Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation

In the Matter of BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE COR- PORATION, BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORA- TIoN and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Cases Nos. C-170 and R-177.-Decided August T /j,, 1939 Irony and Steel Producing Industry-Interference , Restrailo.t, and Coercion: activities subsequent to effective date of the Act by which Company insured the continuance of its interference with the formation of the Employee Repre- sentation Plans ; citizens' committee : use of to camouflage attack on outside union, offers of contributions to, money turned over to, attempt to insure that Mayor would continue attitude hostile to strikers-Company-Dominated Unions-Employee Representation Plans: form, analysis, and operation ; initia- tion by Company ; Relief and Pension Plans ; use of, to foster Employee Repre- sentation Plans ; expressions of preference ; effect of changes in Plans at time of Jones & Laughlin decision ; financial and other support ; disestablished, as agency for collective bargaining , Relief Plan , Pension Plan , and the Saving and Stock Ownership Plan not to be affected by Order-Strike : involved-Espionage: employment of detective agency to obtain information relating to union activity and organization ; surveillance, meaning of-Evidence : prior to passage of Act, admission of, to show background of practices occurring subsequent to passage of Act-Employer : corporation proper party respondent : control of voting power of Company, interlocking directorate , actvities in matters affecting labor relations. Mr. Earle K. Shawe, Mr. Martin I. Rose, and Mr. Leonard Keller, for the Board. Cravath, deGersdorff, Swaine, and Wood, by Mr. Hoyt A. Moore, Mr. E. Fontaine Broun, Mr. Eugene E. Ford, Mr. Alfred McCormack, Mr. Kenneth L. Houck, and Mr. Douglas L. Hatch, of New York City, and Mr. Richard H. Wilmer, of Washington, D. C., for the respondents. Mr. Lee Pressman and Mr. Anthony 117ayne Smith, for the S. W. O. C. Weimer and Bennett, by Mr. 'D. P. Weimer, of Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Francis Hartman, of Ebensburg, Pa., and Mr. Morgan V. Jones, Jr., of Johnstown, Pa., for the Cambria Plan. Cook and Markell, by Mr. Charles Markell, Jr., and Mr. S. Ralph Warnken, of Baltimore, Md., for the Maryland Plan. Mr. Clarence D. Becker, of Lebanon, Pa., for the Lebanon Plan. House, Evans, Storey, and Lick, by Mr. John B. Pearson and Mr. Douglas D. Storey, of Harrisburg, Pa., for the Steelton Plan. 14 N. L. R. B., No. 44. 539 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Kevin Killeen, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the Lackawanna Plan. Mr. H. B. McFadden, of Bethlehem, Pa., for the Bethlehem Plan. Mr. Martin Kurasch, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by the Steel Workers Organizing Com- mittee, herein called the S. W. O. C., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued its complaint, dated August 26, 1937, against Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware corpo- ration, and Bethlehem Steel Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, herein sometimes 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) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that the respondents have dominated and interfered with and are continuing to dominate and interfere with the formation and administration of a labor organization or labor organizations, known as the "Plan of Employee Representation," at their plants located at Johnstown, Bethlehem, Steelton, Lebanon, Rankin, and Leetsdale, Pennsylvania, at Blasdell and Lackawanna, New York, at Sparrows Point, Maryland, at Seattle, Washington, and at South San Francisco, Okland, Vernon, and Los Angeles, California, that the respondents have contributed and are continuing to contribute financial and other support to such labor organizations, and that by such action the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. The complaint further alleges (1) that the respondents from on or about July 1, 1936, at their plants at Johnstown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Sparrows Point, Maryland, have threatened to discharge, lay off, or demote certain of their employees if these em- ployees joined or assisted the S. W. O. C.; (2) that the respondents from on or about July 1, 1936, at their plants at Johnstown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Sparrows Point, Maryland, discharged, laid off, and refused to reinstate certain of their employees, and demoted or transferred certain of their employees for the reason that they joined or assisted the S. W. O. C. and engaged in concerted 'Bethlehem Steel Company is herein called the Company and Bethlehem Steel Cor- poration Is herein called the Corporation. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 541 activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargain- ing and other mutual aid and protection; (3) that the respondents from on or about July 1, 1936, at their plants at Johnstown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Sparrows Point, Maryland, have kept their employees and the organizers of the S. W. O. C. under surveil- lance for the purpose of thereby ascertaining which of their employ- ees joined or assisted the S. W. O. C. or engaged in concerted activi- ties with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and that the respondents have denounced the S. W. O. C., its organizers and members, and in other ways have manifested their hostility to the S. W. O. C. and have offered inducements to certain of their employees not to join or assist the S. W. O. C.; (4) that the respondents, from on or about July 1, 1936, at their plants at Johnstown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Sparrows Point, Maryland, maintained arms in the said plants and utilized the services of many men as police and guards and in other capacities, with the intention and effect of interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; (5) that the respondents, during the strike of their employees at the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, plant, engendered, expressed, and publicized opposition and hostility to the S. W. O. C., its leaders, organizers, and members, and conducted a "back-to-work" movement of the respondents' employees in such a manner as to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; caused the streets of Johnstown and surrounding communities to be patrolled by armed men for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees ; interfered with peaceful picketing by their striking employees; caused S. W. O. C. members and organizers to be unjustly arrested, detained, and sentenced; caused S. W. O. C. mem- bers to be brutally attacked and beaten in the said plant ; and by other actions and means interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; and (6) that ' the respondents, by all the aforesaid acts, and by other acts and means, have interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and are interfering with, restraining, and coercing, their em- ployees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and did thereby engage and are thereby engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. On August 19, 1937, the S. W. O. C. filed a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondents and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On August 26, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that an investigation be conducted and that an appropriate hearing be provided for upon due notice. On the same day, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of its Rules and Regulations, ordered a consolidation of the, two cases. The complaint, the petition, and notices of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondents, the S. W. O. C., and the Plans of Employees' Representation at the plants located at Johnstown, Beth- lehem, Steelton, Lebanon, Rankin, and Leetsdale, Pennsylvania, Sparrows Point, Maryland, Blasdell and Lackawanna, New York, South San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, and Seattle, Washington.2 The respondent Corporation filed an answer and motion to dismiss the complaint, dated September 3, 1937, in which, in substance'," it denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices, and in which it alleged that it had not at any time mentioned in the com- plaint directed, controlled, or supervised the relations between the employees of any corporation whose stock it owned and such corpora- tion, or any matter in connection therewith. The answer of the Company, dated September 3, 1937, denied that it had engaged. in any unfair labor practices. A motion by the Company for a Bill of Particulars and an "ex- tension" of the date of the hearing was denied by the Board on September 4, 1937. Hearings were held before Frank Bloom, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, from September 8, 1937, up to and in- cluding April 22, 1938, at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Maryland; and on July 15, 1938, at Washington, D. C.a Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and 2 The Plants at each of these locations are herein sometimes given the designations which appears below, and the Plans of Employees ' Representation at each of these Plants are herein sometimes given the designations which appear below : Location Designation of plant Designation of plan of em- ployees' representation Johnstown, Penna_ ______________________ L b P Cambria Plant __________________ JLebanon Plant Cambria Plan. Lebanon Plan anon, e enna----------------------- -- __________________ Concentrator Plant _____________ . Concentrator Plan. Lackawanna and Blasdell , N. Y__-_----- Lackawanna Plant------------- Lackawanna Plan. Rankin, Penns, -------------------------- L t d l P Rankin Works __________________ Leetsdale Works #1 Rankin Plan. Leetsdale #1 Plan ee s a e, enna ------ ----------------- _____________ Leetsdale Works #2_____________ . Leetsdale #2 Plan. Bethlehem , Penna ---------------------- Bethlehem Plant ---------------- Bethlehem Plan. Sparrows Point. Md- -------------------- Maryland Plant ________________ Maryland Plan. Steelton, Penna _________________________ Steelton Plant ------------------ Steelton Plan. s From April 22, 1.938, until July 15 , 1938 , counsel for the respondents and counsel for the Board were engaged in discussions of, and in work upon , stipulations which BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 543 cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. During the course of the hearing, motions for leave to intervene were made by the Cambria Plan, the Bethlehem Plan, the, Maryland Plan, the Lackawanna Plan, the Lebanon Plan, and the Steelton Plan. These motions for leave to intervene were all granted by the Trial Examiner. Answers to the complaint were filed by each of the afore-mentioned Plans. On November 2, during the course of the hearing, the S. W. O. C. moved for a continuance in Case No. R-177. On November 8, 1937, the Trial Examiner granted the said motion. The Company and the Cambria Plan petitioned the Board for an order vacating this ruling of the Trial Examiner and a hearing for the purpose of oral arbgu- ment in this matter was held before the Board in Washington, D. C. on November 13, 1937. On November 17, 1937, the Board issued an Order Vacating and Setting Aside Ruling of Trial Examiner Grant- ing Motion for Continuance. On December 23, 1937, the Company filed a petition for an order vacating and setting aside a ruling of the Trial Examiner made December 15, 1937; for an order specifically directing the procedure to be followed in the taking of testimony in accordance with the Order of Consolidation; and for an order staying further hearings. The Board, by Order duly made on December 28, 1937, denied this petition. On January 3, 1938, the Bethlehem Plan filed a petition to join in the afore-mentioned petition of the Company. This was denied by the Board on January 4, 1938. On January 10, 1938, the Board issued an Order which revoked the Order denying the afore- mentioned petition of the Company, made on December 28, 1937, but which denied the same petition of the Company. On January 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner, on motion of the respond- ents, dismissed without prejudice the complaint in Case No. C-170 in so far as the complaint alleges in paragraph 8 that the respondents .have dominated and interfered with the formation of and adminis- tration of the various Plans of Employees' Representation located at were entered into between counsel for the Board and for the parties, which stipulations were made a part of the record at the final hearing on July 15, 1938. By stipulation of the parties , all of the testimony taken at Allentown , Pennsylvania, and all the testimony taken at Baltimore. Maryland, other than testimony which appears at pages 9713, line 20, through 9721, inclusive , were physically stricken from the record. All exhibits offered and received together with such testimony were withdrawn from the record . Pages 9713 , line 20, through 9721 , inclusive, were stricken from the record upon motion of the Board 's attorney without objection from the respondent . The tran- script pages so stricken from the record are pages 4454 to 9842, inclusive. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Seattle, Washington, and South San Francisco, Oakland, Vernon, and Los Angeles, California. The Trial Examiner ruled, pursuant to the motion, that the reference in paragraph 7 of the complaint to "their many plants" was limited so as to exclude the plants referred to above. On April 13, 1938, the Company filed with the Trial Examiner an application for a subpoena daces tecum addressed to David J. Mc- Donald, requiring him, in substance, to attend and testify in these proceedings and to bring with him and produce each and every agree- ment entered into since January 1, 1937, by the S. W. O. C. with United States Steel Corporation or any one or more of eight named companies believed to be subsidiaries of United States Steel Corpo- ration. The Trial Examiner denied the said application on April 14, 1938. On April 18, 1938, the Trial Examiner vacated his ruling denying the application, and heard oral argument on the said ap- plication and on an application for a subpoena ad testificandum addressed to David J. McDonald, filed with him on April 18, 1938. On the same day, the Trial Examiner denied both applications. Thereafter, on April 21, 1938, the Company filed with the Board a petition for an order vacating and setting aside the rulings of the Trial Examiner denying these applications for a subpoena daces tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum. At the hearing on July 15, 1938, counsel for the respondents agreed with counsel for the Board to accept, in satisfaction of the above-mentioned subpoena daces teem, the documents which counsel for the Board furnished to counsel for the respondents and which counsel for the respondents offered in evidence at such hearing as Respondents' Exhibits for Identification Nos. 251 and 252. The petition of the respondents for an order vacating and setting aside the rulings of the Trial Examiner denying to the respondent Com- pany a subpoena daces tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum, in so far as the said petition relates to the application of the respond- ent Company for a subpoena ad testifeandwnn, is, therefore, still pending. The petition is hereby denied. On June 7, 1938, the Board issued an Order directing the Trial Examiner to prepare an Intermediate Report in Case No. C-170. On July 23, 1938, the Steelton Plan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on July 25 the Company and the Corporation filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On August 17, 1938, the Company filed its brief before the Trial Examiner. On November 9, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, finding that the respondents had engaged in and were en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 545 ing of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended, inter alia, that the respondents cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and withdraw all recognition from and disestablish the Cambria Plan, Bethlehem Plan, Steelton Plan, Lebanon Plan, Concentrator Plan, Lackawanna Plan, Mary- land Plan, Rankin Plan, and the Leetsdale Plans, and each of them, as representatives of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents, or either of them, concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof were thereafter filed by the respondents and the intervening Plans of Employees' Representation. Oral argument on the Excep- tions to the Intermediate Report was held before the Board at Wash- ington, D. C., on March 29, 1939. In its Exceptions, the respondents severally moved "that the Board state its Findings of Fact in accordance with the foregoing exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner and to the Record, and make a Decision and Order adjudicating that the Respondents, and each of them, have not engaged in any of the unfair labor prac- tices charged in the complaint herein and dismissing said com- plaint ..." We have considered this motion, and the Exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report filed by the respondents and the intervenors, but, save for those Exceptions which are consistent with the findings, con- clusions, and order set forth below, we find them to be without merit. The motions to dismiss the complaint are hereby denied. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The respondents filed a motion, dated March 23, 1939, to reopen the record and to permit further evidence, to be adduced. The motion stated, in substance, that the Trial Examiner had found that Mr. Evans and the Reverend Mr. Stanton had discussed the matter of the Sunday afternoon, June 1.3, 1937, meeting at the Fort Stanwix Hotel in the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, prior to that day, and had planned, prior to that day, that such a meeting would be held. The respondents indicated in their motion that they wished to rebut such a finding. Since, as will. be seen below, we do not find that Mr. Evans and the Reverend Mr. Stanton discussed or planned the Sun- day afternoon meeting prior to that day, there 'is no necessity for 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD our consideration of evidence in rebuttal and the motion is therefore denied. On July 21, 1939, the respondents filed a motion "to supplement the record herein as to the procedure of the Board and for leave to except and argue to the record as so supplemented." The motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE COMPANY The Bethlehem Steel, Company is a Pennsylvania corporation, hav- ing its general offices in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. It is the only iron- and steel-producing subsidiary of the Bethlehem Steel Corpora- tion. The Company is engaged, among other things, in the business of producing and selling iron and steel (finished and semi-finished), building and repairing ships, building railroad cars, mining iron ore, quarrying limestone, producing bituminous coal, coke, and foundry sand, and fabricating and erecting structural steel. The Bethlehem Steel Company operates iron- and steel-producing plants at Beth- lehem, Johnstown, Lebanon, Steelton, Danville, and Coatesville, Pennsylvania, at Wilmington, Delaware, at Sparrows Point, Mary- land, at Lackawanna and Blasdell, New York, at Seattle, Washing- ton, and at South San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, and it operates a wire-rope plant at Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and a wire- strand plant at Sparrows Point, Maryland. Table No. I, which appears in Appendix A, sets forth the operations of each of these Bethlehem Steel Company plants and includes data as to the extent of the shipments of materials and fuel into each of the plants which originated outside of the State in which the plant is located, and the extent of the shipments of products from each of these plants to destinations outside of the State in which the plant is located. The information relating to shipments into and out of these plants covers the full calendar year of 1936, a period during which operations in the steel industry of the United States as a whole and operations in the plants and properties of the Bethlehem Steel Company and of the other subsidiary companies of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation were reasonably representative of normal operations therein. The Company also operates the Concentrator Plant, which is a concen- trating and sintering plant located at Lebanon, Pennsylvania. The Concentrator Plant ships 100 per cent of its product outside the State. The Company also operates- several structural steel fabricating works, each of which receives a substantial proportion of its raw materials from outside the State in which it is located and each of BETH:LEHEDZ STEEL CORPORATION 547 which ships a substantial portion of its product to destinations out- side the State in which it is located. 11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a committee com- posed of representatives of a group of unions affiliated with the Com- mittee for Industrial Organization. Steel workers are organized into lodges of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America , which function under the S. W. O. C. A copy of the "Memorandum of Agreement" between the Amal- gamated and the Committee for Industrial Organization was intro- duced into, evidence. It provides for the` establishment of the S. W. O. C., which has "power to handle all matters relative to the organ- izing campaign, other than the issuance of charters." It also pro- vides that "The Committee and the-officers of the Amalgamated Association shall have exclusive power to deal with the steel com- panies in order to reach agreements . . ." The functions of the S. W. O. C. and the Amalgamated are thus interwoven. We find that both the S . W. O. C. and the amalgamated are labor organizations admitting to membeiship employees at the Cambria. Lackawanna, Lebanon, Steelton, Maryland, Bethlehem, and Concen- trator Plants, and at the Rankin, Leetsdale No. 1, and Leetsdale No. 2 Works. The Plans of Employees' Representation at the Cambria Plant, the Lackawanna Plant, the Lebanon Plant, the Steelton Plant, the Maryland Plant, the Bethlehem Plant, the Concentrator Plant, the Rankin Works, the Leetsdale Works No. 1 , and the Leetsdale Works No. 2 are labor organizations having their membership among the employees at the respective Plants. I1T. THE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION PLANS A. Their inception In April and May 1918, a series of strikes occurred among the employees of the Bethlehem Plant. Conciliators sent by the United States Department of Labor were unsuccessful in their attempts to settle these strikes and the Secretary of Labor referred the matter to the National War Labor Board which issued its findings on July 31, 1918. The National War Labor Board stated , inter alia: The main cause of the dissatisfaction is a bonus system so complicated and difficult to understand that almost one-half of the time of the hearings was consumed in efforts to secure a, clear idea of the system. The absence of any method of collec- 548 DEC]SIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive bargaining between the management and the employees is another serious cause of unrest, as is also the lack of a basic guaranteed minimum-wage rate. In addition to findings as to piece rates, basic hourly rates, bonus, overtime, employment of women, etc., the National War Labor Board made the following finding: 3. Committees. The right of employees to bargain collectively is recognized by the National War Labor Board; therefore the employees of the Bethlehem plant should be guaranteed this right. The workers at the Bethlehem plant should use the same method of electing committees as is provided in the award of the National War Labor Board for the workers of the General Electric Co. at Pittsfield, Mass.4 Thereafter, the Company prepared, with the advice and assistance of W. L. Mackenzie King, now Prime Minister of Canada, a form of plan of employee representation. Prior to October 1, 1918, the Company posted the following notice in its Bethlehem Plant, its Steelton Plant, its Maryland Plant, and its Lebanon Plant: Effective October 1, all employees of this plant in hourly, turn, tonnage contract and piecework rates, will be paid on a basis of time and half time for work in excess of eight hours on any clay. It is also desired to provide ways and means of meeting with and bringing before the management problems affecting their working conditions, and to accomplish this the company proposes to establish a system of employee representation consisting of representatives elected by the employees to serve on various corn- mittees to deal with working conditions. I The applicable paragraphs in the findings in the General Electric Company case are as follows : 10. Election of Committees. The election by the workers of their representative department committees to pre- sent grievances and mediate with the company shall be held, during the life of this award, in some convenient public building in the neighborhood of the plant, to be selected by the examiner of this board assigned to supervise the execution of this award, or, in the case of his absence, by some impartial person , a resident of Pitts- field, to be selected by such examiner . Such examiner , or his substitute, shall preside over the first and all subsequent elections during the life of this award , and have the power to make the proper regulations to secure absolutd fairness. In the elections the examiner shall provide , wherever practicable , for the minority representation by limiting the right of each voter to a vote for less than the total number of the committee to be selected . Elections shall beheld annually. 