, shows no connection between the respondent and the League other than the relationship, pointed out above, be- tween Sloan's written statement to the employees and the League's subsequent formation and activities. We are, therefore, of the opin- ion that the evidence does not support the allegation of the com- plaint that the respondent encouraged and assisted the League. We will, therefore, dismiss this allegation of the complaint. On January 5, 1937, the very day that Sloan's statement was mailed to every Delco-Remy employee, so-called "loyal" employees began to^ organize two "back-to-work" movements. Because of the belief that. the respondent had shut down the Delco-Remy plant for fear of a sit- GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 135 down strike, one purpose, apparently the principal one, of these move- ments was to prove to the respondent that inasmuch as the employees desired only to return to work, there was no danger of a sit-down strike. One group was organized as a result of conversations between Jahn Dunbeck, general chairman of the Association in 1934-1935, and Fred Morsches, a stock chaser in the plant who was well known among the employees because his work took him into all parts of the plant. Morsches suggested that each Delco-Remy employee be requested to sign a card stating his desire to return to work. Morsches obtained office space and equipment for the group free of charge from a personal friend, and a house-to-house canvass of all the employees was begun by a large force of volunteer workers, including Jesse Shelton, chairman of the Association's general council, Robert Barber, secretary-treas- urer of the general council, Newton Wombold, chairman of the Asso- ciation's election committee, Fred Mote and Jordan Bronnenberg, members of the general council, and John Owens, Dick Shaw, Guy Martz, Rex Hurst, and George Graham, all Association plant council- men. The expenses of the movement were met by voluntary contribu- tions from these and other workers. . Independently of Morsches' group, two Delco-Remy employees, Bert Edward Carpenter and James Wright, on January 6 held a mass meeting of 300 employees, the chief purpose of which was to discover who were United members and who were not. On January 9, Morsches, having learned of the activities of Carpenter and Wright, arranged for them to use their group in cooperation with his in the house-to-house canvass of Delco-Remy employees, in return for his agreeing to pay all their expenses. A week later the two groups con- solidated. . Both Wright and Morsches testified that the respondent in no way supported or aided them; that they never contacted the respondent; and that the 7,000 signed cards collected by the canvassers were never shown or given the respondent, but instead were later burned by Morsches, because the Delco-Remy plant reopened before they were prepared to take such action. C. The reopening of the Delco-Remy plant; and the "evictions" On Sunday, January 17, 1937, the respondent, having determined to reopen the Delco-Remy plant partially the following day, sum- moned 100 employees to a meeting there. Ordinarly there were 57 uniformed police on duty in the plant. In view of the fact, however, that the 8,000 employees were being recalled gradually over a 2-week period, the respondent, in order to avoid confusion, had decided to institute a system whereby each employee on entering the plant had 190935-40-vol. 14-10 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to present to a guard at the gate a pass, previously given to him-by the gate guard when he left the plant, on which his name was written. To carry out this pass system, 100 extra police were needed. Kaufman, chief of the plant police, testified that he asked each plant superintend- ent to submit to him a list of employees, chosen on the basis of physical condition, length of service, knowledge of the plant and of the em- ployees, and willingness to serve. From the 160 names on these lists, Kaufman selected 100. These men he summoned to the January 17 meeting, at which he informed them that the respondent wished there to serve as police, and gave them their instructions. These so-called :special duty guards each had an arm band and a blackjack, and for the following 3. weeks patrolled the plant and assisted the regular uniformed guards. At the hearing, not one witness named a special duty guard who was a United member. The absence of any United members from the 100 employees selected for special duty casts con- siderable doubt on Kaufman's testimony as to the method of their -selection. On the other hand, Barber, secretary-treasurer of the Asso- ciation, Dunbeck, former chairman of its general council, Wombold, .chairman of its election committee, Earl Allen, secretary, and Car- penter and Wright, leaders of the one "back-to-work" group, and Morsches and Dunbeck, leaders of the other "back-to-work" movement, were all chosen for this special duty." To say the least, it is a remark- able coincidence that no United members were selected, although leaders of the Association and of the "back-to-work" groups were. Subsequent events showed this selection to have been extremely inju- dicious and unfortunate. The United had planned to hold a mass meeting at the Court House on the evening of January 25, 1937. Wright, hearing of this plan, arranged with Morsches to have a similar mass meeting of "loyal" employees that same evening. At about 6 o'clock the "loyal" employees met in the Granada Theater. Wright, Carpenter, and Dick Shaw were on the stage, apparently as speakers, and Dunbeck, Barber, Allen, and Morsches attended. There was much disorder and drinking among those present. One foreman, Gale Gammon, attended. He testified that he went there out of curiosity, stayed only 3 minutes, and left immediately upon discovering the purpose of the meeting. The men at the meeting armed themselves with clubs by breaking up the furniture and were supplied with eggs as they filed out into the street. One group rushed over to the Court House, and another marched to the hall in which the United had its headquarters. Meanwhile, the United had canceled its court-house meeting; how- 8 Morsches was unable to act as a special guard because his foreman needed him to perform his customary tasks in the plant. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 137 ever, the mob of "loyal" employees discovered several United mem- bers at the Court -House-, and immediately`-attacked them. Dick Shaw led one group which thus assaulted John Moore, a United member employed at Delco-Remy. Foreman Gale Gammon, whose curiosity had led him here as well as to the meeting at the Granada Theater, testified that he tried to disarm a union organizer, but was clubbed and beaten. From the Court House, the mob, led by Wright, went to the hall in which the United had its headquarters in Anderson. After the police had safely escorted everyone out of the hall, the mob rushed in and destroyed all the United's records. The ubiquitous Gammon was again present, according to his testimony out of curiosity, de- spite the fact that he testified that he had been severely beaten and had had six stitches taken in his forehead but a short time before. Gammon denied that he helped "organize the crowd ... got out in front of this crowd and yelled and waved my hands for them to do things . . . acting as leader and egging the men on," as Ray Starr, ' an employee, testified, but Gammon's continual presence at every event of the evening, .and his failure., to return home despite his allegedly severe injuries indicate that he had more than a mere spectator's or curiosity-seeker's interest in the riots and leads us to believe Starr's, and reject Gammon's, account of.Gammon' s actions here. Foreman William Parkinson and Clyde Hilligoss, super- visor of inspection in plant 6, were present here. Kroeger, Badgley, Coburn, and Stewart, the four highest officials of the Delco-Remy plant in Anderson, were also spectators. From-the union' hal'l' t'he'mob' went to 'the the -Guide-, Lamp - plant- and there dispersed the United pickets. Earl Sheriff, a production super- visor at the plant, who had witnessed the union-hall rioting, was also present at the Guide Lamp disturbance. A significant indication of the respondent's attitude toward these anti-United activities is that-the sole evidence of any subsequent com- ment by an official of the respondent to an employee concerning the riots was made not to a member of the attacking group - of "loyal" employees, but to John Moore, a United member who had been assaulted at the Court' House. Hilligoss, the morning after the dis- turbance, when he saw Moore at the plant, remarked that he "was surprised to hear" that Moore "was mixed up in the mess last night." Furthermore, it is noteworthy that none of the mob leaders, such as Wright, who were special guards, were relieved of these duties by the respondent, although their action in the riots clearly demon- strated to the respondent their patent unreliability for preserving order in the plant. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ,RELATIONS BOARD The passions and hatreds incited by the events of the evening of January 25, 1937, immediately blazed up among the employees at the. Delco-Remy plant. Beginning, the following morning, January 26, 1937, and lasting through February 3, 1937, various employees, all members of the United, were while at their work evicted from the plant by groups of employees. According to the respondent's records, there were 91 such evictions. The leaders and participants in the evictions were the same employees who led and participated in the "back-to-work" movements and the riots of January 25. The usual procedure was for a group of employees, ranging in size from 4 to 100,. to approach the United employees, one by one, and order them to leave the plant and not to return until they had renounced their United membership by bringing to the mob leaders their torn up union mem- bership card as well as an affidavit stating that they had resigned from the United. Often the evicted employees were told that the necessary affidavits could be procured at the headquarters of the "back-to-work" movement, and many did obtain them there. In a few instances, the United members, while at work, were forced to appear before so-called "kangaroo" courts in the plant, composed of the leaders of the evicting mobs, and were given the same instructions. The respondent contends that these evictions were planned and carried out by the employees; that it did not approve or encourage them in any manner; that under all the circumstances it did every- thing possible to prevent and stop them, but that the plant discipline, had'so collapsed that it was helpless in the face of this concerted action by the employees ; and that had it taken any more drastic disciplinary action than it did, riots, bloodshed, and serious property damage would have resulted. Kroeger testified that, upon first hearing of the evic- tions on January 26, he decided that he must choose between two. methods of handling this situation: (1) the use of severe disciplinary measures, such. as discharges and threats of discharge: or (2) the use of diplomacy and persuasion to minimize the difficulty until the aroused emotions of the employees eventually subsided. Kroeger testified that he deliberately pursued the second method throughout the entire period, claiming that he did so because of his belief that. the first policy would have caused bloodshed, property destruction, and, rioting in the plant, with which, he asserted, the plant and city police would have been unable to cope. Consequently, although the evictors ordinarily would have been discharged or at least laid off' for several months, none of them were discharged, laid off, or, to Kroeger's knowledge, even threatened with discharge or lay-off. In. fact, the evictors were not even penalized by deductions from their pay for the time they spent away from their work evicting other- employees. In addition to avoiding bloodshed, Kroeger claimed that GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 139 his chief purpose was to keep the employees at work. Consequently, the foremen, pursuant to his orders, called at the homes of those evicted as soon as possible-usually the evening of the day they had been forced to leave the plant-and requested them to return to work :at once. All the evicted employees returned to work eventually, .although some of them remained away from the plant for several days, fearing further violence if they returned to work immediately. We hold the respondent responsible for the evictions for the follow- ing reasons: First, the respondent was to a large degree responsible for the for- mation and growth of this allegedly overpowering employee 'revolt. On January 5, 1937, as we have pointed out above, the respondent distributed to all employees a statement showing its hostility toward the United and vigorously attacking that organization. When the Delco-Remy plant reopened, the respondent by accident or design chose as special guards only non-United employees, indicating, in the absence of any explanation from it, its continued hostility toward United members. On January 26, 11 evictions occurred; on January 27, 10 more evictions occurred. In the light of the critical situation revealed by these 21 evictions as well as the January 25 riots, the respondent again mailed to each employee on January 27, a signed statement of Sloan with a short preface by Kroeger. After referring to the fact that 3 weeks had elapsed since his previous 'statement to them on January 5, Sloan said : . .. we have honestly striven to do everything possible to de- velop negotiations with the group that has attacked us .. . During these three weeks you have in many different ways demon- strated your loyalty and satisfaction. I appreciate your con- fidence . . . Over one hundred thousand have signified their desire to return to work. I told you before and you yourself have always known, that 'you are deprived of the right to work by a small minority who have seized certain plants and are holding them as ransom to enforce their demands. .. . Now what is involved? It is this. That we should turn you over, body and soul, for exploitation .. . Now here is where we stand : 1. We propose to demonstrate that these trespassers who have seized our plants and who have taken from you the privilege of working, have not the right to do so . . . 5. You will not have to pay tribute for the privilege of work-' lug in a General Motors plant. Efforts have been made to make you believe that General Motors is responsible for the breakdown of negotiations .. . 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD You know this is not true. So why all these charges? Simply because we refuse to negotiate with a group that holds our plants for ransom without regard to law or justice, thus depriving over one hundred thousand of our peaceful and law-abiding employees of their inherent right to work .. . The truth or falsity of Sloan's assertions does not concern us here. Even if true, his statements clearly prove that, contrary to Kroeger's testimony, the respondent then and subsequently was not genuinely attempting to pursue a policy of"stopping'the evictions then going on in the Delco-Remy plant by the use of persuasion and diplomacy to calm the aroused passions of the employees who were evicting the United employees. The scathing attack on, and, condemnation of, the so-called "minority" of United and International Union employees who were engaged in sit-down strikes elsewhere was bound to kindle, not to quell, the hostility of the "loyal" employees toward the United minority and to incite them to further evictions rather than to stop these disgraceful disturbances. Moreover, in view of the fact that the leaders and participants in the "back-to-work" movements were the leaders and participants in the evictions, the appreciation and ap- proval expressed by the respondent for the activities of the employees who had "signified their desire to return to work" was, to say the least, highly injudicious. By praising at this critical moment the recent activities in the "back-to-work" movements of these employees, the respondent undoubtedly, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, encouraged the current anti-United activity-the evictions- by these same employees. Moreover, in the case of every evicted employee, the respondent deducted from his wages a sum for the time he lost from his work because of his eviction. On the other hand, not a single employee lost 1 cent of pay for the time he spent evicting instead of working. Even if the respondent feared riots if it made any deductions from the wages of the evictors, its failure to forego similar deductions from the wages of the evicted employees, who were unable to work through no fault of their own but rather because the respondent allegedly was unable to protect them in its own plant, is inexplicable. Such contrasting treatment of the two opposing groups vividly reflected to the employees involved, and in concrete terms of dollars and cents, the respondent's approval of the conduct of the evictors and its hos- tility toward the evicted. The testimony concerning the making and carrying of blackjacks in the plant by employees and foremen during the entire period when the evictions were occurring reveals the respondent's true attitude toward the "throw outs." Some of the respondent's officials denied ever receiving reports or knowing that weapons were being made and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 141 carried by employees in the plant. Kroeger so testified, as did David Burns, superintendent of plant 6,' Gilgour and Vinson, superin- tendent and supervisor of plant 1, and Bernard Vermillion, foreman of department 35 in plant 1. Their testimony is incredible in the light of, the testimony, often given by, witnesses for the respondent or the Association, regarding the extensive and unconcealed making and carrying of such weapons in the plant. Cecil Fetty, an employee in department 6 of plant 1, on January 28, 1937, saw almost everyone of the 300 employees in his department making blackjacks there, using hose from the machines in the department for this purpose. Yet Ralph Schafer, a group leader in the department, testified that he saw no one making or carrying blackjacks in the plant. The fore- man of the department, W. H. Southard, testified that he was not at work that day. Fred Smith, an employee in department 30 of plant 1, who testified for the Association, made a blackjack for himself in the plant and saw 10 or 12 other employees in his department carrying such weapons while at work. Harold Goehring, an em- ployee in department 12 of plant 1, on January 27 or 28 saw 50 people, including Harry Romine, an assistant foreman of another department, making blackjacks in department 2, adjoining his de- partment. Romine admitted that. he procured a piece of steel for a blackjack, but testified that he did not finish making his weapon because that very day he reported to Assistant Superintendent Wilbur Hulse that 8 feet of hose were missing in his department and was severely criticized by Hulse for the loss of this hose. Hulse testified that when told by Romine that the hose was missing and had prob- ably been used to make blackjacks, he told Romine that if Romine or anyone working for Romine ever made any blackjacks it would be "just too bad for him." Hulse, despite the alarming nature of this report from Romine in view of the evictions then occurring, never reported the incident to Gilgour or any of his superiors. Hulse de- nied receiving any other reports of blackjack making. Virgil Thorn- berry, foreman of department 2, denied ever seeing anyone make blackjacks in his department, although he testified that because he had heard rumors about this practice, he issued orders forbidding it. Thornberry also stated that he passed the rack in which steel was kept a dozen times a day and would surely have noticed 50 or 75 em- ployees obtaining steel for blackjacks. The unreliability of Thorn- berry's testimony is revealed by the fact that Roy Hough, a witness for the respondent, who worked next to this steel rack in depart- ment 2, testified that he saw 12 men on January 27 and 28, and 60 men during that week openly obtain steel from the rack and hose from the machines and make blackjacks. Hough never reported these facts to the respondent's officials, but Thornbe.rry's own testimony 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proves that he must have noticed 60 employees openly making black- jacks from steel in the rack in his department; yet he neither re- ported this fact, nor the rumors he admittedly heard, to any of his superiors. John Dunbeck, a witness for the Association, testified that every- one he saw in plant 2 had one or two weapons, that the employees openly made and carried them around the plant, and that he reported these facts to Kaufman, chief of the plant police. Kaufman admitted hearing rumors about blackjack making; nevertheless he did not tell either Kroeger, Badgley, or any superintendent about them and ap- parently did not investigate and made little effort to stop this practice. Fred Mote, an Association witness, saw some "crude" but "effective" blackjacks carried by employees about the plant. Guy Martz, another Association witness, "learned quite a few" blackjacks were made in the plant. Harry Scharer, a witness for the Association and an em- ployee in department 203 of plant 2, testified that he and 20 other employees in this department used air hose from their machines to make blackjacks in the plant. In department 212 of plant 2, Albert Rediker, an employee, made a blackjack while at work; John Hale, an employee, saw two women employees carrying blackjacks in this department; Ralph Busby, an employee and witness for the respond- ent, made a blackjack for himself in the plant and saw many others in this department carrying them while at work. Assistant Foreman Leland Rudrow in this department admitted that he made a black- jack in the plant for his own protection and that he had heard that other employees were making similar weapons, but denied that any hose was ever taken from the machines in his department to make such weapons. Lewark, superintendent of plant 2, on January 28 was informed by Foreman George Miller that three or four pieces of hose 6 feet in length were missing from machines in his department and doubtless had been used to make blackjacks. Lewark told Miller to stop this practice, but did not investigate the incident further or even report it to any of his superiors. Robert Barber, an Associa- tion witness, testified that he saw "a lot" of home-made blackjacks carried by employees in the plant and that "from the material they was made out of I would think they was made from one end of the plant to another, made out of anything that was laying loose." Floyd Barnes, an employee, saw home-made blackjacks carried in the plant by employees. W. L. McCarthy, assistant superintendent of plant 6, heard rumors about the making of blackjacks in the plant, but never investigated them. In oral argument before the Board the respondent contended that the higher supervisory officials, such as Kroeger and Gilgour, were not informed by the foremen of the