11. Duties of Department Committees. The duties of the department committees shall be confined to the adjustment of disputes which the shop foremen and the division superintendents and the employees have been unable to adjust. The department committees shall meet annually and shall select from among their number three ( 3) employees who shall be known as the committee on appeals. This committee shall meet with the management for the purpose of adjusting disputes which the department committees have failed to adjust. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 549 The general principles of this system have been developed, and will be immediately submitted to the employees. Because a considerable difference of opinion developed between the Company and the National War Labor Board as to what type of shop elections fulfilled the requirements of the National War Labor Board's findings , the above-mentioned form of plan was not pre- sented by the Company to its employees at the Bethlehem Plant. However, a copy of the plan, incorporated in a printed booklet, was distributed among the employees at the ' Steelton Plant, the Mary- land Plant, and the Lebanon Plant. Prior to November' 11, 1918, this form of plan became effective as the Plan of Employees ' Repre- sentation at each of these plants, and elections of employees' repre- sentatives were held thereunder in each of the plants. The manner in which the Plans became effective is correctly set forth in a printed booklet of 84 pages, dated January 1919, intro- duced in evidence in these proceedings , which was apparently dis- tributed to the employees of the Steelton, Lebanon, and Maryland Plants.- A letter from E. G. Grace, president of the Company, to the era- ployees of the Bethlehem Steel Company , appears in the booklet, reading as follows : E. G. Grace, President. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, South Bethlehem, Pa., January 3, 1919. To the Employees of the Bethlehem Steel Company: It is with keen satisfaction that the Management offers to you a voice in the shaping of policies affecting your conditions of employment , combined with a means of dealing with the Man- agement in the equitable solution of matters arising for adjust- ment, through the Plan providing for election of employee repre- sentatives from their respective Departments. . It is obvious that the rapid growth of the Company, during the past few years, has made it impossible to maintain that personal touch with its employees which is assured in a smaller organization, and which the Management recognizes as being so necessary to success . It is hoped, therefore, that the features provided in this Plan of Representation of Employees to meet and deal with the Management will supply that need. The Management is extremely gratified with the results of the first elections. The employees have shown excellent judgment in the selection of candidates to represent them, and it is our sincere hope and belief that these men, who have been thus honored, will cooperate with the Management for the mutual good of the Com- pany and the employees whom they represent. 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Plan of Employee Representation in industry is essentially the same as the theory of popular Government, and knowing as we do the advantages to be enjoyed through such a form of Government, may we not expect similar results in industry by the application of these principles, requiring as they do direct connec- tion and relations between employer and employee. I cannot urge too strongly the necessity of every employee mani- festing a live personal interest in the features provided through this method of representation, at the same time adding a word of caution to the employees to avoid any possible misunderstand- ing of its functions. The Representation has not been inaugurated alone for the settlement of grievances, but, in order to attain a lasting success, must be utilized in a constructive manner. Not alone does the Plan provide a channel through which the employee may reach the Management, but the Management feels that it now has an opportunity of presenting to the employees questions upon which their assistance and advice is desired. The Stockholders and the Management realize that to a. very large extent the success attained by the Bethlehem Steel Company interests depends upon the degree of cooperation which exists between the Management and its employees, and it is with a real sense of responsibility I say to our employees that the Manage- ment stands ready to do its part and welcomes the reciprocal spirit which the employees have evidenced in their sincere and enthusiastic acceptance of the features provided in the "Plan of Employees' Representation." (Signed) E. G. GRACE, President. The booklet contained also a letter to the employees of the Bethlehem Steel Company from Quincy Bent, vice president, which states in part, "I feel that one of the most important steps taken by the Company in the past few years is the institution of the Plan of Employees' Representation." The Plan of Employees' Representation was installed at the Steelton Plant in the following manner, as described in the booklet : On October 11th, 1918, announcement was made to the employees of the Plant that a plan of representation for the employees was to be inaugurated whereby opportunity would be provided for an orderly and expeditious means for adjustment of differences and varied conditions following the close of the War. The first step in the election procedure was the creation of voting divisions throughout the entire plant. This was done, where possible, in conformity with the different plant departments. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 551 In accordance with the outlined plan, Thursday, October 24th, was designated for meetings in each of these divisions for the appointment of election officials. The superintendent of each department called on the em- ployees to provide a temporary Chairman for the meeting from his division until a permanent Chairman had been appointed by the employees after which the employees were to select their officials who would preside over the nomination and election of Representatives. In this manner officials were selected from twenty -two divi- sions into which the plant had been divided and a meeting of instruction was called for Monday, October 28th. At this meet- ing the method of conducting the work of election and rules gov- erning same were explained in detail. Printed ballots , showing the division and number of candi- dates to be voted for in that division were furnished each set of election officials for the primaries on Monday , October 31st. The location of the polling booths was determined in each case with a view to the convenience of the men. The votes were cast either at the start of the days work or' when the shifts changed, with the exception of portions of the Electrical , and Mechanical Departments , such as crane and pump operators , who are located at widely separated points in the plant. In these cases the bal- lot boxes were carried to these men by the election committee. The total vote cast at the primaries indicated that 60% of the eligible employees of the plant had voted and that the general trend of effort had been to choose representative men of each division. For the final election held on the following Monday, November 4th, more elaborate provisions for balloting were made. Neat booths were provided where absolute secrecy of balloting could be had and additional balloting locations and judges arranged for. This was rendered necessary on account of the increased inter- est which became apparent after the nomination and also on ac- count of the time consumed in balloting which had been found to have been underestimated. Between the time of the primary and final election considerable activity was shown by the individual candidates . In some cases personal campaign cards were distributed while other cases can- didates sought support thru personal solicitation . In one case newspaper advertising was resorted to. The reports of judges following the final election showed that about 70% of the eligible employees had balloted and that with 190935-40-vol, 14-36 552 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD few exceptions the various divisions had shown a material in- crease over the vote cast for nomination. The first meeting of the representative body was held on November 7th, 1918. Vice-President Quincy Bent; F. A. Rob- bins, General Manager of the plant; J. M. Larkin, Assistant to President; Assistant General Manager E. F. Entwisle, and W. E. Chick, Management's Representative, were in attendance. Mr. Bent explained in a very interesting and clear manner the policy of the Company in offering representation to the employees and forcefully pointed out that much mutual benefit might be obtained if both the employees and employer worked hand in hand for the good of all. Mr. Robbins expressed in a sincere manner his earnest desire to assist in carrying out the Management's intent and purpose in the inauguration of Employees Representation for the benefit of the men as well as that of the Company. After Mr. Robbins' remarks, Mr. Larkin talked over the entire plan with the Representatives and pointed out to them the bene- fits they might expect from its operation if accepted in spirit of fair and open-mindedness. According to the booklet, the installation at the Lebanon Plant was as follows: The Plan of Employees' Representation was first brought to the attention of the employees of the Lebanon Plant, Monday, October 21st, 1918, upon the arrival of a large supply of booklets entitled "Representation of employees in plants of the Bethlehem Steel Company." In making arrangements for the inauguration of the plan, the management of both the primary and final election was turned over to the employees. They elected or appointed their own judges and election committees governed only by the usual elec- tion rules. With but a short time for "stump" speaking and electioneering, most of the aspirants for office immediately, through their friends, began to distribute cards with their names and platform printed thereon. Their friends did not stop at that but utilized all available space throughout the plant in voicing their opinion of their choice for representatives, sometimes in perhaps not eloquent but nevertheless strong terms. Considering the short time between the announcement of the adoption of the plan and the primary election the primary vote was heavy-but notwithstanding this fact the final election vote was greater still, the two running about 65% and 70%. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 553 The first meeting of the entire.body of Representatives of the Reading and Lebanon Plants was held October 31st, 1918, in the main office at Lebanon. The meeting was in charge of Mr. J. P. Brock, General Manager of the Plant and was attended by Pres- ident E. G. Grace ; Vice-President Quincy Bent; J. M. Lar- kin, Assistant to the President ; M. J. H. Edmonds, Assistant to General Manager and Mr. J. E. Culliney, Management's Representative. After a few brief remarks by General Manager Brock, Presi- dent Grace was introduced to the Representatives. Mr. Grace stated in a concise manner the policy of the company in inaugu- rating such a plan of Employees Representation and laid empha- sis on, the fact that the results of its operation would be mutually beneficial to employees and employer only through a co-operative spirit. Vice-President Bent followed President Grace and pointed out in a _ clear manner how the plan should operate to produce the greatest benefits and satisfaction. Immediately following this meeting a second meeting was called by the Representatives for the purpose of organizing an election of Committees. The booklet contained a letter from W. F. Roberts , general manager of the Maryland Plant, to the employees, which reads as follows: W. F. Roberts, General Manager. M. J. Scammell, Assistant General Manager. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, MARYLAND PLANT, Spay roea's Poi n,t, Md., October 15, 1918. In reply refer to To the Enzplo'yees of the [llarylannd Plaint: Recognizing fully that a proper spirit of cooperation is neces- sary between the Management of the Company and its employees to secure the best results, we have thought it desirable to install a system of Employees Representation at this plant, which will enable properly' elected representatives of the various divisions of the plant to meet with the Management and its Representatives and discuss such questions as pertain to working conditions in the plant. To be successful, such a plan must be mutually aclvanta- _geous, and in the plan proposed we have attempted to formulate such rules and regulations as will permit of such an arrangement. In case it is found that the Rules and Regulations in the pub- lished booklet do not give the best results, such changes as are advisable can be made through the medium of the Joint Rules Committee. 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We are quite prepared to enter into this arrangement with the proper spirit of give and take, and we sincerely believe that if our employees manifest a similar spirit that the plan will be successful from the viewpoint. of both the Management and the Employees. We ask that you give the plan a fair trial. _ Sincerely yours, (Signed) AV. F. ROBERTS, General Manager. Matters having to do with the installation of the Plan at the Mary- land Plant are set forth in the booklet as follows : The Plan of Employees' Representation which was introduced voluntarily by the Management at the Maryland Plant in October 1918, through the distribution of descriptive booklets was received enthusiastically by the employees. It was generally recognized that by the institution of such a plan the greatest degree of cooperation might be obtained for the benefit of all concerned. The plan was accepted in good faith, the concensus of opinion being that it was a big step in the right direction to bring the Management and Employees in closer relationship on matters of mutual interest. The next procedure was the posting of notices announcing elections under the provision of the Plan of Representation. The first problem was to group the departments or divisions to give each branch of service the proper representation and at the same time adhere to the provisions of allowing one repre- sentative to each 200 employees, as far as possible. After this was done, a call was sent out for volunteers from each. depart- ment or group to act as Tellers and Clerks at the elections and this work at the first elections was handled entirely by Employee volunteers. It was difficult to find candidates to run for nomi- nation as representatives at first, as many did not understand the plan or the duties they would be called upon to perform and they were generally backward in seeking the nominations or allowing their names to be used as candidates. However, as preparations for the elections proceeded, interest seemed to in- crease and by the time the nominating election was held, many candidates were in the field. After the nominations were made, quite a good natured rivalry developed in some of the depart- ments and before the general election took place it had assumed the appearance of a regular political campaign. Notwithstanding the short notice and the fact that no meet- ings were held in advance of the elections, sufficient interest was taken to make a very creditable showing on the days of the BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 555 election and, although many employees were absent on account of the,influenza and other illness, about 60% of the eligible force voted at the primary election and about 70% at the general election. The Organization Meeting was held on November 4th, 1918, at the Sparrow's Point Club and was attended by W. F. Roberts, General Manager, and J. M. Larkin, Assistant to President Grace, M. J. Scammell, Assistant Manager and Philip W. True- heart, Management's Representative. Mr. Roberts gave a short talk to the men showing clearly he was thoroughly convinced that the plan of Representation, as instituted in the Maryland Plant, would secure much benefit for both the employees and employer thru fair minded action on the part of each. Mr. Larkin then thoroughly explained the Plan of Represen- tation pointing out particularly the broad minded attitude and policy of the Bethlehem Steel Company in offering such a plan to the employees with the hope and belief that by its use the closest relationship and harmony would be developed to mutual advantage. After the Plan was thoroughly explained to the Representa- tives by the Management and the Company's attitude made clear, the meeting was turned over to the Representatives to select their Chairman and Secretary of the Works Committee and organize the standing Committees. The work proceeded with unusual dispatch and it was unanimously agreed that Committee assignments would be made by the different Representatives by grouping and numbering the Committees and placing correspond- ing numbers in a hat, allowing each Representative to draw a number and be assigned to the corresponding Committee. This plan worked out admirably and eliminated lengthy discussions regarding the different committee assignments and everyone seemed thoroughly satisfied with the results. The Plan of Employees' Representation instituted by the Company at its Steelton, Lebanon, and Maryland Plants was, as indicated above, not presented to the employees at the Bethlehem Plant for reasons which were stated as follows by the representatives of the National War Labor Board : A considerable divergence of opinion developed between the Company on the one hand, and the staff of the War Labor Board on the other, with reference to what type of shop elections ful- filled the requirements of the Board's findings. After a series of interchanges of view on this subject, and conferences between 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Chief Administrator and Mr. Grace, it was finally decided that the plan which the Company was perfecting, involving as it did a multiplicity of committees and much detail of organiza- tion, had best be waived for the present, and simple craft committees be elected immediately by the electricians and ma- chinists, the two classes of employees most insistent upon a presentation of their grievances. On August 27, 1918, a representative of the National War Labor Board went to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to administer the Findings. This representative prepared a plan for the election of committees, including the form of ballots, posters, and other details, and on October 9, 1918, announced the plans for the election of shop com- mittees. The elections of the committeemen were held in the various shops of the Bethlehem Plant from time to time during October and November 1918, under the supervision of an Examiner of the Na- tional War Labor Board. A notice printed by the Board announc- ing the election for each shop vas displayed in such shop for fifteen (15) days prior to such election. At the request of the Examiner, the Company provided voting booths and ballot boxes for the elec- tions. The Examiner determined that only employees who had been in the employ of the Company prior to August 31, 1918, were eligible to vote and requested the Company to furnish him with a list of such eligible employees; the Company furnished such a list. The Na- tional War Labor Board determined that such elections should be held at the Plant during working hours and the elections were so held. The Examiner selected two or more employees of the Com- uany in each shop in which an election was held to assist him (with- out compensation therefor) in the conduct of the. election. Em- ployees elected as committeemen were certified as such committee- men by representatives of the National War Labor Board, and cer- tificates of such election were posted on the bulletin boards in the various shops of the Bethlehem Plant. After the elections had been held, a representative of the National War Labor Board issued a bulletin designated "National War Labor Board Bulletin No. 2" and entitled "Methods of Procedure for Determining Classifications and Rates and Making Other Adjustments," dated November 1918. The bulletin set forth the method of procedure for the determination of rates for the machinists. In December 1918, the National War Labor Board rejected a pro- posal of the Company looking to the installation in the Bethlehem Plant of a plan like those in force in its other plants. After several conferences were held, an understanding was reached between the National War Labor Board and the Company which provided that the Company would negotiate with the representatives elected in the BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 557 elections at the Bethlehem Plant in an attempt to agree upon a mutually satisfactory plan of collective bargaining. Conferences were held between the employee representatives and the Company. O certain ,matters, an agreement could not- be reached, and these differences were submitted on behalf of the repre- sentatives of the Bethlehem employees to the National War Labor Board: Conferences were then held in which the Company, the employees, and the National War Labor Board participated. As a result of such conferences the Company and the employees' repre- sentatives reached a substantial agreement on a form of collective bargaining. Minor details which had not been agreed upon were added by the National War Labor Board. The Plan became effec- tive on May 1, 1919. Thereafter, and prior to July 8, 1919, the Company had copies of the Plan printed and also printed a booklet setting forth the Plan and the names of the employee representatives who had signed it, and distrib- uted the booklet among all the employees at the Bethlehem Plant. Pursuant to rules agreed upon by the Company and the Employees Committee on Rules and approved by the employees General Commit- tee, elections were held on various dates from December 12 to 22, 1919. In January 1920, by mutual agreement between the Company and a Temporary Rules Committee appointed by the representatives elected in December 1919, a revision of the Plan was prepared. The minutes of a conference between an Employees Temporary Rules Committee chosen by the Representatives to work out with the Management's Representatives a set of rules for the operation of the Plan, and the Company, contains the following: As requested, Mr. Larkin [the assistant to the President], and Mr. Robinson [the Management's Representative] went into the merits of the Plan of Employees' Representation which has been in successful operation in the other Steel. Plants of the Company during the past fourteen months, and copies of this plan and of the plan in operation in the Bethlehem Plant last year, were distributed to the members of the Committee. Following general discussion, questions and explanations having to do with the two Plans, Mr. Robinson read aloud the Plan in operation in the Company's other Steel Plants, and its provisions, paragraph by paragraph, were tentatively approved as read or amended. Other suggestions were made and developed and at the close of the meeting, Robinson was requested to get up a draft embodying the pro- visions tentatively adopted at the conference, for consideration and action at a later conference. 