widespread making and carrying GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 143 of blackjacks because the foremen themselves were engaged in this practice. The respondent cannot thus evade its responsibility ; such foremen were its employees, representing its authority, and the re- spondent alone had control over them. Moreover, the absence of ac- tion by such officials as Hulse, McCarthy, Kaufman, and Lewark, who admittedly knew of this practice, and their failure to report it to Kroeger, to investigate, to take steps to check and stop this practice, cannot thus be excused. The fact that in many instances employees took hose from their machines in the plant for their blackjacks neces- sitated the respondent's prompt replacement of such hose in order to keep the machines working properly, and therefore must have revealed to the respondent's officials the prevalence of blackjack making in the plant by employees. The evidence convinces us that the respondent's officials must have been, and were, aware of the practice and still did little or nothing about it. And the respondent unquestionably would have immediately taken drastic steps to stop this practice, if it had been sincerely attempting to pursue Kroeger's policy of diplomacy. Armed evictors would be less receptive to such a policy, and the use of weapons would lead to the very riots and bloodshed which Kroeger claimed that he wished to avoid at almost any cost. The respondent's toleration of the making and carrying of blackjacks shows that its assertion that it did everything possible to calm the aroused passions of the employees and to prevent violence is false, and that the alleged overpowering nature of the evicting mobs resulted largely from its own conduct. One final incident, occurring in the initial days of the evictions, must be discussed for the light it throws upon the respondent's pol- icy at this time. During the morning of January 2.8 rumors spread about the plant that trains were bringing C. I. O. members and organizers to Anderson from Michigan to aid the United members. About 10 o'clock that morning, many employees left the Delco-Remy plant-300 went out one gate alone-and met these trains; after discovering that the rumors were false, these men returned to their work about 11 o'clock that morning. None of the employees who thus were gone for an hour or more from their work in the plant were ever disciplined or reprimanded for their unprecedented con- duct, nor did any of them ever suffer any loss of pay because of their hour's absence. The respondent contends that it imposed no pay deductions or disciplinary measures. because it would have been im- possible to ascertain the identity of all those who met the train or how long each had been gone from work, and because to have pe- nalized the few whose identity was known to it, and not the others who were equally guilty, would have been grossly unfair and conse- quently would have provoked bitterness and even riots and bloodshed. 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondent's officials recognized the seriousness of this incident the moment it occurred and realized that it undoubtedly would in- crease to even greater intensity the anti-United feeling in the plant. Thus Superintendent Lewark, upon, hearing that the employees-were leaving their work, at once ran upstairs and told Foreman Gammon, "we would have to stop that kind of thing; that wouldn't do; that we were just keeping the thing hot and what we were trying to do was cool the thing down . . ." However, the respondent's offi- cials all testified that the majority of the men had left before they were aware of their departure, and had returned before a survey could be made to discover which employees were absent from their work. The Delco-Remy plant is completely surrounded by walls and fences, and all entrances and exits are watched by one or more uni- formed plant policemen. On January 28 no employee could enter the plant without showing a pass on which was written his name and clock number. Apparently, most of the employees had, left before the watchmen were aware of their errand, but it is clear that the respondent's officials were fully aware of what had occurred before any of the employees had returned to the plant. Each em- ployee who left the plant to meet the train showed the gate watch- man his pass before he was permitted to reenter the plant. The respondent could thus easily have obtained the names of those who met the train by having the watchmen record the names shown on their passes; the time of their return could also have been noted by the watchmen, and the approximate hour of their departure could have been ascertained by a reference to the times at which the trains were scheduled to reach Anderson. The sole excuse offered by the respondent for failing thus to secure the necessary data was its fear that the men might forcibly resist the watchmen. But the employ- ees who met the train, according to the testimony of the respondent's witnesses, were not armed either on leaving or reentering the plant. In fact, Lewark and Gammon testified that Lewark halted four em- ployees who were about to leave the plant and that these men, with- out any resistance, instantly obeyed Lewark's orders to return to their work. Moreover, Wright testified that when asked by his fore- man, Perry James, if he had met the train, he readily admitted it, although he refused to name others. The foremen also testified that the men returned to their departments not in large armed groups, but singly and unobtrusively. The watchmen stated that although the men passed through the gates on their return in groups, they were unarmed, showed their passes without objection, and did not appear unruly or troublesome. Foreman Arthur Beety asserted his belief that the men would have been hard to deal with if the guards•had•. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 145 been writing down their names, but when pressed for his reasons for this belief, could give none. Kaufman and one of the gate guards testified that the returning employees might have used force to reen- ter the plant if any attempt to obtain their names had been made. But we are convinced by the evidence that there is no truth in the respondent's assertion that it could not have obtained the names of the employees who met the train. And we believe that the identity of these employees could have been ascertained and discipline im- posed on them, at least to the extent of deductions from their wages and stern condemnation of their conduct by the respondent's officials, without any violence resulting. Of the 91 evictions, 61 occurred subsequent to January 28. The respondent encouraged the anti-United feeling and disregard of customary plant discipline, which spurred on the evictors, by indi- cating no disapproval and imposing no penalties when the evictors again gave vent to their hostility toward the United and defied plant discipline by meeting the trains. We are of the opinion that but for such conduct by the respondent a substantial number of these 61 evictions would not have occurred. Finally, in several instances, as hereinafter described, the respond- ent's officials, such as Superintendent Dollens, Supervisor Everett Vinson, and Foreman Daniel Jarrett, urged employees to evict a United member, or personally evicted a United employee, or after an eviction revealed to the United employee evicted hostility toward that organization and friendliness toward the evictors. Our second reason for holding the respondent responsible for the evictions is that the evidence is conclusive that, if the respondent had desired to fulfill the duty which, as an employer, it owed its employees, to furnish them reasonable protection while they were in its plant, it could easily and quickly have stopped the evictions by discharges or -threats of discharge and other disciplinary and precautionary meas- ures, without thereby causing rioting, bloodshed, and destruction of property. The respondent admits that, in pursuance of Kroeger's alleged policy of peaceful persuasion, it made no attempt to investi- gate the evictions and to discover and penalize the leaders and par- ticipants. The respondent contends, however, that it took all reason- able steps possible to stop the "throw outs," and that had it resorted to more drastic measures than it did, widespread rioting would have occurred in the plant. This contention of the respondent is un- tenable in the light of the evidence set forth below. In every instance as soon as the respondent's officials abandoned Kroeger's policy of peaceful persuasion and threatened the evictors with discharge or other disciplinary penalties, the evictions instantly ceased, and no riot- ing ensued. Only so long as the respondent's ofials made little or no 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effort to prevent or check the "throw outs" and merely voiced re- bukes and threats so mild and vague that the evictors could and. did repeatedly disregard them without fear of punishment did the. evictions occur and continue. In fact, in several of the evictions,, hereinafter described, the respondent's officials, such as Jarrett and. Dollens, obviously could have stopped the evictions because they were- the prime movers of them. In department 30 of plant 1 there were four United members. On January 26, 1937, a mob of employees compelled two of the- United members in the department to tear up their union cards but allowed them to remain at work. The two other United members,. Roy Richardson and Roy Livengood, were evicted. Foreman Her- man Riggs, who watched the "throw outs," did nothing except to^ tell the evictors, "you shouldn't do that." Richardson, when he re- turned to work the following morning, had an interview with Super- visor Everett Vinson who, in answer to Richardson's question whether it was now safe for him to work in the plant, gave Richardson no assurance of safety but merely told him to return to his job and' "patch up his differences with the employees" with whom he worked. Vinson's advice was patently meaningless unless it was intended to, indicate to Richardson that he ought to resign from the United, for no other method of "patching up his differences" existed. More- over, Vinson admittedly then questioned Richardson about the United" and what had induced Richardson "to join a union in order to get me to do things that I normally should do for" him, although Vinson. denied Richardson's testimony that he criticized Richardson for- joining the United. Such questioning of Richardson by Vinson at this time clearly indicated to Richardson Vinson's disappfroval of the United, even if Vinson did not openly critize the United. Immediately after the two evictions in department 30, Foreman. Riggs posted on the time clock a notice in long hand stating that if there were any more evictions, the evictors would be immediately dis- charged. Riggs also repeated this threat individually to every em- ployee in the department. Although Richardson never resigned' from the United, there were no more evictions in Riggs' department.. It is significant not only that this prompt threat of discharge at once ended the evictions in this department, but also that no rioting or bloodshed was caused by this disciplinary measure. This forthright attitude of Riggs contrasts sharply with that of the other supervisory officials in plant 1. In department 28, Elmer Hamilton, an employee, led a group which evicted two women em- ployees, Lamel Stewart and Marguerite Davis. Before leaving the plant, both women asked their assistant foreman, John Sanders, what they should do. Sanders, according to his own testimony, replied : GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 147 "You haven't lost your job; you go back to work and make peace with your other operators . . . that is your problem." Sanders did not tell them how to "make peace," but it was clear to all that the only way to "make peace" at that time was by resigning from the United. Moreover, Sanders' indifference to this unusual incident is almost in- credible unless he sympathized with the evictors. He told the help- less women "that is your problem ;" made no attempt to speak to the evictors; and never threatened or disciplined any of them. Yet Elmer Hamilton, leader of the evictors, testified that he would have desisted if the management had interfered, but that no one ever tried to stop him. Arthur Beety, the foreman. of the department, heard about the evictions after they had occurred. He requested his group leader, Clyde Miller, to name the evictors, and when Miller replied that he did not know their names, investigated the incident no further and reprimanded no one. His sole orders concerning the evictions were "to keep down any trouble" as much as possible, "to be neutral," and to "try to get out our work." Rex Hurst, while he was organizing an evicting group in plant 1, met Wilbur Hulse, assistant superintendent, who cautiously in- •quired, "if I didn't think I was going a little too far?" When this hesitant inquiry failed to halt Hurst and his group, Hulse did nothing further. Supervisor Vinson testified that upon meeting one group of evictors who ignored his warning that they were "wrong," that he did not "want this to happen," and that they "had better not do it," he went to find the plant police, but before he could do so, the mob had departed. He, too, never reprimanded or disciplined any member of this mob. His policy was simply to remain neutral, to keep everyone on the job, and not to be "dogmatic." Vinson's action in seeking aid from the plant police was unique; no other instance of such logical action by an official of the respondent appears in the record. In plant 2, two loyal employees, George Fleet and George Graham, ordered Blondell Watkins, a United member, to leave the plant on February 1, 1937, in order to obtain an affidavit renouncing his union membership. Foreman Claude Lewis readily gave Watkins permis- sion to leave when Watkins related what the evictors had ordered him to do and stated that he wished to obtain legal advice on this subject. Graham, a witness for the Association, testified that when Foreman Lewis warned him "you fellows better be careful, because you are liable to get yourself into trouble," he told Lewis that "he could come in after it was all over." Lewis' warning is significantly mild and vague. Superintendent Verne Lewark testified that when he subsequently ordered Lewis to prevent evictions, Lewis replied : "if there is any 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD more people throwed out of my department , it will be over my dead body." Lewark testified that he believed that Lewis meant by this forceful remark that he would do all in his Bower to stop the evic- tions without inciting riots. However, although the record does not reveal what preventive steps Lewis took , it is clear that no more evictions occurred in his department after he 'had made this state- ment to Lewark indicating that he intended thereafter to deal firmly with the evictors. A group in plant 2, led by Harry Scherer, a "loyal" employee, was evicting Otis Carmony , a United member, when they encountered Foreman Frank Busby and Superintendent Lewark. Lewa.rk asked what the trouble was. Carmony replied that because the men re- fused to work with him, he was leaving the plant for a few days "until this blew over." Lewark then allowed Carmony to leave the plant, although he admitted at the hearing that he believed that if he had then asked the evictors to return to work, they probably would have done so without disorder or resistance . Busby never repri- manded Scherer. However, Scherer testified that a few days later Lewark sent for him and told him that thereafter anyone caught par- ticipating in a "throw out" would be immediately discharged and that he should notify the other employees of this order . Scherer defied Lewark to enforce this threat, but in accordance with Lewark's couz- mand told the other employees in his department of it. Thereafter, there were no more evictions in Scherer's department. Although Scherer testified that the evictions ceased because the other United men in his department were not as belligerent as Carmony;,it is again noteworthy that, as in the case of Riggs' notice and Lewis' forceful remark, this threat of discharge caused no violence , and that inzme- diately after this threat was made, the evictions ceased. In department, 201A of plant 2, two employees, Ivan Geiger and Carl Defenderfer, forced William Atwell, a United member , to leave the plant on January 26 or 27. Foreman Verle Linville then warned Defenderfer "not to let it happen again," and Defenderfer testified that he assumed that Linville meant that in the future any evictors would be discharged . Although Atwell returned to work the next morning without any affidavit renouncing his union membership, neither he nor anyone else in this department was ever again evicted. Defenderfer testified that the evictions stopped because the plane quieted down ; inasmuch as the evictions lasted until February 3, this reason is specious. In any event , once again a threat of discharge caused no bloodshed , and once again the evictions ceased immediately after the threat was uttered. In plant 4, Foreman Joseph Jenkins testified that on February 3 Assistant Foreman Acil Kuhn informed him that Herbert Rose, an employee belonging to the United, was very nervous. Jenkins spoke to GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 149 Rose, who requested permission to go home to obtain his union card - in accordance with the orders of some of his fellow employees. Jen- kins allowed Rose to leave the plant, although telling him that he need not obtain his union card to keep his job. Because Kuhn informed him that no employee in the department had spoken to Rose, Jenkins admittedly,-made no attempt to discover who had ordered Rose ,to, get his -union card and never investigated the incident or rebuked anyone for,it. The indifference of Jenkins to Rose's departure reveals Jen- kins' tolerance, if not tacit approval, of the evictions. Foreman Daniel Jarrett in department 405 of plant 4 on February 2 called Joseph Swigart, Dalbert Maynard, Harry Phillips, and Fard Brown, employees, to his desk. Jarrett testified that he told them that Slone Hockett, a United member, was returning to work soon, that there were to be no evictions in the department, and that he wished them, as the four employees working nearest to Hockett, to protect Hockett. Swigart testified that Jarrett told the four men to force Hockett to leave the plant or tear up his union card, but not to "mention my name or the company's name." Jarrett, according to Swigart's testimony, promised that he and the watchmen would not be around when Hockett was evicted. On the evening of February 3, when. Hockett first returned to work in the plant after the shut- down of January 4, a group of employees, led by William Jordan, approached him. Hockett seized a wrench and defied the group. For 10 minutes, Hockett and the evictors argued back and forth, Hockett refusing to leave his job. Then Jarrett entered the room for the first time, accompanied by Assistant Superintendent Hanson Runyan. Jarrett testified that he called Jordan over to one side and told him to ".get-the mob out" and leave the employees in this depart- ment alone . Runyan, who testified that he felt that Jarrett had rebuked Jordan so vigorously that a riot might be provoked, at- tempted to soften the sharp orders of Jarrett by merely telling Jordan to "slow up on this stuff now because it just doesn't look good." Jor- dan and the entire group at once dispersed without any resistance or disorder. Jarrett testified that lie believed that Hockett would have been assaulted by the group but for the intervention of Runyan and himself. Despite this belligerent aspect of the evictors, the decisive command of Jarrett, even though unaccompanied by any discharges or threats of disciplinary action, and even though weakened to some extent by Runyan's mild rebuke, instantly checked this prospective eviction and incited no rioting. Furthermore, Hockett never again was threatened by any employees. Neither Runyan nor Jarrett ever investigated the incident, nor, despite their knowledge of the identity of some of the evictors, further rebuked or disciplined any of them. Nor did Jarrett ever inquire why the members of his "four man" committee failed to 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD protect Hockett. This amazing. indifference of Jarrett concerning the failure of the "protective committee" to function convinces us that Swigart gave a true account of Jarrett's original. interview with the committee and that Jarrett did not. Foreman Archie Neff, in plant 4, on January 26 was informed by Grace Marlett, an employee belonging to the United, that an employee, Mae Roberts, had ordered her to leave the plant and resign from the United. Neff testified that he assured Marlett that she had the right to work in the plant regardless of what labor organization she belonged to. A few minutes later Neff told Roberts that "it would be for her own good if she would stop that kind of practice." Roberts retorted, "that is what you think." Neff, despite Roberts' defiance and impertinence, did not further rebuke or dis- cipline her, report the incident to his superiors, or take any pre- cautions to safeguard Marlett. The next morning Roberts and Dee Miller, an employee, again ordered Marlett to leave the plant. Marlett requested Glenn Schuyler, the assistant foreman, to give her a pass to enable her to depart. Schuyler sent for Neff, who came, accompanied by Superintendent Clare Swayze. By this time, be- tween 15 and 40 employees had surrounded Marlett. Neff gave Mar- lett a pass and then told Miller and Roberts, "you can't do this." When Miller retorted, "we are doing it, aren't we," Neff allowed Miller and Roberts to escort Marlett out of the plant. Schuyler testified that he was afraid of the mob of employees surrounding Marlett, that he knew the names of several of the evictors but never reported them to anyone, and that he never further investigated the incident, except to attempt, vainly, to discover, by questioning em- ployees, who were the leaders of the mob. The next day Schuyler received orders to keep people working and prevent "throw outs"; his orders did not inform him how to accomplish these desirable results. Neff also testified that he feared the mob. However, de- spite his alleged fears, when the evictors insistently demanded Mar- lett's time card, Neff brusquely defied them, and the mob at once acquiesced. Neither Miller nor Roberts were in any way penalized or disciplined, even to the extent of a deduction from their wages for time spent in evicting Marlett instead of doing their work. Yet Neff, Schuyler, and Swayze admittedly knew of their participation in and leadership of the evictions. Neff subsequently gave Miller and Roberts a mild and vague rebuke by suggesting to them that he "would rather they didn't do it," that "for their good" they should "quit that kind of practice," and that he "didn't want to have to use any drastic measures to stop this thing." ' Swayze then sent for Roberts and Miller. He told them that the respondent would not tolerate "throw outs." Miller and Roberts defied him to stop them. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 151 .Swavze testified that he considered discharging these two insolent employees but at that time he. had been ordered by Badgley and Kroeger not to discharge anyone for any reason whatsoever. Arnold Huston, superintendent of plant 8, testified that he too received a similar order. Kroeger, however, denied ever issuing, such an injunction against discharges. We are of the opinion and we find that Kroeger had issued at this time the order Swayze and Huston testified they received from him. It is clear that Swayze considered inflicting discharges and discipline upon the defiant evictors, but did not do so, partly because of this order from his superiors. Meanwhile, the evictions continued in this department, with Rob- erts and Miller still taking an active part in them. Neff timidly chided Roberts and Miller a second time, but each again defied him. Neff testified that because he feared violence if he discharged or threatened to discharge them, he pleaded with them to stop the "throw outs" instead of reprimanding them, and ordered Schuyler and the group leaders to talk to each employee in an effort to quiet his feelings. Swayze also testified that he felt that discharges or threats of discharges might have incited rioting. The evidence. convinces us that Schuyler, Neff, and Swayze were not as helpless or,as fearful of violence if discipline was imposed, as they asserted. Swayze; admittedly, might have discharged. Miller and Roberts but for Kroeger's order forbidding such action ; with his hands tied by this, order, Swayze could do nothing excepe._utter vague warnings whose ineffectiveness, as he must have.realized, was proven. by the continuance of, the evictions. Neff, himself, when Marlett's time 'card .ws'dennded defied the, evictors when they were most belligerent.' No attempt. was ever made to have plant police or special duty guards present•in this department. The, respondent's officials never deviated from the admittedly ineffective policy, of per- suasion. The evidence convinces us that forthright threats of. dis- charge and discipline would have immediately stopped the "throw outs," without precipitating any violence, in this department'in the same manner as such action did in the other departments.; The testimony of John Lutton, an employee in plant 5, is uncon- tradicted by that of any other witness. On January 27 and again on January 28 Lutton, together with two other ,employees who were United members, was compelled to appear before a "kangaroo court," consisting of Fred Mote, Guy Martz, Carl Sparks, and other , em- ployees, which met in the plant during working hours. This "court" told Lutton that he must resign from " the United if he wished to keep his job with the respondent. This "court" did not, however, force Lutton to leave the plant when he refused to obey its com- mands.. On, January 29 Superintendent B. A. Dollens sent for 190935-40=vol. 14-11 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lutton and informed him that an anonymous note, saying Lutton could not work in the plant, had been placed on his, Dollens', desk. Dollens demanded that Lutton resign from the United in order to avoid any trouble in the plant. Lutton refused to do so. Dollens then ordered Lutton to leave the plant, and not until 2 days later was Lutton allowed to return to work. Lutton was not paid for the time he lost from work because of this compulsory 2-day lay-off.. Dollens'made no effort to ascertain who wrote the note, to investi- gate- the incident, or to protect Lutton. He expressed disapproval of Lutton's conduct, but not of that of - the evicting employees. Dollens applied no pressure, penalties, or threats on the evicting employees to keep order in the plant. Instead, on the plea of avoiding trouble, he forced a United member to obey the dictates of the evictors. There is no evidence that Dollens acted as he did be- cause of any fear of violence or rioting. No mob ever threatened Dollens or Lutton. The "kangaroo court" had permitted Lutton to remain at work when he defied its orders: Dollens, not the, em, ployees, evicted Lutton for his United activity. In plant 6 occurred the most violent evictions . Otis McDonald, an employee in department 607 who belonged to the United , on February 3, 1937, watched a crowd of between 50 and 150 employees force sev- eral United employees to leave the plant: When he saw one of the mob point to him,' McDonald at once walked rapidly over to his foreman, Fred Kragle. Kragle testified that McDonald rushed up to him and, seizing his arm, begged for protection , but that before he could speak, McDonald had dashed away, followed by the group of employees. Kragle made no attempt to check the mob because, accord- ing to his testimony, he felt that such an attempt would have been futile. Nor did he follow McDonald or the pursuing mob, in any manner investigate the incident, or make an effort to discover the identity of the evictors. Despite the dramatic nature of the incident, Kragle calmly proceeded to supervise the work of his department and, because he later learned that McDonald had seen Superintendent. David Burns, did not even bother to report or discuss the affair with Burns. The supreme indifference shown by Kragle to this invasion of his department by a mob- of 50 or more employees is inexplicable unless he approved and sympathized with the conduct of the evictors. Evert if he deemed himself helpless, he * could either have sent for the plant police or, at least have followed the mob and ascertained its objectives and the identity of its members. Instead, he did nothing. For Kragle the incident was ,finished when McDonald disappeared from his sight pursued by 50 men. McDonald rushed into the office of Burns, who was seated alone at his desk. McDonald's pursuers crowded about him, part of them over- GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 153 'flowiing into the outer hall. Burns testified that McDonald and the mob' all talked at once for about 2 minutes, when McDonald muttered something about "sit down"; 9 and that, hearing these ominous words, the mob grabbed McDonald, as he seized Burns' arm, and carried him bodily out of the office. Burns never summoned the plant police, never investigated the "throw out," never endeavored to discover the identity of the mob members, and never punished or rebuked any of the evictors. Burns did report the matter to Badgely and, the next day, ordered the foremen merely to. "keep down" trouble, to keep crowds-from forming, and to keep the nien at work. - Shortly after McDonald's' eviction, Alva 'Ice, also ..all employee in plant 6 and a United member, ivas ordered to -leave the plant by Fred Mote, the spokesman for a group of employees. Ice went to see his foreman, Alva- Williams. 'Williams had previously been warned by' Assistant Foreman Fred Yelton that'Ice was- leaving the plant'at'-the request' of several employees.- Williams testified that Ice was-alone, the evictors having dispersed. 'Ice asked Williams for permission to "check~oiit""'of'the plant. Williams testified that Ice' did not ask for, protection, and that inasmuch' as there was no mob of -employees about, he saw ' no need to safeguard Ice. However, Williams, feeling that it would be "the proper thing" if Ice remained home for- 'a fe'w' days'until'the trouble •"blew over;" gave Ice permis sion to leave the plant. When Ice 'announced that before leaving he wished `to see BurnsWilliams escorted him to, but did not enter, Burris"dffice. Although1kriowing Ice' had been commanded to' leave his work by other employees, Williams did not question Ice 'about the ' incident' and- made no' attempt to ; safeguard` Ice. Williams never took 'any teps 'to investigate'the incident' or`preve'nt-- its-'repetition `either' before' or 'after,'Ice° left`the 'plant, iior did he ,ask='Yelton'for the names of the employees who had ordered Ice to leave. Williams calmly 'accepted this' incident as^if it were an everyday occurrence in the' department and placidly escorted Ice out' of; the' plait,.;,! We are convinced that Williams desired " Ice's "throw out" as 'much as some 'of the employees did, and for the ' same reason-namely, Ice's United membership. Ice 'in his interview with Burns'-notified the superintendent' that he 'was leaving the plant.' Burns replied that "it 'would not be'th6 thing to do" ; that Ice 'could safely return to work; 'and that no one 'wou'ld' injure'lint' However, Blirxis'stated'to'Ice'that "otherwise it was up to him to do as he saw fit." Burns made no effort then or thereafter to consult Williams or to investigate' the incident: Burns McDonald ' testifled that he asked Burns for permission - to "sit down" In a 'chair in Burns" office. The evictors,, apparently hearing only the phrase "sit.down," concluded that McDonald was referring to a sit-down strike. ' 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified that he vigorously urged Ice not to leave the plant because he feared no trouble and believed Ice would be quite safe in the plant. But only a few hours before Burns had had his encounter with McDonald and the latter's evictors. Burns testified that by the time he encountered Ice, he believed that the tension had died down. We can find nothing in the record to support this asserted belief of Burns; Ice was evicted by the same group, apparently, as threw out McDonald; the same group evicted other employees in plant 6 after McDonald had left and after Ice had left. The evi- dence indicates that the situation should have seemed more, rather than less, alarming when Ice saw Burns. Burns' reassuring attitude to Ice, despite his dramatic meeting with McDonald only a few hours previously, throws much doubt upon Burns' assertion that he was afraid that discharges, or threats of discharge would lead to violence, for if the "tension" in the plant had so disappeared within a few hours after the "throw out" of McDonald-the most violent of the 91 evictions-we do not believe that the "tension" was ever so high that prompt disciplinary action would have incited riots or failed to stop the evictions. In fact, Floyd Barnes, an employee who had led the mob which evicted McDonald, testified that he evicted no one after McDonald because his foreman, Ross Fadley, asked him if he had been an evictor, and upon his admitting this fact, warned him, "there is not going to be any more of that"; Barnes defied him, and Fadley retorted : "maybe you fellows will be looking for another job . . . that is the order and you had better take my advice." Dora Fisher, an employee in department 604 and a United member, was evicted from the plant on January 26. Paul Land, her foreman, spoke to her that evening at her home and asked her to return to work the following morning. Fearing for her safety, however, she did not report for work the next day. Land again called at her home in the evening and assured her that "that is all changed now" and that "we have got that mob quieted down," because two of the lead- ers of the evictors, Arthur Barnhizer and Morris Thornburg, had been called down to a foremen's meeting and "quieted down." Land testified that he never investigated the "throw out" of Fisher or rebuked anyone for it; that when he reported the incident to Burns, the latter ordered him to summon the plant police and to obtain the names of the evictors, if any more evictions occurred. No rioting ensued after Barnhizer and Thornburg had been. reprimanded, nor after Burns had issued these orders to Land. Land testified that thereafter there were no more evictions in his department. Walter. Clem, a foreman in plant 6, testified that on February 2 a group of 30 employees, led by