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The minutes of a conference of the same groups, held on January 20, 1920, states that, after a preamble was approved, By request, Mr. Robinson read aloud Paragraph by Paragraph, the provisions of the Proposed Plan. Following thorough consid- eration and discussion, the Plan as read was unanimously approved, Article by Article, by proper motions, except that the words "or check number" were added after the word "name" in the third line of Paragraph 4, Article IV. This revised form of Plan was submitted to a meeting of the em- ployees' representatives on January 28, 1920, and, with one amend- ment to the preamble thereof, was approved and adopted as the plan of collective bargaining thereafter to be in effect at the Bethlehem Plant. A comparison of the Plan finally adopted at Bethlehem with the Plans of Employees' Representation which were prepared by the Com- pany and distributed in October 1918 to the employees at its Steelton, Maryland, and Lebanon Plants reveals that the Bethlehem Plan was almost identical with the others. Thus, by 1920, the Mackenzie King form of plan of employees' representation was in effect at all four of these plants. It should be noted that this form of plan, rejected by the National War Labor Board when proposed for the Bethlehem Plant, was finally put into effect there only after the dissolution of the National War Labor Board, which occurred on August 12, 1919.5 It was stipulated by the parties and we find that on October 10, 1922, the Company acquired the properties of the Lackawanna Steel Company, which became the Lackawanna Plant of the Company. On January 11, 1923, a plan of employees' representation became effective at the Lackawanna Plant by a procedure which is, in substance, cor- rectly set forth in summary form at pages 87 to 89 of a book by Ernest Richmond Burton entitled "Employee Representation." The pro- cedure, as detailed by Mr. Burton, is as follows : INSTALLATION IN A BETHLEHEM STEEL PLANT An instance which will illustrate this is the installation of the plan in the Lackawanna plant of the Bethlehem Steel Corpora- tion in 1923, shortly after that plant had been purchased from its former owners. The steps in the installation are indicated in the following abstract from an official company report : Tuesday, December 12, 1922. 9 a. m.-Assistant to president, general manager of local plant, and assistant to general manager met in the office of the general manager and worked out a division of the plant 5 Bulletin No. 287 , National War Labor Board ( U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1921), p. 12, 13. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 559 into 24 voting units providing for varying numbers of rep- resentatives dependent upon the number of employees, total number of employee representatives being 36. 12:30 p. m.-Lunch of department superintendents; assistant to president and general manager explained em- ployee representation plan and program for its inaugura- tion. 3 p. m.-Plan explained by general manager to the per- manent safety committee. 3-5 p. m.-Departmental meetings of 1. superintendents with their foremen; plan ex- plained. 2. superintendents with their workmen ; latter elected temporary representatives to serve as tellers. Wednesday, December 13, 1922. 3 p. m.-Meeting of general body composed of seventy temporary employee representatives ; general manager ex- plained purpose of meeting. 1. To have plan outlined; (this done later by as- sistant to president). 2. To elect temporary rules committee of five; (done later by drawing names from a hat). 3. To appoint tellers and judges for first election; (done by assigning two from each precinct to an- other precinct in order to avoid any partisan inter- est). 4. To decide on dates for holding nominations an elections; (dates established; nominations, Mon- day, December 18, 1922; election, Friday, December 22, 1922) . Management suggested that the rules committee adopt as quali- fications for voters and candidates the following principles: 1. That all employees of the plant, except company officials, and persons having the right to hire or discharge, or holding regularly a purely supervisory position, be eligible to vote at the first election. 2. That candidates for the office of employee representative be required to have been in the employ of the company for six months immediately prior to the nomination. Thursday, December 14, 1922. 9 a. m.-Meeting of temporary rules committee; elected a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary, adopted the rec- ommendation of the management made the previous day before the general body as to qualifications of candidates 560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and voters ; worked up forms, election and nomination ballots, tally sheets, etc., and prepared notices; arranged with time department for a list of eligible voters and candidates, arranged for election booths, ballot boxes, etc. Saturday, December 16, 1922. 11 a. m.-Meeting of election tellers called by tempo- rary rules committee; given final instructions by rules committee. Monday, December 18, 1922. 2-8 p. in. and at other times as necessary to give ail shift men opportunity to vote-nominations held. Eighty- eight per cent of inen working voted. Ballots counted by rules committee; count completed and lists of nomi- nees posted in all departments by Thursday noon Decenl- ber 21, 1922. Friday, December 22, 1922. 2-8 p. in. and at other necessary hours, election held. Placards and other forms of vote solicitation used in many cases.° 'Ninety per cent. of men working voted. Ballot counted by temporary rules committees; counts completed by December 23, 1922. Thirty-six employee representa- tives and sixty-eight alternates elected. Tuesday, December 26, 1922. Election certificates posted. Friday, December 29, 1922. Management representative of local plant issued call for first meeting of general body to be held January 3, 1923, at 2 p. in. Copy of notice mailed to each employee representative and to each department superintendent an- nouncing the purpose of the meeting as: (a) To elect permanent rules committees to act on a joint committee to draft plan of employee repre- sentation for Lackawanna Plant. (b) To elect a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary of the general body. Wednesday, January 3, 1923. 2 p. m.-Meeting of general body held as announced above, carrying out purposes indicated; remarks made by general manager, assistant general manager, and assistant to the general manager of the plant. 6 It was stipulated that this means that the employees of various departments of said Plant who were interested In candidates for nomination or election as employees ' repre- sentative used placards and other forms of vote solicitation on behalf of said candidates. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 561 Thursday, January 4, 1923. 10 a. In.-Meeting of joint rules committee. One of the employer 7 representatives elected chairman and another elected secretary. (The five management representatives had met an hour earlier to familiarize themselves with the Bethlehem. Representation Plan.)8 Mutual introduc- tions; social session; copies of Bethlehem plan distributed. Session lasted until 6 p. in. and resulted in adoption unanimously of a complete plan for submission to the gen- eral body. Arrangement made for preparing hectograph copies of proposed plan. Thursday, January 11, 1923. 10 a. m.-Meeting of general body. Joint rules commit- tee reported on proposed plan which was read and voted upon by paragraphs and finally adopted as a whole unani- mously. Standing committee elected as follows: 1. Rules; ways and means. 2. Wages, piece work, bonus and tonnage sched- ules; practice, methods and economy. , 3. Safety and prevention of accidents; health and works sanitation ; pension and relief ; athletics and recreation. 4. Employees' transportation; housing, domestic economics and living conditions ; education and pub- lications; continuous employment and condition of the industry. 5. General committee on appeals. The plan as adopted in this instance was substantially the same as that which had been operating for five years in several other plants of the company, though the local joint rules committee introduced several minor variations. The allotment of subjects to each of the sub-committees is determined locally in each of the Bethlehem plants and depends on the relative importance of the various topics, an effort being made to avoid over-burdening any ,committee. Respondent Exhibit No. 199-F sets forth the manner in which the Plan of Employees' Representation at the Cambria Plant came into existence. We find that the Plan came into existence in the following manner, as stated in the exhibit : It was stipulated that this was a typographical error, the word "employer" being erroneously used instead of "employee " and the fact being that the persons elected as chairman and secretary of the committee referred to under said beading were J. Williams and E. H. Habermeyer , who were employees' representatives. 8 It was stipulated that the reference to "Bethlehem Representation Plan" means a form of plan prepared by the Company based on the Plans then in effect at the Bethlehem, Steelton. Maryland , and Lebanon Plants. 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 23. On March 3, 1923, the 999 year lease which covers the prop- erties that comprise said Johnstown plant were, among other properties, acquired by Bethlehem Steel Products Company, a sub- sidiary of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a New Jersey corpora- tion, and said Bethlehem Steel Company took over the operation of said plant under an operating agreement between it and said Bethlehem Steel Products Company. On or about March 31, 1923, certain of the principal executive officers of said Bethlehem Steel Company arrived in Johnstown for the purpose of inspect- ing the properties so acquired and reorganizing the departments thereof for the operations of which such respective officers would thereafter be responsible. 24. On April 1, 1923, C. L. Baker, who had theretofore been in charge of the accounting work of said Johnstown plant for the Midvale Company, was appointed the Management's Representa- tive of the Company at said plant (which on said date.became known as the Cambria Plant of the Company and is hereinafter referred to as the Cambria Plant), and on April 2, 1923, said C. L. Baker conferred with the officers of the Company referred to in the foregoing paragraph 23 regarding his duties as such Management's Representative. In the course of such conference, one or more of such officers inquired of Mr. Baker as to the opera- tion and effectiveness of the Midvale Plan, explained to Mr. Baker the methods of collective bargaining provided for in the Plan of Employees' Representation that was then in effect at the Lackawanna Plant of the Company and showed Mr. Baker a copy of such Plan (hereinafter referred to ,is the Lackawanna Plan). At his request, such copy of the Lackawanna Plan was left with Mr. Baker, who stated that lie desired to study the Lacka- wanna Plan and to talk about it with some of the employees at the Cambria Plant, in whose judgment he had confidence, and to ascertain whether the objections to the Midvale Plan which had theretofore developed might not be met by amending the Midvale Plan so as to include the collective bargaining. procedure provided for in the Lackawanna Plan. * * * 26. At various times between April 3 and April 24, 1923, said C. L. Baker discussed the aforesaid matters with various em- ployees at the Cambria Plant, including Adam Gibson, Chair- man of the Midvale Plan, James Patch, Vice-Chairman thereof, E. L. Rodgers, Secretary of said Plan and Messrs. A. B. Furry and John Kilduff, representatives thereunder and others. Such employees stated to Mr. Baker that they and other employees at the Cambria Plant were not satisfied with the Midvale Plan, BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 563 very largely because under the collective bargaining machinery provided for in said Plan (a) control over collective bargaining had become concentrated in the five men who constituted the Plant Conference Committee, and especially in the Chairman of such Committee; (b) the concentration of power in that small committee and especially in the Chairman, prevented the bring- ing of the management and the employees together in accordance with the stated purpose of said Plan, but had, in fact, the op- posite result; and (c) some of the employees thought that mat- ters which they had taken up with their representatives had not been handled properly by the Plant Conference Committee and that said Committee was allowing the General Superintendent of the plant, who was involved in local politics, to use the Plan in furtherance of his political purposes. 28. Prior to April 10, 1923, the employees iiamed above read the copy of the Lackawanna Plan obtained by Mr. Baker as aforesaid, discussed the same among themselves, with other em- ployees, and with Mr. Baker, and asked the latter numerous questions concerning the provisions of said Plan, with particu- lar reference to the work and activities of the Standing Com- mittees and Joint Committees thereunder. For the purpose of obtaining information necessary to answer such questions, Mr. Baker went to Bethlehem, Pa., on April 10, 1923, and spent two days there conferring with officials of the Company, who gave him such information and obtained for him the minutes of vari- ous committees under the Plan, of Representation of Employees in force at the Bethlehem Plant (hereinafter referred to as the Bethlehem Plan) the provisions of which were similar to those of the Lackawanna Plan. Mr. Baker read such minutes, talked with employees of the Bethlehem Plant, and generally informed himself as to the activities of the various committees under the Bethlehem Plan and the workings of the collective bargaining machinery therein provided for. 29. After his return from Bethlehem and prior to April 24, 1923, Mr. Baker had further conferences with the employees above named and gave them the information that he had ob- tained at Bethlehem and otherwise answered their said questions As a result of, such conferences, said employees stated to Mr. Baker. that the provisions in the Lackawanna Plan and the Bethlehem Plan for various Standing Committees having juris- diction over particular matters, and for Joint Committees in which groups of employees' representatives could sit down at regular intervals for discussions of such matters with representa- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tives of the Management, were desirable; that the objections which some of the employees at the Cambria Plant had to the Midvale Plan could be removed by amending said Plan so as to make it conform to the Lackawanna and Bethlehem Plans, and that in their opinion both the representatives and the employees generally would welcome amendments to that end. 30. Said employees requested Mr. Baker to advise and assist them in amending the Midvale Plan in the manner aforesaid and setting up the various committees required thereunder ; but he suggested that he should, instead, attempt to arrange for them to meet with John K. Robinson, Management's Representative at the Bethlehem Plant, who could explain in more detail the workings of the Bethlehem Plan and discuss with them how such amend- ment might be effected. 31. Mr. Baker then requested Mr. Robinson to come to Johns- town for said purposes, and Mr. Robinson complied with this request and arrived in Johnstown on April 24, 1923, and on the next day attended a meeting with Mr. Baker, the employees above named and the members of the Plant Conference. Committee under the Midvale Plan. The proposal to amend the Midvale Plan was discussed at said meeting; Mr. Baker stated that the Company approved the proposed amendment, if the employees' representatives desired it; and the Chairman of the Midvale Plan stated that he would call a meeting of the employees' representa- tives on the next day, April 26, 1923, for the purpose of consider- ing such amendment and of adopting it if, in accordance with the Midvale Plan, three-quarters of the employees' representatives should concur in such proposal. 32. On April 26, 1923, a meeting of the employees' representa- tives under the Midvale Plan was held, upon notice given to all such employees' representatives, for the purpose of considering and acting upon said proposed amendment. Such meeting was attended by 44 such representatives, being all or substantially all such representatives then in office. After discussion, said repre- sentatives voted to amend the Midvale Plan, effective May 1, 1923, by striking out all the provisions thereof, and substituting provi- sions similar to those contained in the Lackawanna Plan. The vote on the amendment so made was conducted by secret ballot, and every representative present voted in favor thereof. Such amendment was not submitted to the entire body of the employees of the Cambria Plant for their approval or disapproval. Imine- diately after the adoption of said amendment as aforesaid, said meeting proceeded to the election of 'officers of the representatives BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 565 under the Plan as so amended (hereinafter called the Cambria Plan) and of members of the five committees of employees pro- vided for therein, and to adopt a schedule for regular committee meetings. 33. The minutes of said meeting of April 26, 1923, were printed at, the cost and expense of the Company, and were distributed among all the employees of the Cambria Plant for the purpose of informing them of the amendment of the Midvale Plan and of the election of the officers and members of such five committees under the Cambria Plan and of giving to such employees the names of the respective officers and committee members who had been so elected. It was stipulated by the parties and we find that during the period from the date of the inception of the Lebanon Plan to March 1929, the Concentrator Plant of the Company at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, was a part of the Lebanon Plant. During this period, the Lebanon Plan was in effect at the Concentrator Plant and, under the Lebanon Plan, the employees at the Concentrator Plant were entitled to elect annually one representative. In March 1929 Bethlehem Mines Cor- poration, an affiliate of the Company, took over the operation of the Concentrator Plant under a lease and thereupon prepared, printed, and circulated among the employees at the Concentrator Plant a separate plan of employees' representation for the Concentrator Plant. The Plan was in all respects similar to the Plans in effect at the other Plants. On or about February 10, 1934, the Company took over from the Bethlehem Mines Corporation the operations of the Concentrator Plant. No changes were made in the Concentrator Plan at that time. On February 10, 1931, McClintic-Marshall Corporation, a Penn- sylvania corporation affiliated with the Company, acquired the prop- erties of McClintic-Marshall Construction Company (a Pennsylvania corporation which was not in any manner connected with or related to the Company or the respondent Bethlehem Steel Corporation) and of a subsidiary corporation of the McClintic-Marshall Con- struction Company, including the Rankin Works at Rankin, Penn- sylvania, and the Leetsdale Works No. 1 and the Leetsdale Works No. 2, located at Leetsdale, Pennsylvania. Since the date of such acquisition the three works have been under the same management, headed by a Works Manager. Shortly after the McClintic-Marshall Corporation acquired the three Works, it distributed among the employees at these properties a circular letter contained in a four-page printed leaflet, dated March 16, 1931, addressed to the employees. The letter follows : 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MCCLINTIC-MARSHALL CORPORATION, SUBSIDIARY OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Bethlehem, Pa., March 16, 1931. NEW BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES To Our Eir&ployees: New advantages in working conditions and financial protec- tion are now available to the employees of the McClintic-Mar- shall Corporation, as communicated to our organization by a letter from Eugene G. Grace, President of Bethlehem Steel Cor- poration. As a subsidiary of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, McClin- tic-Marshall employees are entitled to a series of benefits which have been developed successfully in, other companies of the Bethlehem family over a period of years. These privileges include : Plan of Employees Representation through which employees are given a voice with that of the management in the consid- eration of all questions relating to rates of pay and working conditions. Relief Plan affording financial assistance for employees and their families in case of sickness or death. The Corporation will assume the entire cost of administration of the Plan so that the contributions of the employees will be available for distribution in benefits. This Plan, providing not only for death benefits, but also for compensation when wages are lost through sickness, will super- sede and give broader protection than the present Group Insur- ance and other Relief arrangements which will be terminated as soon as the new Relief Plan has been installed. Pension Plan financed entirely by the Corporation under which employees, giving the better part of their lives in its service and reaching an age necessitating their retirement, may be pensioned. Continuous service in the McClintock-Marshall Corporation prior to acquisition by Bethlehem will be credited to employees in determining future pensions. Saving and Stock Ownership Plan, in which the large majority of our force is now participating, to help employees to save systematically a part of their earnings through pay-roll deduc- tions and at the same time, acquire the preferred stock of the parent Corporation upon very favorable terms. The major details of- these plans are given in the following pages.9 The third page-of the leaflet is headed "Four Plans for Employees ." The first plan discussed is the "Plan of Employees' Representation ." The discussion is set forth below : The Plan of Employees' Representation provides for the election of employee repre- sentatives by shops or departments to meet and deal with the management for the BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 567 It is a satisfaction that the development of McClintic-Marshall under its new strengthening affiliations, operating as part of one of the major corporations of the country includes these imme- diate benefits to our working force. The plans not only estab- lish a continuous meeting ground for management and men to. work out problems and programs of mutual interest, but like- wise give added financial protection to our employees. G. H. BLAKELEY, President. Thereafter, the Works Manager requested three employees at each of the Works to constitute at that Works a committee to supervise nominations and an election of three representatives of employees. The nominations and election were held and the elected representatives met with representatives of the McClintic-Marshall Corporation as a joint committee at each Works and adopted a Plan of Employees' Representation for the Works. The form of these Plans, herein called the Rankin Plan, the Leetsdale No. 1 Plan, and the Leetsdale No. 2 Plan, had been prepared by the McClintic-Marshall Corpora- tion and had been based upon the Bethlehem Plan. Thereafter, the McClintic-Marshall Corporation merged with the Company and on or about August 1, 1935, the Company took over the operation of the Rankin Works, the Leetsdale No. 1 Work;, and the Leetsdale No. 2 Works, and has since operated these Works. This did not result in any changes in the Plans except that the Com- pany, rather than the McClintic-Marshall Corporation, participated therein. discussion , regulation and adjustment of matters having to do with all of the condi- tions under which employees render service. The representatives are elected once each year by the employees . All employees who have been with the company two months or more are eligible to vote. The repre- sentatives must have been employees of the company for at least one year and must be American citizens. One representative is elected for each two hundred employees, with a minimum of three representatives for any one plant. The Management will appoint an equal number of representatives to meet with the Employees ' Representa- tives. This body shall meet once each month and shall be known as the Joint Com- mittee. It is the duty of elected representatives to take up with the Management or with the, Joint Committee , any adjustments required by their constituents. The Plan outlines 'definite steps for such adjustments, although in practice it is found that in most cases , the elected representatives and the person directly in charge of the work effect satisfactory settlements without taking the case to'the higher officials or the Joint Committee. The advantages of an arrangement of this kind are shared by management and employees alike. To the employee it means an opportunity to present his viewpoint without fear of penalty or censure . To the management it means a channel of con- tact with the employees , an opportunity to know what the employee is thinking in regard to his working conditions , and what should be done to meet his needs. It affords a method for the most effective joint administration of the co -operative plans operated for the employees' benefit . In addition , it gives the management a practical means of interpreting company policies to the employees . [Italics added.] The fact that the plans of employees ' representation are closely tied in with the other plans of the company (cf. the sentence italicized ) is.discussed in greater detail below. 