Robert Day and Oscar Samuels, asked GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 155 him for permission to escort home Henry Bailey, a United member, in order to obtain Bailey's union card. Clem replied that neither he nor the respondent cared about Bailey's union card, and "that the best thing for them all to do was to go back to work." The group dis- persed, the employees returning to work. Bailey then requested Clem to allow him to leave the plant to obtain his union card. Clem, although telling Bailey that it was not necessary for him to get the union card, gave him permission to go home for it. Clem then per- sonally reprimanded Day, Samuels, and Tom Shea, another of the evictors. In addition, Samuels testified that Clem called the em- ployees together and curtly told them to "cut this out" or they were "going to get in trouble"; and that thereupon the tension rapidly died down, although Bailey never gave them his union card. Philip Zeabart also testified that Shea told him that because Clem had given orders "to stop it for awhile," Bailey was not to be evicted again. In fact, there were no more evictions in this department. Thus Clem, by prompt and vigorous reprimands, at once terminated the "throw outs" in his department and did not thereby provoke any rioting. It is notable, too, that Clem had no difficulty in controlling and dis• persing a mob of 30 men. The respondent owned the Delco-Remy plant, and exercised ex- clusive control over it and exclusive authority over its employees and the conditions under which they worked, even having its own police force. It had the correlative and affirmative duty reasonably to protect its employees in its plant and to maintain safe working conditions for them.10 Yet the lack of effort by the respondent to cope with the situation confronting it as the result of the "throw outs" is extraordinary. Kroeger, for example, although he claimed to have embarked upon a policy of peaceful persuasion, made no attempt personally, by an oral or written statement comparable to those of Sloan, either to condemn the evictions or to appeal to the employees to stop them. The respondent's only excuse for its failure to investigate each eviction, to ascertain the identity of those respon- sible, and immediately to discipline them, is its fear that such decisive action would have provoked retaliatory rioting by the employees, thereby making it impossible for any order at all to be maintained in the plant. But we have pointed out hereinbefore that, even if such fears were justifiable under the circumstances, since the conduct and the anti-United feeling of the evicting employees had been in- cited and fostered to a large degree by acts' and omissions of the respondent, the respondent cannot excuse its admitted failure to safe- guard its employees because of any helplessness before a "loyal- 30 Matter of General Shoe Corporation and Georgia Federation of Labor, 5 N. L. R. B. 1005. 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee" revolt whose alleged overwhelming power resulted from the respondent's own policies. In addition, the evidence indisput- ably demonstrates that the respondent's fears were baseless, inas- much as on every occasion where an official of the respondent deviated from Kroeger's policy of persuasion and threatened employ- ees with discharge or other disciplinary action for participating in the "throw outs," the evictions at once ceased. Only where the re- spondent's officials made no attempt to check or rebuke the evictors, or gave voice to warnings of so vague and timid a nature that the evictors at once defied them, confident of incurring no further and more drastic rebukes, did the evictions occur and continue. The attitude of those responsible for the evictions is tersely set forth in the remarks of Carpenter, a witness for the Association, leader of the "back-to-work" movements and the January 25 riots. Carpen- ter, who served as a special-duty guard, testified that the evictions ultimately stopped because "to tell the truth of the whole thing, I think the most of them got cold feet; the management was giving us hell about a lot of this, and they was afraid that they was going to lose their jobs." More of such "hell" given much sooner would un- questionably have quelled the employees so effectively as to have checked the evictions in their initial stages. We conclude that the respondent was responsible for the activity in its Delco-Remy plant between January 26 and February 3, 1937, set forth above, which flagrantly interfered with the rights of self-organization, guaran- teed employees under the Act. The record discloses that the testimony given by the Board's wit- nesses, the Association's witnesses, and the respondent's witnesses con- cerning the events previously set forth in this section, particularly the "throw outs," the making of blackjacks, and the meeting of the trains, is often sharply conflicting. In every such instance, except where we have indicated otherwise, we have based our recital of events upon the testimony of either the respondent's or the Association's witnesses in an, endeavor to give the respondent and the Association the benefit of every possible doubt and conflict revealed by the evidence. . We find that the respondent by permitting and encouraging be- tween January 26 and February 3, 1937, certain of its employees on at least 91 occasions to evict from its Delco-Remy plant employees who were members of the United, by permitting and encouraging the manufacture and carrying of blackjacks and other weapons in the Delco-Remy plant during working hours for the purpose of injuring and intimidating employees who were members of the United, and by other acts and conduct, set forth above, interfered with, coerced, and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 157 restrained its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organi- zation, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The reorganization of the Association During the shut-down of the Delco-Remy plant from December 31, 1936, until January 18, 1937, the Association's councils held no meet- ings. In view of the fact that all of their records were kept in the plant and that none of their meetings had ever been held outside the plant, the inactivity of the Association's councils while the plant was closed is not surprising. On January 19, 1937, the day after the plant reopened, a meeting of some of the officers of the Association who were not United mem- bers was held in the plant during working hours. A petition con- cerning certain employee grievances, prepared before the shut-down, was presented to the respondent. On February 12 a similar meeting of the Association's officers was held and the respondent presented its answer to the petition given it on January 19. There was considerable discussion among the officers present at the meeting of January 19 about reorganizing the Association. The general feeling was that the Association was rapidly disintegrating because of the intensive organizing campaign of the United among the Delco-Remy employees, because of the fact that so many employees who were officers or members of the Association also were United members, and because of the growing hostility between the Association officers and members who belonged to the United and those who were opposed to the United. Most of those present at this meeting felt that if the Association was to remain active as a labor organization, it,must be so reorganized that membership in it and the United would be mutually exclusive, that the extent of its membership could be exactly ascertained and shown, and that its meetings could be held .and its records kept outside the plant in order to conform to the notice given it in December by the respondent. to that effect.- As Barber, secretary-treasurer of the general council, stated, "we had to reorganize, we did not know whether we had 200 members or 2,000 or 4,000 or what we had.". Shelton, also, testified : Q. What was the chief purpose in reorganizing, what had been the trouble with the old organization? A. Well, hadn't been nothing the trouble with it, just out of a place to meet right then. 11 See Section III, A, 2, supra. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Well, what about under the Wagner Act, were you able to prove your numbers in membership? A. No, not numbers or membership. During the following month Shelton discussed various aspects of the reorganization of the Association with Morsches, Carpenter, and Wright. On the evening of February 15 a meeting was held, outside the plant, at which Shelton, Barber, Dick Shaw, Wright, Carpenter, Bronnenburg, and Sparks were present. The minutes of this meeting state that Shelton had called the group together "to decide as to whether or not to reorganize the Asse. or disband it"; that "it was agreed that the U. A. W. A. had a very small percentage of the employees of the Delco-Rerny in their organization, and the Delco Remy Employees Assc. should be reorganized with definite member- ship lists and with established dues sufficient to conduct the business of the organization"; that "it was also agreed that the organization should be reorganized and continue under the present charter held by the Delco Remy Employees Assc. Inc."; and, finally, that Barber and Shelton should hire an attorney "to assist the group in reorgan- izing so that the reorganization would be empowered to operate along- legal lines as defined by the Wagner Act." At a subsequent meeting on February 22 the members of various committees were chosen. On March 3, 243 employees attended a meeting and adopted new bylaws and definite regulations for dues- paying members at the rate of a dollar a year for each member. Membership cards and applications, which had previously been printed, were distributed, and a temporary chairman, secretary-treas- urer, and election chairman were chosen. During March and April,. elections were held for the other offices, and an intensive campaign to obtain members was carried on. According to the testimony of Shelton, by the end of March, 4,286 employees had signed the new membership cards, and by June 26, 7,206 had done so: Meanwhile,. the Association had rented rooms outside the respondent's property where all its meetings and elections were held and all its records; were kept. The respondent and the Association assert that by this reorganiza- tion the Association became entirely independent of the respondent and that thereafter the respondent ceased to dominate, support, or interfere with the administration of the Association. We cannot agree with this assertion. Such change's did not, and in view of the Association's previous history could not, transform it into the freely- chosen representative of employees which the Act contemplates. As we have hereinbefore pointed out '12 the respondent had com- pletely dominated the formation and thereafter the administration of "See Section III, A, supra. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 159 the Association between 1933 and January 1937. Consequently, to eradicate the resulting tenacious beliefs of the employees that the Association was the respondent's creature involved the elimination of the continuing effects of these years of constant domination of an employees' organization and of interference with the employees' rights to self-organization, and therefore required scarcely less than the total dissolution of the Association itself. The Association, how- ever, was never dissolved, but, on the contrary, the "new" Association maintained identity and continuity with the "old" Association by using its name, its corporate charter, and the majority of its offi- cers. In every case the officers of the old Association, unless they had joined the United, were appointed or elected to exactly similar positions in, the reorganized Association. Thus Shelton, Barber, Wombold, four of the six members of the general council, and 62 of the 116 members of the plant councils kept their posts in the Association despite the reorganization. The reorganized Asso- ciation, by retaining the name, charter, and officers of its predecessor- all of which were to the employees indicia of the continuance of the respondent's previous approval, domination, and support of the Asso- ciation-undoubtedly appeared to the majority of the employees still to represent the will of the respondent. Moreover, the events de- scribed previously in Section III, C, created ,fresh, strong, and im- pressive bonds directly linking the reorganized Association to the respondent. During the period covered by these events the respond- ent, beginning with Sloan's statement on January 5 and continuing until the last of the "throw outs" on February 3, continually attacked the United and thus 'carefully prepared the soil-the minds of its employees-and planted therein the seeds of hostility toward the United. The respondent then saw these. seeds, as was to be expected, bear fruit in the reorganization of the Association, one of the chief purposes of which was to rid the Association of its United members and sympathizers, and, by crystallizing in it all anti-United sentiment, to forge it into a weapon sufficiently powerful to destroy the United. Thus the reorganized Association was but the logical and ultimate consequence of the respondent's anti-United activity during January and February 1937. In fact, almost without exception, the leaders in the reorganization of the Association and the officers of it after it had been reorganized were employees who had taken important roles in this anti-United activity. Furthermore, in view of the praise be- stowed by Sloan in his January 27 statement on these leaders for their "back-to-work" movements, thereby encouraging the continu- ance of the evictions, and in view of the unique privileges and other support-such as the disregarding of plant discipline with impunity- given them by the respondent in their subsequent assaults on the 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United, the employees of the respondent must have felt that another anti-United movement initiated by these same leaders-namely the reorganization of the Association-would also obtain praise, support, and special favors from the respondent. The respondent and the Association stress the fact that after the "throw outs" ended, the respondent observed the strictest neutrality in the rival organizing campaigns in the Delco-Remy plant of the United and the reorganized Association. By this time the respondent had no need further affirmatively to favor, support, or dominate the Association. The events of January and February showing the respondent's hostility toward the United and approval and support of the anti-United Association were too dramatic and vivid for the employees soon to forget their significance or to be impressed with the fact that the respondent, merely because it currently was neutral, had fundamentally changed its ideas concerning their labor organizations. We find that since January 1, 1937, the respondent has dominated, interfered with, and contributed support to the administration of the Delco-Remy Employees' Association, Inc., and thereby interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza- tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. E. The agreements between the International Union and the respondent On February 11, 1937, an agreement was executed between the International Union and the respondent, providing that the Interna- tional Union would terminate its strikes at the respondent's plants,. that the respondent would resume manufacturing operations at its plants with no discrimination against any employees belonging to the International Union, that the respondent recognized the Interna- tional Union as the collective bargaining agent for employees who were members of the International Union, and that the International Union and the respondent agreed to commence negotiations to settle completely and finally all matters in dispute between them. On March 14, 1937, the respondent and the International Union signed a document which was declared to be "supplemental to and. a part of" the February 11 agreement. This document'set forth a procedure for dealing with the grievances of employees who were members of locals of the International Union in those plants of the respondent GENERAL MOTORS 'CORPORATION 161 in which the plant management recognized a shop committee of a local of the International Union. On March 15, 1937, Kroeger recog- nized a United shop committee for the Delco-Remy plant. On April 12, 1937, the respondent and the International Union entered into an agreement interpreting certain aspects of the grievance procedure established by the March 14 agreement . On May 27 and 28, 1937, Kroeger, in accordance with the grievance procedure set forth in the agreements of March 14"and April 12, conferred with Ed Hall, vice president of the International Unhion,' and with Ditzel and Bartee, representatives of the International Union , in regard to the evic- tions at the Delco-Remy plant . On June 4', 1937 , the International Union by Homer Martin, its president , and Hall, executed and deliv- ered to the respondent a document which stated in part:' Meetings have been held for the purpose of arriving at a mutually satisfactory solution of all cases of alleged discrimina- tion that have been submitted to General Motors Corporation or any of its Divisions or cases submitted to the National Labor Relations Board at any point in the United States by the Union or any of its members and ,the final settlement of all such cases occurring prior to this date. . In consideration of the mutual understandings arrived at re- garding all former employees who are or were members of the . . . [International Union] . . . having been satisfactorily adjusted to the complete satisfaction of the . . . [International Union] it is agreed that any and all cases pending before the National Labor Relations Board shall be withdrawn ; also that no further claims of alleged discrimination of any kind will be presented to the said National Labor Relations Board . . . for alleged discrimination against the union .or any of its members occurring prior to this date by the Union or any of its members. On June 17, 1937, the Association filed with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region a petition requesting an investigation and certification of representatives for employees at the Delco-Remy plant, pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On July 24, 1937, the United filed the charges, and on February 5, 1938 , the amended charges, on which the complaint in the instant proceeding is based. The respondent argues that the Board is without power to accept the charges and amended charges filed by the United in the present proceeding because the International Union, through its duly au- thorized officers, had by the terms of the above-described agree- ments with the respondent stipulated not to present to the Board these charges and amended charges. However, the final agreement of June 4, 1937, refers only to the settlement of cases of "alleged 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discrimination" against the International Union and its members, and clearly does not include the 8 (2) charges in the present case. Moreover, a sufficient and complete answer to the respondent 's argu- ment that the Board is without power to accept the charges is found in Section 10 (a) of the Act, which provides that the Board 's power to prevent any person from engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce "is exclusive, and shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be estab- lished by agreement, code, law, or otherwise." Irrespective of the previously described agreements between the International Union and the respondent, the Act gives the Board the power to accept the charges and amended charges filed by the United in the instant proceeding.13 The respondent further contends that the Board is without power to prosecute the present proceeding because the amended charges filed by the United are a nullity, inasmuch as the United as a result of the agreements between the International Union and the re- spondent set forth above, lacked the authority under its charter and the constitution and bylaws of the International Union to file the amended charges with the Board. The Act, however , contains no requirements concerning the right to file charges with the Board. Section 10 (c) states that "whenever it is charged" that any person is engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, the Board may issue a complaint . Section 1 of Article II of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, states that a charge "may be made by any person or labor organization." That the United is a labor organization is admitted by the respondent, and under the Act and the Board's Rules and Regulations the United undoubtedly had the power to file the amended charges in the present proceeding, irrespective of any provisions in its charter or the con- stitution and bylaws of° the International Union.14 Nor was the United estopped to file the amended charges because of the previously 13 Cf. Matter of R. C. A. Manufacturing Company and United Electrical f Radio Workers of America, 2 N. L. R. B. 159. 178-79; Matter of Northrop Corporation and United Auto- mobile Workers, Local No . 229, 3 N. L. R. B. 228; Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Tea,tile Workers Organizing Committee, 5 N. L. R. B. 908; Matter of The Kelly- Springfield Tire Company and United Rubber Workers of America, Local No. 26 and James M. Reed and Minnie Rank, 6 N. L. R . B. 325; Matter of Consumers' Power Company, a corporation and Local No. 740, United Electrical, Radio it Machine Workers of America, 9 N. L. R. B. 701; Matter of McKaig-Hatch, Inc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel. and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1139, 10 N. L. R. B. 33. 14 Cf. Matter of Frederick R. Barrett and International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 978, 3 N. L. R. B. 513; Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., Greyhound Man- agement Company, Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Associa- tion of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 1; Matter of Interlake.Iron Corporation and Toledo Council, Committee for Industrial Organ- ization, 2 N. L. R . B. 1036; Matter of The Sorg Paper Company and Committee for Industrial Organization, 8 N. L. R . B. 657. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 163 set forth agreements between the International Union and the re spondent. Since, as stated above, Section 10 (a) of the Act makes exclusive the Board's power to prevent persons from engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, to hold that an agreement binding a person or labor organization not to file charges of unfair labor practices with the Board, to which the Board is not a party, could be binding upon the Board or in any manner affect the validity of charges filed with the Board would be contrary to the policy of the Act.