190935-40-vol. 14-37 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The detailed account of the initiation of the Plans shows clearly that in their origin they constituted a Company project, and reveals that they are rooted in the Company's industrial relations policy.- In its brief before the Trial Examiner the Company states : There is evidence (Resp. Ex. 199-I) that the original form of Plan (Stip. Ex. 4)-a by-product of war-time developments- was prepared by a highly qualified expert employed by the Company and was offered to the employees at various plants in the form so prepared; also that at additional plants thereafter acquired, the Company offered a form of Plan and the same was accepted by the employees through their designated represents= tives, sometimes with and sometimes without modifications. It may be the view of the Board that if such procedures were followed today, they would constitute dominating and interfer- ink with the formation of a.labor organization. As a matter of law, however, it seems to us that that fact is of no consequence in the present case, and that it would be absurd for the Board to hold the Company to be in violation of the Act because, 10 or 15 years before the Act was passed-and in fact before any statute recognizing the right of collective bargaining was passed-the Company as a forward-looking employer had par- ticipated, or even taken the initiative, in establishing machinery designed to insure that right to its employees. 'the Though it fails to portray adequately the Company's role in institution of the Plans, this description of the Company's activities- in terms of having "offered" the Plans to its employees, and having "participated, or even taken the initiative" in establishing the Plans- is sufficient to indicate that the employer had dominated and inter- fered with the formation of these labor organizations. . The fact that the National War Labor Board was active in matters affecting labor relations during the period when some of the Plans were initiated can, of course, not alter the fact that the Company's influence in the formation and initial operation of these Plans was dominant and is not relevant on the question whether the Plans so set up were of a nature prescribed by the National Labor Relations Act, enacted 16 years later. Moreover, the account set forth above shows that the National War Labor Board had no part in putting the Mackenzie King form of Plan into effect in the plants outside Bethlehem, and that actually that form of Plan was one which it rejected for the plant at Bethlehem. The Company's domination and interference with the formation of the Plans, though they occurred prior to the effective date of the Act and therefore do not in themselves constitute unfair labor prac- BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 569 tices, have been dealt with in such detail because an understanding of the nature of the Plans' origins is vital to an understanding of the existing Plans and helps to explain the effectiveness of subse- quent interference by the Company. B. Subsequent activities of the respondents Immediately after the first installation of the Plans, the Company took steps to make them an integral part of its business . In or about the year 1920 the Company prepared and caused to be printed a folded card entitled "Hints to Foremen in Meeting the New Em- ployee." Copies of the card were sent to the general managers at the Bethlehem Plant, the Steelton Plant, the Maryland Plant, and the Lebanon Plant, and either the general manager or one or more of the superintendents at each of these plants circulated the card among one or more of the foremen at each of these plants. The card reads as follows : HINTS TO FOREMEN IN MEETING THE NEW EMPLOYEE Mr.-------------------- The Management recognizes the many complex duties of its Foremen in the successful performance of their jobs, and appre- ciates the loyalty and support shown by the Foremen with its policies and aims. It feels that the interests of both the employees and the Company in tivorking conditions and production are bound to be promoted by the maintenance of a good relationship between the Foremen and the employees. To the employees the Foreman reflects the attitude and policy of the Management , and is viewed by the employees as the per- sonal representative of the Management. The reception accorded makes a marked and lasting impression on the new employe, and if the Foreman is to get the necessary cooperation of his men, it is essential that they be fully cognizant of the Company's labor policies from the beginning of their employment. The plan of Employees' Representation, which is designed to bring the Management and the men closer together , is one of the most important policies of the Company, and in order that the Foreman may have a clear idea of the best way to acquaint the new employee with the Company's interest in him, the following hints are offered. 1. Hand to the new employee a copy of the Plan of Employees' Representation. 2. Introduce him, when possible, to the elected Employees' Rep- resentatives of the department in which he is to work. 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Explain that his Representative was elected at the preceding election by the employees, by secret ballot, and that he will have an opportunity to vote at the next election (providing he is in the employ of the Company 60 days). 4. Explain that with a growing organization, the Company desired to retain that close personal relationship with its employees that it had when the plants were much smaller, and in order that it may have a clear idea at all times of the employees' working con- ditions, has adopted the Plan of Employees' Representation as a means of accomplishing this end. 5. Explain that the new employee may take up with you any matter which in his opinion requires adjustment, and that if you are unable to effect a settlement, the Plan of Employees Repre- sentation provides a means for him to take the matter up higher, either in person or through his Representative. 6. Impress upon the new employee the idea that the Plan of Representation is not merely for the purpose of handling griev- ances, but is rather a medium of bringing the Management and employees closer together and that the Company will welcome suggestions from the employees for the betterment of Plant and Working Conditions. 7. We would suggest that you read the Plan over very carefully, and we will welcome any suggestions or inquiries you may care to make regarding its provisions. General Manager -------------------- Superintendent It is evident that this was to be a continuing policy of the Company. The new employee can hardly have failed to grasp the idea that the Plan of Employees' Representation was a labor organization that was highly favored by the Company and that the Plan was indeed "one of the most important policies of the Company." Similarly, at the Cambria Plant, copies of the Plan 'of Employees' Representation as amended to October 23, 1935, which had been printed by the Company, were kept in the Company's Employment Office. S. D. Evans, the management's special representative at the Cambria Plant, had instructed the Employment Office to give one to each new employee. This practice continued until April 1937. The new employee must necessarily have been impressed with the fact that the Plan was favored by the Company and he could easily infer that attempts at other forms of organization would not be approved. Throughout the existence of the Plans, the Company has made it clear that it preferred the Plans of Employees' Representation to any BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 571 outside representative. The Company has praised the Plans and stressed their achievements again and again, and at the same time it has attacked outside organizations. The Company prepared and at frequent intervals distributed among its employees at the various plants a printed bulletin called "Bethle- hem Review." 1° Generally, the Bethlehem Reviews contain articles, many of them over the signature of E. G. Grace, president of the Com- pany, which praise the Employees' Representation Plans and which stress the advantages and benefits to be derived from the Plans, and the disadvantages of outside unions. The following examples are typical. A statement entitled "Fifteen Years of Employee Representation," which appears over the signature of E. G. Grace, in the issue of September 25, 1933, contains the following paragraphs : FIFTEEN YEARS OF EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION This issue of Bethlehem Review marks the fifteenth anni- versary of our Employees' Representation Plan. Our Plan was among the first of its kind to be introduced in American in- dustry. It was a pioneer step in labor relations. Now, fifteen years later, the National Industrial Recovery Act recognizes the value of such a plan under its provision for collective bargain- ing. This means of collective bargaining has stood the test of time. It has served both employees and management in pros- perous days and in hard times, and meets the requirements of the new law. At its inception I stated that our Plan would be made an integral part of our business. That this has been done is evi- denced by the important place it has come to occupy in our current affairs. The Plan has become vital in the administra- io In the pamphlet that was distributed at the 1928 annual conferences between the . management and the Employees' Representatives at each Plant, the following was said of the Bethlehem Reviews : GIVING EMPLOYEES THE FACTS The management believes that every worker is interested in information about his company 's progress. In addition to the direct contact through meetings and otherwise by which this information is disseminated , the company has adopted the policy of issuing to the employees from time to time a publication known as the "Bethlehem Review" which deals with matters of general policy , such as what may be expected as to continuity of employment ; where wages come from and how they are paid ; how employees can cooperate in reducing waste, maintaining quality of products, increasing efficiency ; and what effect these factors have on their own jobs. Briefly, it provides a means of presenting the facts of the business and of the activities in which the employees are interested . As a matter of fact, this publi- cation has taken on the nature of a report to the employees just as the Corpora- tion makes a report to its - shareholders . The, discussion . has been productive in many instances of constructive' ideas altogether aside from the 'development of closer contact between -officers and employees. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of our business, affording as it does a method for the estab- lishment of fair and proper schedules of wages, hours and other working conditions, and for guiding the various economic better- ment plans which have been organized among and for the benefit of the employees over the last fifteen years. No outside agency could possibly take the place of our Em- ployees' Representation Plan, without destroying that all-essen- tial direct contact and relationship so necessary to insure to employees the best possible working and living conditions, and to management the cooperation of an intelligently informed body of employees. Under the Plan the employees have been kept constantly advised, through their elected representatives, of the conditions of our business ; and the part they have played in counselling and originating constructive labor policies is an attainment of which every employee can well be proud. The principles of our Plan have been adopted by all other important steel companies, and by many large organizations in other industries. Meeting the requirements of the NIRA our Employees' Representation Plan continues to serve as the me- dium of representation just as it has in the past. I urge all employees to continue to use to the full the facilities of the Plan for presenting their needs and views. That is its purpose. No question can be raised by an employee that can react in any way against him. The issue of July 3, 1936, contains, on its first page, the following message to the employees from E. G. Grace : SECURITY OF EMPLOYMENT To the Employees: I am sure we all agree that your welfare and that of your families and of the communities in which you live depends upon uninterrupted operation of our plants, and that anything that disturbs our present condition will imperil the interests of all. Undoubtedly you have seen that professional labor leaders have publicly announced a campaign to unionize the employees of the steel industry. The employees in the industry have enjoyed a long era of industrial peace during times when other industries dominated by labor unions have been torn with strife. However it may be described, the real purpose of the unionization campaign is to force the "closed shop" on all employees in the steel industry and thus to compel you and all other employees in the industry BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 573 to join and pay dues to a union in order that you may hold your jobs. We believe that no worker should be required to pay tribute to anyone or to any organization for the right to work. Realizing its obligation to the employees, to the owners and to the public, after careful consideration of all phases of the threatened drive, the industry, issued through the American Iron and Steel Institute-the statement reprinted in this number of the Review. Our management firmly • believes in the views ex- pressed in that statement. They express the policies which have controlled our dealings and relationships for many years." The effectiveness of your existing Representation Plans, for the proper settlement of • all questions arising between any of you and the management throughout 17 years of uninterrupted operation has been outstanding, and the results speak for them- selves. It is unnecessary to review them in detail here. They are well known by all of us. Experience has shown that no question can arise between us that cannot be equitably adjusted. There have been no strife or strikes, no loss of jobs or time, and no dues or fines. n The statement is as follows : To the Public and the Employees in the Steel Industry: A campaign to unionize the employees of the Steel Industry has been announced. In order that the employees and the public may know the position of the Steel Industry in the face of the threatened drive, the Industry makes this statement through the American Iron and Steel Institute. Persons and organizations not connected with the Industry have taken charge of the campaign. There are many disturbing indications that. the promoters of the compaign will employ coercion and intimidation of the employees in the Industry and foment strikes. - The objective of the campaign is the "closed shop," which prohibits the employ- ment of anyone not a union member. The Steel Industry will oppose any attempt to compel its employees to join a union or to pay tribute for the right to work. No employee in the Steel Industry has to join any organization to get or hold a job. Employment in the Industry does not depend upon membership or non- membership in any organization. Advancement depends on individual merit and effort. These are fundamental American principles to which the Industry will steadfastly adhere. - The Steel Industry believes in * the -principles of collective bargaining, and it is in effect throughout the Industry. The overwhelming majority of the employees in the Steel Industry recently participated in annual elections under their own representation plans and elected their representatives for collective bargaining. The -elections were conducted by the employees themselves by secret ballot. One of the purposes of the announced campaign is to overthrow those plans and the representatives so elected. The Steel Industry is recovering from six years of depression and huge losses, and the employees are now beginning to receive the benefits of increased operations. Any interruption of the forward movement will seriously injure the employees and their families and all businesses dependent upon the Industry, and will endanger the welfare of the country. The announced drive, with its accompanying agitation for industrial strife, threatens such interruption. The Steel Industry will use its resources to the best of its ability to protect its employees and their-families from intimidation, coercion and violence and toaid them in maintaining collective bargaining free from interference from any-source. AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE. 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I am convinced that employees know their own problems better than anyone else can know them and that no outsiders can deal with those problems as effectively and intelligently as can the employees themselves. In addressing you as I have, I do not have any thought that you desire any change in our present relationships or that you will be misled by any appeal that may be made to, you in the announced campaign. My purpose rather is to assure you that we will assist you in every way to continue the present proven method of dealing with our mutual problems, and that we will use our resources to the best of our ability to protect you and your families from interference, intimidation and coercion from any source. E. G. GRACE, President. In view of the statement that "professional labor leaders have publicly announced a campaign to unionize the employees of the steel industry," the closing paragraph can only be interpreted as an appeal to the employees to utilize the Plans as their collective bargaining representative, and as an attempt by the Company to employ the Plans as a means of preventing the organizational growth of other unions in its Plants. In January 1937 the Company took other steps to foster the Plans of Employees' Representation and to prevent the growth of the S. W. 0. C., which was then attempting to organize the employees. The Company prepared a poster, 15 by 221/4 inches, printed upon heavy cardboard, and on or about January 15, 1937, posted it in its Bethlehem, Lebanon, Lackawanna, Maryland, Steelton, Concentrator, and Cambria Plants,12 and its Rankin and Leetsdale Works, at places where they were visible to all employees at those plants. The poster, headed in black letters nearly an inch high, "A Message," and, signed by the "Bethlehem Steel Company," reads as follows : A MESSAGE To our employees: In their effort to get you to join their union, the C. I. 0. organ- izers are saying- -that you must join their union in order to hold your job; -that there is a rush to join their union, therefore you had better sign up before it is too late; -that responsible Government officials want you to join their union; and 12Evans testified that he instructed the superintendents at the Cambria Plant to-put the poster on the bulletin boards of the Plant . In April 1937 instructions were issued to remove these posters. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 575 -that your Employees' Representation Plan does not provide a legal or effective method of collective bargaining with the management. Do not be deceived by such false statements ; there is no truth in them. Your Employees' Representation Plan does constitute a legal method of collective bargaining and the effectiveness of it over the past many years is a matter of record , reflecting the good conditions which have been attained without the loss of a day's wages through strikes or disorder. There is no law or rule of government that requires you to join a union or to surrender your rights , individually or through your representatives, to negotiate directly with the management on all conditions of employment . Outsiders have not been necessary in the past-nothing has happened to make them necessary now. To make sure that there is no doubt in your minds regarding the Company's employment policy, we will again state its funda- mental principles. They are : 1. No employee has to join or pay tribute to any organization to get or hold ,a job with this Company. 2. Employment with us does not depend upon membership or non-membership in any organization. 3. The right to belong or not to belong to any organization is an individual personal right which is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and is recognized by this Company as a fundamental principle under your Representation Plan. 4. Advancement in or the holding of a job with this Company depends on individual merit, efficiency and length of service. 5. This Company believes in and for many years has practiced true collective bargaining with you or your freely chosen repre- sentatives. It will continue to do so. These are fundamental American principles to which, in the interests of yourselves, your families , our stockholders, and the public, this Company will steadfastly adhere. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY. JANUARY 15, 1937. This was supplemented by an article by E. G. Grace in the Bethle- hem Review of January 1937 which states, inter alia: For nearly twenty years now the Representation Plan has served the interests of employees . What it has accomplished is reflected in the greatly improved wages and working conditions that exist today. Based as it is on confidence and cooperation it promotes industrial peace. Industrial peace, not strife, is what we need. 