- Although these agreements between the respondent and the Inter- national Union cannot affect the power of -the United to file, and of the Board to accept, the charges in, the present proceeding, such agreements might, under the proper circumstances, lead the Board either to refuse to issue a complaint based on such charges or to dis- miss a complaint after a hearing had been held. Recognizing this fact, the respondent argues that the Board, in its discretion, should dismiss the instant complaint because the previously described agree- ments between the respondent and the International Union resulted from collective bargaining between the parties, and therefore, by accepting charges filed by the United in breach of these agreements, the Board is obstructing instead of fostering the process of collective bargaining which the Act is designed to protect. The Board is fully aware of the importance and desirability of the enforcement of agree- ments which are the result of collective bargaining between employers and labor organizations. But in the first place, the final agreement of June 4, 1937, as we have previously pointed out, does not relate to the 8 (2) charges in the present case. Moreover; in the instant case, the Board is of the opinion that the enforcement of these agree- ments, to which it is not a party, even if their terms include the settlement of all the charges against the respondent, would defeat the policy and purposes of the Act. Consequently, the Board believes that it should not, in its discretion, withhold action on the re- spondent's unfair labor practices because of the agreements. Under the Act it is the duty of the Board, when it finds that unfair labor practices have been committed, to prevent the continuance or recur- rence of such practices and to remove their effects so far as possible. Under the particular facts of this case, the Board feels that these private agreements are not sufficient alone to achieve that result. The agreements cannot and do not sufficiently remove the effects and pre- vent the recurrence of the respondent's particular types of unfair 15 Cf. Matter of R. C. A. Manufacturing Company, Inc. and United Electrical h Radio Workers of America, 2 N. L. R. B. 159, 178-79; Matter of Northrop Corporation and United Automobile Workers, Local 229, ^o N. L. R. B. 228; Matter of Ingram Manwfaciurinag Com- pany and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 5 N. L. R. B. 908. 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices, such as the evictions. And, as the Supreme Court has stated,"' "the continued existence of a company union established by unfair labor practices or of a union dominated by the employer is a consequence of violation of the Act whose continuance thwarts the purposes of the Act . . ." The facts of this case, therefore, require us to exercise our discretion and issue an order to insure that the continuance of the. company-dominated Association ceases, and that such serious unfair labor practices as the evictions do not 'recur. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III 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 Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom. In order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act and as a means of .removing and avoiding the consequences of the respondent's unfair labor practices, it is essential that in aid of our cease and desist order the respondent be directed to take certain affirmative action, more particularly described below. . We have found that the respondent failed to maintain safe working conditions in its Delco-Remy. plant for its employees who were meln- bers of the United. We will, therefore, order the respondent to afford all its employees reasonable protection in its Delco-Remy plant, at all times from physical assaults or threats of physical violence directed at discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, or any other labor. organization; to instruct all its employees in this plant that physical assaults or threats of physical violence directed at dis- couraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, or any other labor organization, will not be permitted in the plant at any time, and that employees, without express authorization from the respondent, may not make or carry blackjacks or other dangerous weapons of any nature in the plant at any time; and to take effective action to enforce these rules. 16 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and its AfJlliated Companies v. iVational Labor Relations Board, 59 Sup. Ct. 206 ( 1938). GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 165 We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Association and has contributed sup- port to it. Simply to order the respondent to cease dominating, sup- porting, and interfering with the Association would not set free the employee's impulse to seek the organization which would most effec- tively represent him. We cannot thus completely eliminate the force which the respondent's power exerts upon the employee in regard to the Association. The Association will, if permitted to continue as a representative, provide the respondent with a device by which its power is unobtrusively effective, without further action on its part. Even though he would not have freely chosen the Association as an initial proposition, the employee, once having chosen, may by force of timorous habit, be held firmly to his choice. The employee must be released from these unlawful compulsions.- In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and establish the conditions necessary for the exercise of an unfettered choice of representatives by the employees by freeing them from such domination and interference and the effects thereof, which 'constitute a continuing obstacle to their exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we will order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Association as a representative of the respondent's employees at its Delco-Remy plant for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work, and to disestablish it as such representative 18 We will also order the respondent to post notices in its Delco-Remy plant stating that its -employees are free to become or remain members of the United, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of such membership. . Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, and Delco-Remy Employees' Association, Inc., Local No. 1, National Independent Unions of America, Inc., formerly known 17 Matter _of Wheeling Steel Corporation and The Amalgamated Association of Iran, Steel, .and Tin Workers of North America. N. R. A. Lodge No. 155, Goodwill Lodge No. 157, Rod & Wire Lodge No. 158, Golden Rule Lodge No. 161, Service Lodge No. 165, 1 N. L. R. B. 699, 710; Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine- men, 2 N. L. R. B. 431, order enforced, National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc.. 303 U. S. 272 .(1938). IB See Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.. and its Afllliated Companies v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 Sup. Ct. 206 (1938), where the Court stated: "The continued existence of a company union established by unfair labor practices or of a union dominated by the employer is a consequence' of violation of the Act whose continuance thwarts the purposes of the Act and renders ineffective any order restraining the unfair labor practices." 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as Delco-Remy Employees' Association, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Delco- Remy Employees' Association, Inc., Local No. 1, National Independent Unions of America, Inc., formerly known as Delco-Remy Employees' Association, and by contributing support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean- ing 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 re- spondent 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. 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, General,,;Motors Corporation, and its officers, agents, successors, and _"signs;. shall,: 1. ase,anc desist from: ;, (a)jjp, any.manner dominating or interfering with the administra- ;tion;,o1- Delco-Remy Employees' Association, Inc., Local No; 1, Na- tional Independent Unions of America, Inc., or with the formation and .administration of any other labor organization of its employees at its Delco-Remy plant or contributing financial or other support to Delco Remy Employees' Association, Inc., Local No. 1, National Independ- ent Unions of America, Inc., or any other labor organization of its employees at its Delco-Remy plant; (b) Recognizing Delco-Remy Employees' Association, Inc., Local No. 1, National Independent Unions of America, Inc., as the represent- ative of any of its employees at its Delco-Remy plant for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work; (c) Maintaining surveillance of or employing any other means of es- pionage for the purpose of ascertaining and investigating the activi- ties of International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, and the activities of its employees at its Delco-Remy plant in connection with such organization or any other labor organization ; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees at its Delco-Remy plant in the exercise of their, rights to GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 167 self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargain-- ing 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 Delco-Remy Employees' Asso=- ciation, Inc., Local No. 1, National Independent Unions of America,, Inc., as the representative of any of its employees at its Delco-Remy plant for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and completely disestablish Delco-Remy Em- ployees' Association, Inc., Local No. 1, National Independent Unions: of America. Inc., as such representative; (b) Afford all its employees reasonable protection in its Delco- Remy plant at all times from physical assaults or threats "of physical violence directed at discouraging membership in, or activities on. behalf of, International Union United Automobile Workers of Amer ica, Local No. 146, or any other labor organization; (c) Instruct all its employees in its Delco-Remy plant that physical` assaults or threats of physical violence directed at discouraging mem- bership in, or activities on behalf of, International Union United` Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, or any other labor- organization, will not be permitted in the plant at any time, and that employees, without express authorization from the respondent, may not make or carry blackjacks or other dangerous weapons of any- nature in the plant at any time; and take effective action to enforce- these rules; (d) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places: throughout the Delco-Remy plant stating: (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as provided in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (2) that the respondent has taken the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order and will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2. (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees at its Delco-Remy plant are free- to become or remain members of International Union United Auto- mobile Workers of America, Local No. 146, and that the respondent., will not discriminate against any employee because of membership in_ that organization; (e) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting; 190935-40-vol. 14--1s :168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the :respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT Is FURTHER oRDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges ,that the respondent encouraged and assisted the Citizens League for ilndustrial Security of Anderson, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.