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Those who would serve best the interests of labor will protect the Plan. They will protect it for what it is-a fair, square, effective and responsible method of collective bargaining. The Company has, in its Bethlehem Reviews and elsewhere, stressed the connection between the Pension Plan and the Relief Plan and the Employee Representation Plans and has argued that the employees have been the recipients of these and other benefits 13 because of the Plans and that the benefits have existed because of the Plans. Thus, at the 1928 annual conference between the management and the Employees' Representatives,'a large pamphlet of 35 printed -pages, prepared by the Company, was distributed to the Employees' Repre- sentatives. The pamphlet has the title, "Ten Years' Progress in Human Relations," and the subtitle, "A Review of Some Accom- plishments Under the Bethlehem Plan of Employee Representation." On page 15 of this pamphlet, the following sentences appear : It takes mutual confidence on the part of management and employees to enable them to work out satisfactorily such a system as Bethlehem now provides for savings and stock ownership, home aid, relief and pensions. Employee Representation laid the foun- dation ten years ago for the successful administration of these features of Bethlehem's employee relations. On page 9 of the same booklet, the following paragraph appears : It is true, of course, that means of acquiring a stock owner- ship in the company and aid in buying a home have little directly to do with the peaceful adjustment of wage schedules and work- ing conditions. Nevertheless, the fact is that employee repre- sentation is responsible for both. You cannot have either without a solid basis of understanding between management and em- ployees. Employee representation in Bethlehem plants.and yards has been carried on since its beginning in such a fine spirit of good faith, good will and fair play on the part of both officials, and employees that sincerity has become the keynote of every phase of their relationship. The Company has taken pains to show the connection between these benefits and the Employees' Representation Plans. The Bethlehem Review of September 25, 1933, states, inter alia: The Pension Plan is company administered, but it is made effective through the Employees' Representation Plan, repre- is The Bethelehem Review of March 1936 says of the Pension Plan : The funds under the Bethlehem Pension Plan for employees are, paid out of the corporation treasury without any contribution by the employees. Of the Relief Plan , the same issue of the Bethlehem Review states- All costs of administering the Plan are paid by the Company, and therefore, every cent of dues is available for the disbursements. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 577 sentatives of which are consulted in developing the application of the pension system. In the February 20, 1935, issue of the Bethlehem Review, other benefits are attributed to the Plan of Employees' Representation : In addition to the matter of wages, hours and employment which are the outstanding interests of the various employees' committees, there are a number of other activities which are more effective because of the Employees' Representation Plan. In this connection the health counsel and the dispensary service of the plant physicians, which are paid for wholly by the com- pany, have been a real contribution in the prevention of accidents and ailments and in the prompt treatment of injury cases which frequently prevents a small matter from becoming serious. The Company has, on occasion, reminded the employees, that it instituted the Plans for them. The Bethlehem Review of September 25, 1933, states : Fifteen years ago Bethlehem started its Employees' Represen- tation Plan. Today the Plan is in effect in the various operating units in steel manufacturing, ship building, mining, and Mc- Clintic-Marshall. Thus, by its subsequent activities in continually calling to the atten- tion of its employees its preference for the Plans, in praising the Plans and emphasizing their accomplishments, in presenting to the men certain material benefits of its industrial relations policy as achievements of the Plans, and. in expressing to the men its animus against the S. W. 0. C., both directly and by means of invidious com- parisons of the S. W. 0. C. with the Plans, the respondents insured the continuance of the effects of its interference with the formation of the Plans. The respondent, by its favoritism toward and support of the Employee Representation Plans, has clearly interfered with the self-organization of its employees. The effect of such interference is made more manifest when it is considered together with the struc- ture and manner of operation of the Plans, which will be discussed below. We have dealt with this long course of interference because it is essential to an understanding of the present status of the Plans. We find that, by those of the specific acts which occurred subsequent to July 5, 1935, the Company has interfered with, restrained, and co- erced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. C. The structure and f unetioning of the Plans A comparison of the Plans in the 10 Plants involved shows that they are, in all material respects, practically identical, and that they 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are substantially similar to the Plan of Employees' Representation which was instituted by the Company in the Steelton, Maryland, and Lebanon Plants in 1918 and the Bethlehem Plant in 1920. Though they have been amended frequently in the course of a decade, the Plans have retained their essential uniformity. It is apparent that the respondents treated the various Plans as, in reality, a single Plan. The record makes it evident that the Plans must be considered as an integrated whole. The following discussion of the Plans, when general in nature, should be taken as applicable to each of the Plans. Because the provisions of the Cambria Plan can be considered typical of the provisions of the other Plans, specific reference to its provisions will occasionally be made. The discussion will concern the Plans before the amendments made after April 12, 1937. The Company asserts that these amendments, which were almost the same, word for word, in the case of each of the Plans, materially altered the nature of the Plans. We will discuss these amendments later. Under the Plans, one or more Employees' Representatives are chosen by the employees in each department of the Plant, or in the case of small departments, by the employees in a group of depart- ments. The number of Employees' Representatives chosen in each department is dependent upon the number of employees in the depart- ment. Employees' Representatives are elected for a term of 1 year, which usually starts in March.14 The Plans effectively prevent persons who are not employees from serving as Employees' Representatives. In the Cambria Plan, this is provided for by paragraph 1 of Section III, which reads : Each employee who has been on the pay rolls of the Company for a period of at least one (1) year immediately prior to the first day on which nominations shall be held as provided in Sec- tion IV hereof, who on that day is twenty-one years of age or over and who is an American citizen shall be qualified for nomi- nation and election as an Employees' Representative.15 and by paragraph 3 of Section II, which provides that : An Employees' Representative shall be deemed to have vacated his office upon the termination of his employment at the Plant or upon his transfer to a voting division other than the one he 14 Reference is frequently made in the record to the Plan year 1936-1937, etc. This means the period from March or April when the newly elected Representatives come into office to March or April of the subsequent year, when their terms expire. 11 These are not the same as the qualifications for voting for Employees ' Representatives. Thus, though persons who are under 21 years of age, or who are not American citizens, or who have not been with the Company for a period of 1 year are represented, they are barred from acting as Employees ' Representatives. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 579 was elected to represent or upon his appointment to such a regu- lar position as, under the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Section III hereof, would make him ineligible to be an Employees' Repre- sentative or would disqualify him to vote for an Employees' Representative. All the Employees' Representatives meet together in a group called the "General Body." 16 The General Body selects its own chairman, vice chairman, and secretary. The Cambria Plan states : The function of the General Body shall be to receive and dis- cuss reports of Committees and to suggest and discuss any matter of interest to the employees of the Company which may be brought up by any Employees' Representatives, and on motion the Gen- eral Body may refer such matter for consideration and adjust- ment to the proper Committee. The General Body has a regular meeting once each month. The Committees are chosen by the General Body from its own mem- bers. At the Cambria Plant there are five, five-man committees, known as the No. 1 Committee, or the Committee on Rules ; the No. 2 Com- mittee, or the Wage Committee; the No. 3 Committee, or the Com- mittee on Safety and Welfare; the No. 4 Committee, or the Committee on Transportation; and the No. 5 Committee, which is the General Committee.,, The Plans provide that joint committees, corresponding in name and function to the standing committees,18 are to be established. The Joint Committees consist of the Employees' Representatives on the corre- sponding standing committee and an equal number of representatives of the company, known as the management's regular representatives. The group of Employees' Representatives and the group of manage- ment's regular representatives have the same number of votes in the joint committee whether or not the number of Employees' Repre- 16 Under the Concentrator, Leetsdale, and Rankin Plans, the Employees' Representatives, when considered as a group, are called the Committee of Representatives. This Is the only employees' Committee under these Plans. The Employees ' Representatives meet together with an equal number of Management's Regular Representatives in a body called the Joint Committee. 17 The functions of the committees are as follows No. 1 Committee-Rules, Ways and Means, Waste Elimination. No. 2 Committee-wages, Practice, Methods and Economy, Employment and Working Conditions. No. 3 Committee-Safety and Accident Prevention , Health, Pensions, Relief and Recreation. No. 4 Committee-Employees' Transportation, Housing and Living Conditions, Education, Continuous Employment, Condition of Industry. No. 5 Committee-General, Appeals (Joint Committee), General Improvement. The Cambria Plan provides that : "Any matter may be referred by the manage- ment through the management 's special representative to any proper committee or joint committee for consideration and report . . . "The No. 5 Joint Committee is known as the General Joint Committee on Appeals. 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentatives and the number of Management's regular representatives present at a meeting of a joint committee are equal. The Plans provide that the company is to appoint a special repre- sentative, to be known as the management's special representative, whose function is to keep the management in touch with the Employ- ees' Representatives and to represent the management in negotiations with the Employees' Representatives.1' It is also provided that the management's special representative may attend meetings of the Gen- eral Body, and of any committee, when requested to do so, although he is not to have any vote. As a matter of general practice, Ellicott, the general manager of the Cambria Plant; his assistant, Ralph Hough; and S. D. Evans, the management's special representative, attended, upon invitation, at least a part of each General Body meeting. Prior to 1937, Employees' Representatives received payment from the company for the time spent in attending General Body meetings at the rate they ordinarily received for their work in the Plant. At the Cambria Plant, the relevant provision of the Plan was as follows : For time necessarily occupied through actual attendance at regular or special meetings or conferences held pursuant to the. Plan, Employees' Representatives shall receive from the Com- pany payment commensurate with their respective average earn- ings, subject to the approval of a. majority of the entire member- ship of the Committee on Rules and the Management's Special Representative. John Dudash, who was secretary of the General Body at the Cam- bria Plant from March 1934 to March 1937, testified that special time, cards for meetings of the General Body were kept, together with the minutes of the meetings, in a vault in the office of E. L. Roberts, an assistant to S. D. Evans. Dudash got these cards before meetings ' The provision follows : V MANAGEMENTS REPRESENTATIVES 1. At all times the Company shall have in office a number of regular representatives of the Company appointed by it which shall be not more (but may be less) than the number of Employees' Representatives at the same time in office. Such representatives of the Company shall serve on Joint Committees and be known as Management' s Regular Representatives. 2. The Company shall also appoint a special representative (who shall be known as the Management's Special Representative) who shall keep the Management in touch with the Employees' Representatives and shall represent the Management in negotiations with such Employees' Representatives. He shall respond promptly to any request from such Employees' Representatives for a conference and shall interview all of them, from time to time, collectively or separately, with reference to matters of concern to the employees. He may attend meetings of any Committee (including the General Body) and of any Joint Committee, respectively, when requested by such Committee or Joint Committee, as the case may be, so to do but he shall not have any vote thereat. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 581 of the General Body and, at the meeting, he distributed them to the various Employees' Representatives. The individual Employees' Representative wrote on the time card his name, check number, the time he was scheduled to work that particular day, and the time he came to the meeting. Before the meeting started, the time cards were passed back manually to Dudash, and Dudash later noted on the cards the time at which the meeting ended. Regular meetings of the standing committees and of the joint com- mittees were held alternately once each month. The Company printed and distributed a card containing a schedule of the dates of the meetings of the General Body, the standing committees, and the joint committees, and containing also the names of the Employees' Representatives and management's regular representatives on the committees. The Employees' Representatives were also paid by the Company, at their regular rate, for time spent attending meetings of the standing committees and of-the joint committees. Prior to 1937, the Company provided, without cost or expense to the employees or the Plans, places at which meetings of the General Body, the standing committees, and the joint committees could be held. The applicable provision of the Cambria Plan read : The Joint Committee on Rules shall arrange a suitable place or places at which meetings of the General Body and of the several Committees and Joint Committees may be held, and the Company shall defray such expenses as are necessarily incident to the dis- charge of duties under the Plan, subject to the approval of a majority of the entire membership of the Committee on Rules and the Management's Special Representative. At the Cambria Plant the meetings of the General Body under the Plan were held in the dining room on the fourth floor of the Com- pany's general office building. The meetings of the standing com- mittees and the joint committees were held either in the same place or in the consultation room, which is directly across the hall from the dining room.20 The Company also provided the Cambria Plan with a place on the second floor of the Company's garage building for use by the Plan as a headquarters. At the Cambria Plant the minutes of the meetings of the standing committees were taken by the employee who was secretary of the standing committee. At the end of the meeting, he handed the 20 The offices of Ellicott , the general manager, Evans , the management's special rep- resentatives , and Roberts , a salaried employee who assists Evans in his duties, also are on the fourth floor of the general office building. 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD minutes in to Roberts' office. There they were put in mimeographed form and sent through the Company's interplant mail to all the Employees' Representatives in the Plant. At the first meeting of the General Body after the election of a new group of Employees' Representatives, known as the reorganiza- tion meeting, the Body would move to request the management to send someone in to take the minutes of the meetings. The Company assigned.one of its clerks to take minutes of the General Body and joint committee meetings, and paid the clerk for the time spent at that task. Sometime in December 1936 or January 1937, Willard Brant, a safety inspector, was detailed by Roberts to take minutes at meetings held under the Plan. Brant took longhand notes at the General Body meetings. The day after a meeting Dudash, the secretary of the General Body, would go to Brant's office and go over the notes to check their accuracy. Brant then made. a draft of the minutes .and Clare Williams, chairman of the General Body, checked the draft with him. Williams and Brant would then go to Roberts' office;, Roberts would call a stenographer and dictate to her from the draft. He would make no changes in the draft, but would oc- casionally improve the English. Roberts always inserted the fol- lowing heading : Bethlehem Steel Company, Cambria Plant. Minutes of the General Body Meeting of Employees Representatives. J Roberts' office then placed the minutes in the Company's central stenographic and typewriting department; they were mimeographed and sent out through the interplant mail. Copies of the minutes were sent only to Employees' Representatives, and not to employees generally, but copies of the minutes were posted by the Employees' Representatives on the Company's bulletin boards.21 - The procedure for the minutes of the meetings of the joint com- mittees was essentially the same, except that Williams did not ac- company Brant when Brant took in the draft to Roberts. 2. Prior to April 1937 , the Plan could use the bulletin boards of the Company. After that date, Evans told the chairman of the General Body that he had been advised by counsel that neither notices nor anything else in connection with the Plan should be posted on the bulletin boards. In connection with the period prior to April 1937, it should be noted that Lawrence McDowell, general foreman in the 9."2 and 10" bar mills in the Gantier Division of the Cambria Plant, referred in his testimony to a "company policy," which had been in effeet for several years , that "nothing should be posted on the bulletin board except company business." McDowell also testified that in this period minutes under the Plan were posted as a matter of course. Apparently McDowell thought of the minutes as "company business." BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 583 The secretaries of the various committees and of the General Body read their minutes at a General Body meeting. The minutes were then approved and filed in a vault in Roberts' office.27 The nominations and elections held under the Plans provide a striking example of the material assistance furnished by the Com- pany to the Plans. The Plans provide that the employees vote twice. In the first vote, called the nominations, the top-ranking candidates, to the extent of twice the number of Employees' Repre- sentatives to be chosen in the department, are declared nominees for the office of Employees' Representatives in the second vote, called the elections, which is held later, the Employees' Representatives are elected from among the nominees. The section of the Cambria Plan which deals with nominations and elections provides, essentially, that nominations of Employees' Repre- sentatives are to be held on the second Monday of March in each year and that elections of Employees' Representatives are to be held on Tuesday of the week next following. The language of paragraph 2 of this section is interesting in its emphasis. It should be noted that it was felt necessary to stress the fact that the election was some- thing which the employees would conduct by themselves. The para- graph reads: Nominations and elections shall be conducted by the employees of the Company themselves, in accordance with rules and regu- lations prescribed by the Committee on Rules, with only such assistance from the Management as may be requested by said Committee. Nominations and elections under each of the Plans were held in the respective plant. At the, Cambria Plant, the standing rules committee for the Plan year 1936-1937, herein called the 1937 Rules Committee, arranged for the conduct of the 1937 nominations, which were held on March 8, 1937, and the 1937 elections, which were held on March 16, 17, 18, and 19, 1937. The committee began its work in conducting these elections about February 15, 1937, and worked until about March 20, 1937. When a member of the committee spent any working time in arranging for the elections, he would, upon his request, be excused from his work. If necessary, the foreman would assign another employee to the job vacated. The 1937 Rules Committee prepared a set of forms for use in the g Russell Horning, who in the Plan year 1936-1937 was secretary of the No. 2 stand- ing committee , stated that Roberts "was holding the Book as custodian for us." 190935-40-vol. 14---38 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nominations and elections.23 In preparing these forms, the commit- tee used the corresponding forms that had been prepared by the committee on rules under the Plan for the Plan year 1935-1936 and copies of which had been used in the 1936 nominations and elections, inserting the changes necessary to make the forms applicable to the 1937 nominations and elections. The Committee for the Plan year 1935-1936 made similar use of forms that had been used in the previous years. The Company, pursuant to request, then did the following things, without cost or expense to the Plan : 1. The Company printed or mimeographed and furnished to the Plan a specified number of each of the forms prepared by the 1937 Rules Committee; 2. The Company prepared and furnished to the 1937 Committee a list of the names and check numbers of the employees on the pay roll of the Company at the Cambria Plant, on which those of the em- ployees who would not have been on the pay roll for at least 60 days immediately prior to the day on which the 1937 nominations were to be held were specially indicated; 3. The Company placed at the disposal of the 1937 Committee for use in the 1937 nominations and elections the ballot boxes and voting booths that had been used in previous years in nominations and elec- tions under the Plan; 4. The Company placed at the disposal of the 1937 Committee an employee selected by the 1937 Committee who was capable of acting as a stenographer (but who was then regularly employed by the Com- pany as a bricklayer) and gave instructions to such employee to per- form whatever duties. might be required of him as a stenographer by the 1937 Committee in connection with the conduct of such nomina- tions and election; 5. The Company furnished to the 1937 Committee a supply of scratch pads and pencils; "One of - the forms was a form of election ballot for use in each 1937 voting district. At the Cambria Plant the election ballots contained the following paragraph : By using this ballot the voter approves the holding of the Nominations and Election as stated in the posted notice of this election issued by the Employees' Committee on Rules under the Plan of Employees' Representation at this Plant and expresses the desire to be represented for collective bargaining and the other purposes stated in the notice of Employees ' Representatives elected under the plan. The notice for the elections contained the following paragraph : 8. All the above is in accordance with the Plan and those who assent thereto and desire so to choose their representatives for such purposes should vote at the Nominations and Elections.. The Company asserted that by voting the employees were voluntarily choosing the Plan of Employees ' Representation to act as their collective bargaining agency. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 585 6. The Company notified the 1937 Committee that during the nomi- nations and election it might use a room on the second floor of the garage building in the Cambria Plant as the headquarters of the 1937 Committee and that the 1937 Committee would be permitted to post on the bulletin boards in such Plant the notices of the 1937 nomina- tions and election and other information which the 1937 Committee might wish to post thereon with reference to such nominations and elections. Each superintendent at the Cambria Plant complied with a request made of him and furnished a list of employees in supervisory capacities. The 1937 Rules Committee selected certain employees of the Com- pany at the Cambria Plant and designated them as tellers in each voting district. Prior to the day of the 1.937 nominations, the 1937 tellers were, at the request of the -1937 Committee, excused from any work for which they were scheduled on the days of the 1937 nomina- tions and the 1937 elections. The foremen, if necessary, designated other employees to perform the work of the tellers. The notices of the 1937 nominations and elections were posted by members of the 1937 Committee on the bulletin boards throughout the Cambria Plant. The polling place of each 1937 voting district was selected by.the 1937 Committee and approved by the superintendent of the depart- ment. Each polling place was so located that with very few excep- tions all the voters in the voting district could reach the polling place from the places where they worked. The voting booths were delivered to the polling places by means of a truck furnished by the Company at the request of the 1937 rules committee, which truck was driven by an employee 'of the Company at the Cambria Plant other than a member of the 1937 committee. At some of the 1937 voting districts the teller had a small ballot box which he carried to those employees who worked at such places that they could not easily get to the polling place. The elections were carried on in much the same manner as the nominations. After the elections, the 1937 Committee signed the certificates of elections and posted them on the bulletin boards in the respective voting districts in which the employees named thereon had been elected. The persons who were elected were notified by a letter from the committee which was prepared by the stenographer furnished by the Company. The Company paid all the expenses incident to the conduct of the nominations and elections held under the Plan in 1936 and all the expenses incident to the 1937 nominations and elections. As a part of such expenses, the Company compensated each of the members of 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the 1937 Committee and the chairman of the then General Body under the Plan for that part of the time spent by them, respectively, at places other than homes of the members of the 1937 Committee and other employees of the Company at the Cambria Plant, in arranging for and conducting the 1937 nominations and elections as above set forth (the time at such homes being a small part of all the time so spent by them), and each of the 1937 tellers for all the time spent by them, respectively, in conducting such nominations and elections as above set forth at the same rate of pay that the members of the 1937 Committee, the chairman and the tellers, respectively, would have received for such time had they spent it working at their regu- lar jobs in the Plant. During the nominations and elections, time worked over 8 hours was considered as overtime, and tellers who worked more than 8 hours per day received 11/2 times their regular rate of pay for the overtime period. In the various Plants, the employees had opportunities to vote either before or after working hours, and were permitted to vote, without loss of pay, during working hours, at times when they could be absent from their work without interfering with the operations of the plant or with the performance of the work on which they were engaged. The Company provided opportunities for the men to vote during their working hours. Louis Midderhoff, a witness for the respondents, and general foreman of the chippers in March 1937, testified on cross- examination as follows: Q. I believe you told us that you gave your turn foreman cer- tain instructions with reference to voting under the Plan, is that correct? A. Well, that foreman was only told to tell the inspectors and the inspectors to tell the chippers that the polls were open for voting. Houston Underwood, a witness for the Board, had testified that his foreman, William Marley, had instructed him to vote in 1935. Marley, called by the respondents, was asked about this instance and testified as follows : Q. Did you ever tell Houston Underwood to vote? A. One time in 1935, when we had to hold the men there at one particular spot, because of the fact that they were going to change a level bar in an adjoining furnace to the one from which he was breaking fires, and of course you have got to look ahead, you are foreman, a man has to look ahead, what is coming, time the operation and everything so be will be on the spot, perform the operation without any delay, and we found out that this furnace wasn't going to be finished until an hour later, so I said BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 587 to him-he was breaking fire-I says, "Doc, if you want to vote when you get through breaking fires, you can go ahead. We won't get that level bar changed for an hour," or something to that effect.24 The Plans provide that "An annual conference between all of the Employees' Representatives and representatives of the Management shall be held at a time and place determined by the Joint Committee on Rules, and said Joint Committee shall be in charge of the pro- cedure at such conference." At the Cambria Plant, the conferences consisted of a banquet attended by the Employees' Representatives, representatives of the management at the Cambria Plant and, fre- quently, E. G. Grace, president of the Company. Grace, other rep- resentatives of the Company, and some Employees' Representatives made speeches at the banquet.. The cost of the banquet and the printed menus therefor was borne by the Company, and the Em- ployees' Representatives were paid for the time spent at the banquet at a rate of pay commensurate with their average hourly earnings. The Plans set up a procedure for adjustments. In the Cambria, Steelton, Lebanon, Lackawanna, and Maryland Plans it is provided that an employee who has been unable to adjust a grievance with his foreman may take up the matter, either by himself or through any Employees' Representative in his Department, first, with the superin- tendents concerned, second, with the Management's Special Repre- sentative, and third, with the general manager, who may endeavor to effect a settlement or who may with the approval of all parties refer Z' Another example of cooperation is found in the Franklin Open Hearth Division. There were only 1 or 2 years in the period from 1929-1937, in which the pay day did not coincide with the day on which the elections were held. In the Franklin Open Hearth Division the voting booth would be placed in the same shanty on the Open Hearth Floor in which the cost clerk would pay the men. On election day the cost clerk would move his wooden cage so as to provide room for the voting. The men lined up in single file to get paid , and, after they had received their pay , a man standing beyond the pay line would ask them if they had voted. Cf. also the testimony on direct examination of Lawrence M. McDowell , general fore- man of the 9" 2 and 10" bar mills in the Gantier Division : Q. Prior to the nominations and the election which was held in Maich, 1937, as you have testified did you receive any instructions from anyone as to what you should or should not do, if anything , with respect to the nominations and election or the voting of the employees in such nominations or elections? A. Yes, I did. Q. Will you tell me what that was and from whom you received it, and how? A. Mr. Bennett , the superintendent of the Gautier Works called a meeting of the general foremen of Gantier, and told us to keep out of the election, to have nothing at all to do with it , and the only thing that we should do was to see that no man was deprived of his right to vote if he wanted to. We were told to stay away from the voting polls , and to have nothing to do with the election. These instructions were repeated by the foremen to the turn foremen. During the day when the elections were being held , McDowell told his clerk , Kenneth Wagner, to ask the men "if they had been able to get away to go to vote." 588 DECISIONS OE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the matter to any proper Joint Committee, or who may do both. If a satisfactory adjustment is not reached, any employee through his Employee's Representative or the Management, through the Manage- ment's Special Representative, may refer the matter to the General Joint Committee on Appeals. If this Committee fails to arrive at a settlement, the president of the Company is to be notified, and, if the president and a majority of the Employees' Representatives on the General Joint Committee of Appeals agree to such a reference, the matter may be referred to an arbitrator or arbitrators to be determined at the time according to the nature of the controversy.25 Prior to September 1935 the provision in the Plans which provided for amendment was typically as follows: Any method of procedure hereunder may be amended at any time by two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the Joint Committee on Rules, or by concurrent majority vote of the Em- ployees' Representatives and of the Representatives of the Man- agement at an Annual Conference.28 It will be seen that the Company's consent was required for amend- ments to the Plan. And an examination of the amendments to the Plans made pursuant to the amendment provision shows that the Com- pany representatives acted upon and approved a large number of amendments which directly affected even such matters as can be sub- sumed under the category "employees' organization.' 27 25 The Bethlehem Plan contained an identical procedure . This was changed by the amendments to that Plan made on February 1, 1938. See footnote 45 below. In the Rankin , Concentrator , and Leetsdale Plans, as we have seen , there is only one Joint Committee. The procedure for adjustment set forth in these Plans , therefore, varies somewhat . Matters are to be taken up, first , with the general superintendent, or, in the case of the Concentrator Plan, with the department bead ; second , with the Management ' s Special Representative ; and third , with the works manager, or, in the case of the Concentrator Plan, with the superintendent of the Plant , who is to endeavor to effect a settlement. If a settlement is not effected within a reasonable time, any employee through his Employees ' Representative or the management through the Man- agement's Special Representative may require that the matter be referred to the Joint Committee by a request in writing. If the Joint Committee fails to effect a settlement, the president of-the Company is to be notified, and, if the president and a majority of the Employees ' Representatives agree to such a reference , the matter may be referred to an arbitrator or arbitrators to be determined at the time according to the nature of the controversy. 2° The Plans for the Rankin and Leetsdale works contained the following provision : XI. Amendments.-The plan may be amended in any respect at any meeting of the Joint Committee by two-thirds of all the votes which under the plan could be cast at such meeting , if the entire number of Employee Representatives whom the employees shall then be entitled under the plan to have were present thereat. At any such meeting the Representatives of the Management shall have the same number of votes as the Employee Representatives as hereinabove provided. In the Concentrator Plan the amendment provision was as follows : XI. Amendments.-Any method of procedure hereunder may be amended at any time by two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the Joint. Committee. 2' Typical examples of amendments made to the various plans are set forth in Appendix B. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 589 In 1935 extensive and generally uniform amendments to the Plans were effected. An examination of the minutes of the meeting of the various committees under the Bethlehem and Maryland Plans which considered the amendments before their final passage indicates that the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act at that time was a factor influencing the character of these amendments and that the management played an important part in their formulation. The amendments to the Bethlehem Plan were approved by the Joint Com- mittee on Rules thereunder on September 5, 1935.25 The amendments to the Maryland Plan were approved by the Joint Committee on Rules thereunder on September 27, 1935.29 Before these amendments were enacted and while they were under discussion, the Company submitted the proposals to its counsel and requested its counsel to prepare a draft of the plan incorporating such amendments in a form that would adequately express their intent. Its counsel did prepare such a draft. The draft of the amended ^ The extracts , which appear in Appendix C, from the minutes of the meetings of the various committees under the Bethlehem Plan which consider the proposals for amendments prior to their adoption , reveal, in part, the function of the management with respect to amendments and the effect of the passage of the National Labor Relations Act on the amendments enacted in 1935 . It is significant to note that John K. Robinson, the Management's Special Representative at the Bethlehem plant, was present at all of these meetings, including meetings of the standing committees and the General Body. 29 The paragraphs below contain extracts from the minutes of meetings of various committees under the Maryland Plan which considered the proposals which culminated in the amendments of 1935. J. A . Northwood is the Management 's Special Representa- tive at the Maryland Plant. The following appears in the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Rules held on January 14, 1935: Concerning proposed changes in the By -Laws, Mr. Northwood reported the suggestions were forwarded to the Legal Department for a check on the phrasing and suggested the matter be tabled pending a reply. The minutes ' of the May 13, 1935 ; meeting of the Joint Committee on Rules contain the following paragraph : Concerning proposed changes in Employee Representation Plan, By-Laws, Air. Northwood stated a report would be rendered in the near future. At the June 10, 1935, meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules the following paragraph appears: Concerning the working of the proposed changes in Employees' Representation Plan , By-Laws, Mr. Northwood stated this • report will be submitted in the near future. The following paragraph appears in the minutes of the July 15, 1935 , meeting of the Joint Committee on Rules : Concerning proposed changes in the Employees ' Representation By-Laws, Mr. Northwood reported that we expect to have the revised draft ready to present to the Committee at the next meeting. In a general discussion employee repre- sentative members of the committee expressed much dissatisfaction at the more than six months delay in getting some action on this item . The reason for the unusual delay was explained and the representatives were assured that every effort will be made to have the revised draft ready for the next meeting. Mr. Underwood moved, Rep. Schlimme seconded , each member of the Committee be furnished with a copy of the proposed changes before the meeting , for study. The motion was duly passed. At the August 12, 1935. meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules Mr . Northwood stated that the "report will be rendered as soon as possible." 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bethlehem Plan so prepared was submitted to and approved by the Bethlehem Rules Committee at a meeting held on August 29, 1935, the Bethlehem General Body at a meeting held on September 4, 1935, and the Bethlehem Joint Rules Committee at a meeting held on Sep- tember 5, 1935. The draft of the amended Maryland Plan was sub- mitted to the Maryland Rules Committee at a meeting held on Sep- tember 20,1935 . The Committee suggested certain amendments thereto and approved the draft , subject to the amendments. This was ap- proved by the Maryland General Body on September 26,1935, and then by the Maryland Joint Rules Committee at a meeting held on Septem- ber 27, 1935. Thereafter, at various times, the following Plans of Employees' Representation were amended by vote of the respective Joint Com- mittee on Rules thereunder , in accordance with their respective provi- sions, on the dates stated below : Lackawanna Plan________________ October 26, 1935. Concentrator Plan ---------------- December 4, 1935. Lebanon Plan -------------------- December 17, 1935. Leetsdale No. 1 Plan______________ December 20, 1935. Rankin Plan --------------------- December 19, 1935. Steelton Plan_____ _______________ January 1, 1936. Leetsdale No. 2 Plan ------- ------- December 18 , 1935.30 In the case of each such Plan, the Management 's Special Representa- tive had had discussions from time to time with Employees Repre- sentatives then in office under such Plan with respect to possible amendments. After September 5, 1935, representatives of the Com- pany at each of these Plants called to the attention of the Employees' Representatives or to some of the Employees ' Representatives, the amendments made in the Bethlehem and Maryland Plans and received from such Employees' Representatives expressions of their desire to ^ The Leetsdale No. 2 Plan as so amended was effective for only 18 days and was never printed. On January 1, 1936 , Leetsdale Works No. 2 shut down because of lack of orders and thereafter Leetsdale No. 2 Plan ceased to be operative. In or about the month of December 1936, the Barge Shop of the Leetsdale Works No. 1 did not have any equip- ment for the construction of rolling gates necessary to fill its orders, and it was necessary , in order to fill such orders , to use the equipment for the construction of rolling gates that was located in Leetsdale Works No. 2. Accordingly, that part of Leetsdale Works No. 2 was reopened and employees from such Barge Shop were sent to Leetsdale Works No. 2. The Employees' Representatives who had been elected in March , 1936, to represent the Barge Shop employees continued to represent such em- ployees, including those who had been sent to Leetsdale Works No . 2, and as such Representatives they continued to serve on the Committee of Representatives under the Leetsdale No. 1 Plan . Thereafter, as operations at the Leetsdale Works No . 2 increased, more Employees' Representatives were elected . Such Employees ' Representatives of Leetsdale Works No. 2 joined the Committee of Representatives under the Leetsdale No. 1 Plan with the result that the former Leetsdale No. 1 Plan (hereinafter referred to as the Leetsdale Plan ) became applicable to the employees of both Leetsdale Works No. 1 and Leetsdale Works No. 2. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 591 make similar amendments in the Plan in effect at the particular Plant. The representatives of the Company then requested its counsel to pre-. pare, and its counsel did prepare, a form of amended plan incorporat- ing the amendments in so far as they were applicable to the conditions at the particular Plant. The amendment provision in the Plans, after the amendments of 1935, reads as follows : This Plan may be amended at any regular meeting of the General Body by a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership thereof, provided that there shall have been submitted at the next preceding regular meeting of the General Body a notice in writing stating the intention of one or more members thereof to submit a proposed amendment at the next regular meeting of the General Body for consideration and action thereon at such next meeting and stating concretely such proposed amendment ; except that any amendment which would materially change the procedure provided by the Plan for the adjustment of grievances or which might pre- vent the Plan from operating as a fair method of selecting repre- sentatives of the whole body of employees of the Company and as a fair method of collective bargaining or which might materially increase the obligations imposed upon the Company under the Plan shall not become effective, until it shall also have been ap- proved by the Joint Committee on Rules. Immediately after the adjournment of any regular meeting at which an amendment to the Plan shall have been proposed the Secretary of the General Body shall in writing advise the Management's Special Representative of the proposed amendment. An amendment shall not be adopted at any meeting which shall be substantially different from the pro- posed amendment set ,forth in the notice thereof submitted to the next preceding meeting as above stated.31 e' Amendments to the Cambria Plan resulted in the same changes in the Plan that had been made in the other Plans. Other paragraphs that were uniformly amended were the opening paragraph in the Plans , headed "Principles of Representation." Prior to the amendments , the typical paragraph had read as follows : In order to give the employees of the Company a voice in regard to the condi- tions under which they labor, and to provide an orderly and expeditious procedure for the prevention and adjustment of any future differences , and to anticipate the problem of continuous employment as it will present itself through trade fluctua- tions and other conditions , a method of representation of employees is hereby established. The representation of employees , as hereinafter provided , shall in no way dis- criminate against any employee because of race , sex or creed , or abridge or conflict with his or her right to belong or not to belong to any lawful society, fraternity, union or other organization . [ Exact wording of Lackawanna , Bethlehem , Cambria Plans. ] The paragraph as amended in 1935 now reads as follows : In order that there may be a definite method and means of representation of the employees of the Company with regard to all questions relating to rates of 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Company has thus reserved to itself a veto power over amend- ments to the Plans "which would materially change the procedure provided by the Plan for the adjustment of grievances or which might prevent the Plan from operating as a fair method of selecting representatives of the whole body of employees of the Company and as a fair method of collective bargaining or which might materially increase the obligations imposed upon the Company"-in brief, the essential structure of the Plans cannot be altered without the Com- pany's consent. By its power over amendments which affect the Plan as "a fair method of selecting representatives of the whole body of employees and as a fair method of collective bargaining," the Company has a vital control over the self-organization of its em- ployees. The Company contends that each Plan can be considered in two separate parts, one part consisting of the constitution of a labor organization, and the other part consisting of an agreement between that labor organization and the Company which sets up a procedure for collective bargaining. It is clear from all of the foregoing discussion, however, that such a dichotomy cannot realistically be made. Each Plan was instituted as an integrated whole and func- tioned as such through the years of its existence. It may be possible to select, from among the provisions of each Plan, clauses and para- graphs which treat with matters ordinarily thought to concern the internal affairs of a labor organization, and other clauses which affect more directly matters having to do with collective bargaining procedure. But these are completely tied together in the Plans. In its day to day operations, the Plan must be considered as a unit; the standing committees and General Body are so intermeshed with the Management's Special Representative and the Joint Committees pay, hours of .labor, rules , working conditions , health, safety and other similar matters of interest to such employees , and an orderly and expeditious procedure for the prevention and adjustment of any future differences between such em- ployees and the Company , and in order to anticipate the problem of continuous employment as it will present itself through trade fluctuations and.other condi- tions, and for the purpose of protecting and promoting the interests of such employees through representatives whom they shall elect annually to represent them under this Plan and to meet in conference periodically or otherwise as occasion shall require with represdntatives of the Management to discuss and adjust matters of mutual interest, the method of representation of employees provided herein is hereby established. Representation hereunder shall in no way discriminate against any employee because of race, sex, or creed, or abridge or conflict with his or her right to belong or not to belong to any lawful society, fraternity , union or other organization. In cases where such a change had not already been effected , the 1935 amendments also changed that paragraph which had been present in all the Plans at their inception except the Rankin and Leetsdale Plans, which provided that the nominations and elec- tions should be conducted by the employees with only such assistance from the manage- ment as may be required." The paragraph as amended provided that the nominations and elections should be conducted by the 'employees with "Only such assistance from the Management as may be requested." BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 593 that the asserted separability is unconvincing. Certainly the mate- rial aid given the Plans by the Company and the Company's control over the amendment process applied equally to both aspects of the Plans. The first amendment clause in the Plans, which required Com- pany consent to any amendment,32 shows that, even if the Plans could be considered as divisable into two parts, the Company had a definite control over that portion of the Plans which would consti- tute the organic principles of a labor organization. And the nature of the various amendments made under this amendment clause 33 reveals company participation in a multitude of amendments which directly relate to the part. of the Plan that is claimed to be the constitution of a labor _organization. The record reveals nothing which would support the claim that the Plans of Employees' Representation are to be considered in two parts. This, together with the Plans themselves, which in nowise ,permit such a division, leads us to believe that the asserted two-side- ness of the Plans is only a labored attempt to rationalize the Com- pany's course of conduct. We conclude that this division of the Plans into the constitution of a labor organization and a collective bargaining agreement which, even if it existed, would not serve to justify the Company's activities with respect to the Plans, cannot be made. Certain features of the structure of the Plans make them espe- cially vulnerable to interference by the employer. Thus, in voting for the Employees' Representatives, the individual employee com- pleted his only direct participation in the functioning of the Plans. No general meetings of the employees were ever held; meetings at which the employees could instruct their Representatives or receive reports from them were neither provided for in the Plans nor ever held as a matter of practice. The Company contends that the situation must be distinguished from that dealt with by the Supreme Court of the United States in 13 Though the Company insists that the dichotomy in the Plans existed from their very inception , it points to the new amendment clause as evidence of such separability. The part of the amendment clause which requires company consent to amendments "which might prevent the Plan from operating as a fair method of selecting representa- tives of the whole body of employees of the Company and as a fair method of collective bargaining" seems to belie this argument. But counsel for the Company state that this merely means that the Company will cease dealing with the Plans if the Plans do not represent a majority of the employees . We cannot accept such an explanation of this clause. And it is significant to note that the statements by counsel for the various Plans , made at oral argument , before the,. Board, indicate confusion as to its meaning. And it is further important to note that , although it is argued that, in so far as the amendment clause requires company consent it provides for changes in the collective bargaining agreement , the amendment section .does not provide for amendment proposals to be made by the Company , but limits such proposals to the Plans. $' See footnote 27- above. . 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc 34 The Company argues that that case involved employees of a national transportation system who were widely scattered about the country, whereas the present case involves employees who work in the same industrial plant and live in the same community. But the absence of any provisions for the employees to meet, to have discussions and cross-discussions, to hear and comment upon reports from their representatives, and to instruct these representatives, ren- ders the Plans as easily subject to the employer's domination as were the Plans in the Greyhound case. To leave to fortuitous contact the relationship between the Employees' Representative and the 200 men, for example, whom each Representative was supposed to represent at the Cambria Plant '35 cannot serve to remedy this deficiency and to put the will of the men into effect. And,the employees never,paid , dues or made any contributions to the Plans. Membership in the Plans is automatic. There are no applications for membership, no initiation fees, no membership cards. D. Analysis of the Plans We have seen that the Plans were initiated and sponsored by the Company. Their essential form was determined upon by the Com- pany. Once having instituted and successfully launched these plans, the Company set about making them an integral part of its business; its foremen were instructed to make clear to the men, in various ways, the fact that the Employee Representation Plans constituted one of the most important policies of the Company, and in its publications to the employees the Company made very clear its decided preference for the Plans and its great antagonism to other forms of representa- tion. At all times the Company. dealt with the Plans ; ; its whole per- sonnel policy revolved about the Plans. It pointed out to the men the fact that the Plans had been instituted by it, that they were in effect at all the Company's plants, and it indicated that the Plans of Employees' Representation were, in fact, an important policy of that portion of the steel industry represented by the American Iron and Steel Institute. The Company pointed to the benefits such as 81 303 U. S. 261 (1938). 85 The record makes it abundantly clear that no general meetings were held. There are certain instances , however, which may be classified as exceptions. Russell Horning, who was elected secretary of the General Body under the Cambria Plan in 1937, testified that on a certain wage matter the employees he represented would get together in the washroom or during the evening and discuss the matter. Clare Williams testified that in the period beginning with the Plan year 1937, there was a meeting in the middle of the machine shop which was attended by the employees who were going off turn and which lasted about ten minutes , and that in the early part of 1936 he talked to a group of men in one of the washrooms -about the question of daylight saving and that on this question some discussion was had around the lay-out table in the mornings. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 595 stock ownership, home aid, relief and pension plans, and health serv- ice which it had conferred upon its employees, and asserted that, in large part, the men were receiving these benefits because of the exist- ence of the Plans. By such means as these the Company insured the continuance of the effects of its original domination of and interfer- ence with the formation of the Plans. We have seen also that the structure of the Plans and the manner of their operation rendered them peculiarly subject to the interference and influence of the employer; they were incapable of functioning as a real bargaining agency for the employees. The Plans provided for departmental representatives. Men who were not employees in the department, whatever their collective bargaining capabilities may have been, were unable to act as representatives. No general meet- ings of the employees were either provided for in the Plans or held as a matter of practice. The employees thus had no opportunity to formulate their demands and to instruct and control their representa- tives. This is to be considered together with and is to be contrasted with the fact that the Employees' Representatives, when they met together in the standing committees and General Body, were paid by the Company at the same rate of pay that they received at their usual work and that the places for these meetings were provided by the Company." Under all of these circumstances, it is idle to suggest that the Employees' Representatives served the will of the employees, or that the Plans represented that self-organization of employees which is contemplated by the Act. And it is fruitless to argue that, if the employees so desired, they could change the Plans. We have already examined the amendment process under the Plans, and we have seen that by express provision and as a matter of practice, the essential structure of the Plans could not be altered without the consent of the 80 The Company sought to compare the procedures and methods of collective bargaining under the provisions of certain contracts between Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation and between General Motors Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, with the procedures and methods under the provisions of the Plans . The contracts in question are Respondents' Exhibits No. 251 and 252. They were not admitted in evidence . We have considered these contracts and find that the Trial Examiner's ruling excluding them was proper. We are here considering whether the respondents have dominated and interfered with the administration of labor organizations known as the Plans of Employees ' Representa- tion . The activities and collective bargaining relations of Carnegie-Illinois Steel Cor- poration or of General Motors Corporation ai„ not in issue here , and any similarity in their actions of practices can have no bearing on the question of whether the activities of the respondents fall within the ban of Section 8 ( 2) of the Act. Further, we are analyzing the various provisions of the Plans in the light of the Plans as a whole, the history of the Plans ' origins, and the long course of interference by the respondents. A similarity in any provision of the Carnegie -Illinois or General Motors contracts with a provision of the Plans is of little value. In our view therefore , the testimony of David J . McDonald , which the respondent sought to secure. by supoena, in order to elaborate on the meaning and operation of the Carnegie-Illinois agreements, would have been as irrelevent and immaterial as are the agreements themselves. 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company. Further, the Company had stressed to its employees the fact that the form of representation found in the Plans was highly favored by it and that other forms of representation would not be similarly favored. The Act is predicated upon the recognition of the dominant and overwhelming influence which the employer, by virtue of superior eco- nomic power and the fact that the employee's means of livelihood is in his hands, has over the employee. The employee is, as a conse- quence of this disparity in economic power, sensitive to the desires of his employer, and acutely responsive to any coercion or interference by the employer. In protecting the organization of employees so as to make collective bargaining a reality, the Act, therefore, forbade all employer interference with the self-organization of its employees and proscribed employer domination and interference with the administra- tion of a labor organization and the contribution of support to a labor organization. It is apparent, from the facts set forth above, that the Company has disregarded these proscriptions. The employees never paid dues or made any contributions to the Plans. The expenses of the Plans, large organizations covering thou- sands of workers, were borne entirely by the Company, and the Plans thus found themselves dependent upon the Company for their operation. O her instances of interference with and contribution of support to the Plans at the Cambria Plant should be mentioned. The Com- pany did all the printing for the Plans and allowed the Plans the use of its bulletin boards. In connection with the nominations and elec- tions, which were held in the plants, the Company gave full coopera- tion and encouragement and rendered definite material support by providing ballot boxes and voting booths, the use of a Company driver and truck, a stenographer, a headquarters for those in charge of the elections, by excusing members of the Rules Committee and tellers from their work whenever necessary, by paying members of the Plans for their work on the nominations and elections, and by doing the necessary printing of forms and notices. E. The 1937 amendments After inquiries had been made as to the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones ct Laughlin Steel Corporation 31 on the Plans, the Management's Special Representatives in the various plants consulted counsel for the Company. Counsel for the Company advised them to reply to inquiries only if the chairmen and other officers of the Plans 87 301 U. S. 1 (1937). BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 597 put the inquiries into writing , and prepared a form of letter to be used by the Management's Special Representatives in replying to the inquiries so made. Written inquiries were thereafter made at every Plant except the Rankin Plant, and the inquiries were answered by letters written by the Management 's Special Representatives in accord- ance with the advice given by the Company's counsel. The letter from S. D. Evans, Management's Special Representative at the Cambria Plant, to Clare H. Williams , chairman of the Cambria Plan, is almost identical in all respects to similar letters sent the Plan chairman in the other plants, and is set forth in full below : APRIL 26, 1937. CLARE H. WILLIAMS, Chairman of the General Body, Plan of Employees' Representation, Cambria Plant. DEAR Mn. WILLIAMS : I have your letter of the 24th instant and am writing this letter for the purpose of complying with the request that you make in your letter. I have consulted with counsel regarding the decisions of the Supreme Court to which you refer and my understanding is that, while a number of decisions were rendered on April 12, 1937, in which questions relating to the National Labor Relations Act were involved, the one' which deals with the Act as applied to a steel company such as Bethlehem Steel Company is the decision in the case of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, which for brevity I shall hereinafter refer to as J. & L. In this letter, therefore, I shall refer only to the decision in that case. The J. & L. case arose on a charge that J. & L. was guilty of unfair labor practices in that it had discharged certain em- ployees because of their activities in a labor union. J. & L. challenged the constitutionality of the Act, but it did not intro- duce any evidence to show that the particular employees had not been discharged because of union activities (it apparently taking the position that there was no necessity for so doing ) and, the evidence before the Labor Board that they had been discharged for such activities being undisputed , the Board found that the charges were true. For your purposes in applying the decision in the J. & L. case, I think that you may assume that the business conducted by J. & L. is substantially the same as that conducted by Bethlehem Steel Company at the Cambria Plant. The grounds upon which J. & L. based its claim that the Labor Act was unconstitutional are that the Act constitutes a regula- tion of labor relations ; that the Congress of the United States 598 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD could not legislate as to the relations between an employer and its employees engaged in manufacturing operations , because such relations and such operations do not directly affect inter- state commerce ; that J. & L. and its employees who were en- gaged in the manufacturing of steel products were not engaged in commerce at all; and that, therefore , Congress could not law- fully pass an act that would apply to the relations between such employees of J. & L. and its management . The Court held as follows : 1. That employees have a fundamental right "to self -organiza- tion and to select representatives of their own choosing for col- lective bargaining or other mutual protection without restraint or coercion by their employer," and that "in its present applica- tion, the statute goes no further than to safeguard " that right; 2. That "discrimination and coercion to prevent the free exer- cise of the right of employees to self-organization and represen- tation is a proper subject for condemnation by competent legislative authority"; 3. That in the exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce Congress had the authority to protect by legislation that commerce "no matter what the source of the dangers which threaten it"; 4. That the stoppage by industrial strife of the operations of plants like those of J. & L. "would have a most serious effect upon interstate commerce" and that Congress had the power to protect such commerce from the paralyzing consequences of such strife and "to safe-guard the right of respondent's (that is J. &. L.'s) employees to self-organization and freedom in choice of representatives for collective bargaining" ; 5. That the provision of the Labor Act "that representatives, for the purpose of collective bargaining , of the majority of the employees in an appropriate unit shall be the exclusive repre- sentatives of all the 'employees in that unit, imposes upon the respondent (that is, J. & L.) only the duty of conferring and negotiating with the authorized representatives of its employees for the purpose of settling a labor dispute" and that "the obliga- tion to treat with the true representative was exclusive and hence imposed the negative duty to treat with no other,"; and 6. That "The Act does not compel agreements between em- ployers and employees . It does not compel any agreement what- ever." In order that you may have it for ready reference , I am send- ing to you herewith a copy of the National Labor Relations Act. You will note that in Section 8 of the Act it is provided that BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 599 it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to do any of the things enumerated in the five paragraphs of that Section; and that, among other unfair labor practices, is that of contribut- ing financial or other support to the administration of any labor organization: "Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to Section 6 (a), an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay." Your Representation Plan provides in paragraph 7 and para- graph 11 of Section VII as follows : . "7. For time necessarily occupied through actual attendance at regular or special meetings or conferences held pursuant to the Plan, Employees' Representatives shall receive from the Com- pany payment commensurate with their respective average earn- ings, subject to the approval of a majority of the entire member- ship of the Committee on Rules and the Management's Special Representative. "11. The Joint Committee on Rules shall arrange a suitable place or places at which meetings of the General Body and of the several Committees and Joint Committees may be held, and the Company shall defray such expenses as are necessarily inci- dent to the discharge of duties under the Plan, subject to the approval of a majority of the entire membership of the Com- mittee on Rules and the Management's Special Representative." In view of the provisions of paragraph (2) of Section 8 of the Act to which I have referred above, it would appear to be neces- sary that those two paragraphs 7 and 11 be changed so as to bring them strictly within the provisions of such paragraph (2) of Section 8 of the Act. You will note that the provisions of such paragraph (2) do not prohibit the employer (that is, in your case, Bethlehem Steel Company) from conferring with its employees during working hours without loss of time or pay to such em- ployees. Bethlehem Steel Company is, therefore, willing to com- ply with the provisions of your Plan to the extent that they re- quire the Company to pay tile-Employees' Representatives under the Plan their regular wages for the time during the working hours that such Representatives shall use in conferring with the Management in the performance of their duties under the Plan, subject, of course, to any rules and regulations that may be made and published by the Labor Board. As to the expenses of the Plan which the Company under the Act cannot pay, I think I should add that I do not believe that .190935-40-vol. 14-39 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD they will be found burdensome to the employees and I believe that you will be able to prepare provisions to be put into your Plan by amendment that will take care of such expenses at a comparatively small cost per employee., I have made some inquiry as to what has been done under other plans in effect among the employees of other companies and have been advised that the total charge per employee under some of the plans has been as low as One. dollar a year. I have again carefully read your Plan of Employees' Repre- sentation in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the J. & L. case and of discussions I have had with counsel . and I believe that it will not be necessary for you to adopt any amend- ments to the Plan other than those to which I have referred above, in order that you may make it strictly comply with the provisions of the Labor Relations Act. It, however, may well be that you and the other Employees' Representatives will think it advisable to make some other changes in your Plan, such as, for instance, to provide 'for a Treasurer under the Plan and how moneys held by him may be paid out, and also some changes with reference to hours at which meetings shall be held, etc. All such changes will undoubtedly readily occur to you and the other Employees' Representatives, as you and they shall review your Plan in the light of what I have said above. If after you and the other Employees' Representatives on the General Body shall have given such consideration to the matter as you shall think it requires, you shall desire to confer with me regarding it, I shall be glad to do whatever you shall wish in that regard. Very truly yours, (Signed) S. D. EVANS, Management's Special Representative. Thereafter, amendments to the two paragraphs in the Plans referred to in all the letters sent by the Management's Special Representatives were made 38 in accordance with suggestions as to phraseology re- The dates of these amendments are as follows : Bethlehem Plan____ __________________________________ May 26, 1937 Lackwanna Plan_____________________________________ May 29, 1937 Steelton Plan ---------------------------------------- May 29, 1937 Maryland Plan_______________________________________ June 8, 1937 Lebanon Plan _______________________________________ June 11, 1937 Concentrator Plan____________________________________ July 7, 1937 Leetsdale Plan - ------------------------------------- August 23, 1937 The Rankin Plan has not been amended since December 19, 1935. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the Jones & Laughlin case, the Company advised the Committee of Representatives under the Rankin Plan that , except to the extent permitted by law, it would make no payments to, and would not defray any expenses incident to the dis- charge of the duties of any Employees ' Representative under the Plan. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 601 quested by Employees' Representative's and given by the Management's Special Representatives.- The amendments were practically iden- tical. At the hearing, Hoyt A. Moore, the counsel for the Company, stated, with respect to these amendments, "What the company was trying to do, and I was advising it, was to put the Plans in such form so there would be no obligation on the part of the company to do something which would be a violation of law." Thus, in each instance, the paragraph in the Plans which provided that, for time spent in attending meetings and conferences under the Plan, the Employees' Representatives would receive from the Com- pany payment commensurate with their respective average earnings, and the paragraph which provided that the Joint Committee on Rules should arrange a place for meetings of the General Body and of the various committees and defray such expenses as are necessarily inci- dent to the discharge of duties under the Plan, were amended. In the Lackawanna Plan, for example, paragraph 7 of Section 7, which read: 7. For time necessarily occupied through actual attendance at regular or special meetings or conferences held pursuant to the Plan, Employees' Representatives shall receive from the Com- pany payment commensurate with their respective average earn- ings, subject to the approval of a majority of the entire member- ship of the Committee on Rules and the Management's Special Representative. was changed to read : 7. To the extent permitted by law, Employees' Representatives shall be entitled to receive from the Company for time necessarily occupied through actual attendance at regular or special meet- ings or conferences held pursuant to the plan payment commen- surate with their respective average earnings. Paragraph 11 of Section 7, which read : 11. The Joint Committee on Rules shall arrange a suitable place or places at which meetings of the General Body and of the 29 At the Cambria Plant, Evans was requested to and did come to assist the Committee on Rules in determining the proper wording for amendments to the two paragraphs referred to in his letter. Evans testified that "inasmuch as these particular paragraphs are paragraphs which have to do with what the company agreed to do with regard to payments to men, it was quite proper, in my opinion , to assist them in the wording of those paragraphs . . . Counsel suggested that inasmuch as the decision in the J. & L. case had been made, that those paragraphs would necessarily-the thing that could be done with those paragraphs would necessarily be restricted by law and, gen- erally speaking, he advised me as to what protection should be placed in those para- graphs so the company would not be called upon to do something which would be in viol ption of the law." 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD several Committees and Joint Committees may be held, and the Company shall defray such expenses as are necessarily incident to the discharge of duties under the Plan, subject to the approval of a majority of the entire membership of the Committee on Rules and the Management's Special Representative. was changed to read : 11. The Committee on Rules shall arrange a suitable place or places at which meetings of the General Body and of the several Committees may be held and the Joint' Committee on Rules shall arrange a suitable place or places. at which meetings of the several Joint Committees may be held, and to the extent permitted by law the Company shall defray such expenses as are necessarily incident to the discharge of duties under the Plan, subject to the approval of a majority of the entire membership of the Commit- tee on Rules and the Management's Special Representative. , The Company points to several changes in the functioning of the Cambria Plan which were the result of these amendments: Thus, after April 1937, Evans informed the Plan that the Company could no longer permit the use of the services of its clerk, Willard Brant, in the preparation of minutes of meetings under the Plan, unless some method was formulated whereby the Plan, rather than the Company, would pay Brant for his services. Evans indicated that the Com- pany would no longer mimeograph the minutes, permit their distribu- tion through interplant mail, or permit them to be posted on the bulletin boards. Clare Williams, chairman of the Plan, then spoke to Brant and "I told him he knew the General Body had requested his service and asked him if he would not go along with us on a set-up that would be worked out as soon as possible to compensate him for time lost at General meetings while he was taking the minlftes. "Mr. Brant agreed to go along until we could work out in detail just what it would be." 40 This conversation took place in May or June 1937. An arrange- ment was finally worked out whereby the Plan was to compensate Brant for his services in taking the minutes at meetings of the Gen- eral Body at a rate of $5 per month. Brant's usual working time with the Company was until five in the afternoon. Meetings of the General Body normally took place in the 4o Brant's title was changed from recording clerk to recording secretary. The Plan now for the first time purchased notebooks. The secretaries ' would take notes at the meetings of the committees in stenographers ' notebooks and would transcribe them into regular record books. Brant would take notes at the meetings of the General Body and would prepare a draft of the minutes from these notes. Williams would check over this draft and would authorize Brant to copy the minutes into the record book for the General Body. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 603 afternoon. When these meetings took place, Brant would tell Dorr, his superior, where he was going and would attend the General Body meeting. If the meeting ended before 5 o'clock, Brant's quitting time, he would return to his regular work. Brant, who was paid by the Company on a monthly salary basis, continued to receive his usual checks from the Company, but he turned over to the Company the $5 he received each month from the Plan. This was considered in the nature of a deduction from his salary be- cause of the time he took off from his work to attend General Body meetings. The Plan first made ,payments to Brant after July 1937. At that time he was paid not only for the July meetings, but retroactively through the month of April as well. Brant, in turn, made a refund of that amount to either Evans or Roberts for the time lost while he -attended, meetings of the General Body in those mouths. At the present time, Employees' Representatives are paid for at- tending meetings with representatives of the management which are held during their working hours. A meeting of a joint committee is construed as a conference with the management. When a representa- tive of the management is invited in to attend a meeting of the Gen- eral Body or of •a standing committee, the secretary keeps a record of the time this representative of the management enters the meeting and the time that he leaves. The time during which the manage- ment's representative is present at a meeting is considered a confer- ence with the management, and the Company pays the Employees' Representative for. that time. Apparently, Employees' Representa= fives who are on turn are permitted to leave their work in order to attend 41 but do not receive pay except when a representative of the management is at the meeting. The meetings under the Cambria Plan are now held in the Wash- ington Street Building of the Company.42 The headquarters of the Plan are still in the same place on the second floor of the Garage Building. After April 1937 it was agreed that the Plan would pay rent for the use of the meeting room and for the headquarters. A u Cf. also Section 7, paragraph 3 of the Bethlehem Plan as amended to February 1. 1938. The paragraph reads: 3. The officers and members of the General Body and of each Committee shall receive Two dollars ($2.00) per meeting as compensation for their services thereat; provided , however, that if any of them shall lose time from actually scheduled work for the Company , he shall receive compensation at his regular rate for the time so lost, but in no case shall he receive in the aggregate less than Two dollars ($2.00). Such compensation shall be paid from the Treasury of this Plan , except to the extent that any such compensation shall be paid pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 6 of this Section VII. 42 The employment office of the Cambria Plant. and the dispensary used by employees in the Plant aT a in the same building. 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD year after the Jones d Lax uglalin decision, the Company billed the Plan for $39 for the use of the meeting room, the rate being $1 per meeting, and $10 for use of the headquarters during the year. The nominations and elections in the Cambria • Plant in 1938 were conducted in much the same manner as they had been conducted' in 1937. The 1938 Rules Committee began its work of arranging for the nominations and elections about February 17, 1938, and completed its work about March 19, 1938. The Chairman of the Plan assisted the committee. Before any of the members of the Committee or the chairman spent any working time in arranging for the conduct of, or in the conduct of, the nominations and elections, he would be ex- cused from his work at the request of the chairman of the Plan. If necessary, the foreman would assign another employee of the Com- pany to do the work. The 1938 elections were held in the plant. The Company had granted the Plan permission to do this, stating that such permission was based on the assumption that the nominations and election would be held in the same maner as nominations and elections had been held under the Plan in previous years. Pursuant to request, the Company furnished to the 1938 Rules Com- mittee a list of names and check numbers of employees on the pay roll of the Company at the Cambria Plant (compiled in groupings of departments into voting divisions as specified by the 1938 Rules Coln- mittee) on which was indicated those employees who would be on such pay roll at least 60 days on the date of the nominations and who were not persons in supervisory positions. The actual cost incurred by the Company in preparing this list, $37, was paid to the Company by the Plan on or about March 23,.1938. The Company sold the voting booths and ballot boxes to the Plan for a sum of $10.43 The day before the nominations, the 1938 Com- mittee set up the voting booths at the polling places and placed thereon copies of the notice of nominations and elections, which in previous years had been put on the bulletin boards. The 1938 Rules Committee prepared a set of forms for the notice of election, election ballots, etc., by using the corresponding forms that had been used in the 1937 nominations and elections, making only such changes in dates and names of the members of the Committee as would make the forms applicable to the 1938 nominations and elections, and had these forms printed or mimeographed at its own expense.44 43 The Company had estimated that the only value of this equipment was its salvage value, and that the salvage value was $8.76. '4In the case of the form of notice for indicating the location of the polling booths, a sticker indicating the 1938 dates was placed over the old notice, a sufficient supply of the old notices having remained. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 605 The tellers designated by the Plan for the 1938 elections- were, at the request of the 1938 Rules Committee, excused from work or not scheduled for work on the days on which the nominations and elec- tioiis were to be held. If necessary, the foreman would assign an- -other employee to perform the work of the employee who was excused so that he could act as a teller. It should be noted that in its letter suggesting amendments to the Plans, the Company also was careful to continue its encouragement of the Plans by pointing out that the expenses would not be burden- some and that no other amendments would be necessary, and by sug- gesting that the Plans provide for a Treasurer. And, it is evident that the specific amendments made in 1937 effected no change in the basic nature of the Plans.45 After the changes, the Company ceased to compensate Employees' Representa- tives for attending meetings under the Plan, except when the Repre- sentative is on turn and a representative of the management is also present at a meeting, and ceased to provide meeting rooms for the Plans rent-free. The Company also ceased to supply certain services to the Plans. But the structure and functioning of the Plans re- mained the same. The employees cannot go outside their own num- ber in choosing an Employees' Representative under the Plans. The employees still do not have any established method of meeting with each other for the purpose of formulating the desires of the whole group by debate and discussion, and of instructing and controlling their representatives. Nor have the Employees' Representatives been provided with any method of consulting the employees. The prac- tice of having representatives of the management invited in to at- tend meetings of the General Body has continued. Those employees who are on turn are compensated for time spent at General Body meetings when representatives of the management are also present. The Employees' Representatives are excused from work when a meet- ing of the General Body occurs. And the structure of the Plans still cannot be changed without the consent of the Company, for the amendment provision remains the same and the Company can veto any changes "which might prevent the Plan from operating as a fair method of selecting representatives of the whole 'body of employees .of the Company." s The Bethlehem Plan was further amended on February 1, 1938. The amendment provision of the Plan, as amended , remained the same. The procedure for adjustments -was altered so as to provide, in essence, that grievances be considered by the Executive Committee of the General Body and representatives of the Company rather than by the -Joint Committee system. Other changes were effected None of the amendments were such as to change the basic structure of the Plans. 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To the employee who had come to know these Plans as the Com- pany's Plans, it must have been clear that they were still the Com- pany's Plans. At the time of the 1938 elections, when the employee first participated in the Plans after the amendments of 1937, he found the Plans in full operation with the Company still participating. That the Company favored the Plans was obvious; it cannot be said that the employee was free to seek or create the collective bargaining agency of his choice. In brief, the Plans are labor orgaiiizations which have been long- established; in some plants they have been in effect for 20 years. They were installed and fostered by the Company, and, as we have seen, the Company has, for the whole period of their existence, domi- nated them, interfered with their administration, and contributed support to them. In 1937 certain amendments, suggested and phrased by the Company, were put into effect. These amendments did not alter the basic structure and manner of operation of the Plans, nor could they possibly erase from the minds of the employees the long-continued and well-known Company approval and encour- agement of the Plans. F. Conclusion as to Plans We find that the Company has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Plans of Employees' Representation at its various plants and has contributed support to them. The Company has thereby interfered with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE CORPORATION The respondent Bethlehem Steel Corporation is and has been since July 1, 1919, a Delaware corporation. The Corporation has 100 per cent of the voting power (disregarding directors' shares) in Bethle= hem Steel Company. It also owns, directly or through subsidiaries, 50 per cent or more of the stock of 57 other companies. Bethlehem Steel Corporation and its subsidiary companies constitute an inter- state enterprise of vast proportions. . Until February 26, 1936, 100 per cent of the voting power in Bethle- hem Steel Company was controlled by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a New Jersey corporation. On February 26, 1936, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, and other corporations, were merged into the respondent Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, which thereupon gained control of the voting power in Bethlehem Steel Company. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 607 Bethlehem Steel Company is. the only iron and steel producing sub- sidiary of the Corporation. Nine of the thirteen officers of the Cor- poration are also officers of the Company.48 The respondent Corporation contends that, despite its 100 per cent control of the Company and the substantial identity of officers 47 it cannot be held responsible for any unfair labor practices affecting the employees at the Plants owned by the Company. The Corporation further asserts that it had nothing whatever to do with the relations between the Company and the employees. The record, however, indi- cates the contrary. We have set out above the manner in which McClintic-Marshall Corporation, a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, acquired the Rankin Works ahd the two Leetsdale Works, and we have found that, shortly after such acquisition, McClintic-Marshall Corporation distributed among the employees at these properties the following circular letter contained in a four-page printed leaflet, dated March 16, 1931, addressed to the employees. To our Employees: New advantages in working conditions and financial protection are now available to the employees of the McClintic-Marshall Corporation, as communicated to our organization by a letter from Eugene G. Grace, President of. Bethlehem Steel Corpora- tion. As a subsidiary of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, McClintic- Marshall employees are entitled to a series of benefits which have 46 The officers are as follows: Names of officers Position in corporation Position in company C. M. Schwab __-_________ E. C. Grace-------------- Chairman of Board_______________ President_________________________ President. R. E. McMath____________ Vice-President and Secretary ------ Vice-President and Secretary. J. H. Ward ---------------- C. R.: Miller-------------- F . A. Shick_______________ Vice-President____________________ Vice President____________________ Comptroller______________________ Vice-President and Comptroller. W. J. Brown______________ Treasurer and Assistant Secretary Assistant Treasurer and Assistant R. H. Scblottman--------- Assistant Comptroller____________ Secretary. Assistant Comptroller. W . L. Achenbach_________ Assistant Treasurer_______________ Assistant Treasurer. D. T. Aikenhead---- _____ J. P. Bender______________ Assistant Treasurer_______________ Assistant Treasurer_______________ Treasurer. W. M. Driver_________ Assistant Secretary_______________ Assistant Secretary. W. H. Johnstone---------- Assistant Secretary_______________ Assistant Secretary. Quincy Bent______________ ------------------------------------ Vice-President. G. H. Blakeley____________ ------------------------------------ Vice-President. C. A. Buck________________ ------------------------------------ Vice President. J. M. Gross--------------- ----------------------------------- Vice President. C . R. Holton______________ ------------------------------------ Vice President. J. M. Larkin______________ ------------------------------------ Vice-President. Paul Mackall_____________ ------------------------------------ Vice-President. ° W. H. Stewart___________ ------------------------------------ Vice-President. F. N. Finger-------------- ------------------------------------ Assistant Treasurer. F * H. Overdor_____________ ------------------------------------ Assistant Treasurer. Robert Young_____________ ------------------------------------ Assistant Treasurer. F. B. Hill_________________ ----------------------------------- Assistant Treasurer and Assistant R. O. Houghton----------- Secretary. Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Secretary. 47 Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. William Randolph Hearst. et at.. 102 F. (2d) 568 (1939). 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been developed successfully in other companies of the Bethlehem family over a period of years. These privileges include : Plan of Employees Representation through which employees are given a voice with that of the management in the considera- tion of all questions relating to rates of pay and working con- ditions. Relief Plan affording financial assistance for employees and their families in case of sickness or death. The Corporation will assume the entire cost of administration of the Plan so that the contributions of the employees will be available for distribution in benefits. This Plan, providing not only for death benefits, but also for compensation when wages are lost through sickness, will super- sede and give broader protection than the present Group Insur- ance and other Relief arrangements which will be terminated as soon as the new Relief Plan has been installed. Pension Plan financed entirely by the Corporation under which employees, giving the better part, of their lives in its service and reaching an age necessitating their retirement, may be pensioned.. Continuous service in the McClintic-Marshall Corporation prior to acquisition by Bethlehem will be credited to employees in de- termining future pensions. Saving and Stock Ownership Plan, in which the large majority of our force is now participating, to help employees to save sys- tematically a part of their earnings through pay-roll deductions and at the same time, acquire the preferred stock of the parent Corporation upon very favorable terms. The major details of these plans are given in the following pages. It is a satisfaction that the development of McClintic-Marshall' under its new strengthening affiliations, operating as part of one of the major corporations of the country, includes these imme- diate benefits to our working force. The plans not only establish a continuous meeting ground for management and men to work out problems and programs of mutual interest, but likewise give added financial protection to our employees. G. H. BLAKELEY, President. The letter makes it clear that the Plan of Employees' Representation, the Relief Plan, the Pension Plan, and the Saving and Stock Ownership Plan were policies of the Corporation.48 48 As we have seen, the McClintic Marshall Corporation thereafter merged with the- Company, which has since operated these works and participated in the Plans. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 609 The booklet entitled "Ten Years' Progress in Human Relations-A Review of Some Accomplishments under the Bethlehem Plan of Employee Representation," referred to above, is also indicative of the fact that the Plans were a policy of the Corporation. The booklet recites that it was "Distributed at 1928 annual joint conferences of employee representatives and management representatives of Bethle- hem Steel Corporation"; the paragraph in a box opposite the title page, which deals with employee-management relations, refers to the Bethle- hem Steel Corporation, not the Company; the full-page picture oppo- site the foreword is of "Eugene G. Grace, President, Bethlehem Steel Corporation"; a paragraph on page 11 under the heading "Employ- ment Policy" states "This is the policy of Bethlehem Steel Corpora- tion:"; and, most persuasive, the lists of Employees' Representatives and the pictures of the Employees' Representatives at the various plants, which appear in the booklet, are not limited to lists and pictures of Employees' Representatives at plants owned by Bethlehem Steel Company. . We have set out above the important role of the Bethlehem Reviews in matters affecting labor relations. Most of the Bethlehem Reviews are headed "A Bulletin of News for the Employees of the Subsidiary Companies of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation"; those which are not so headed are headed "A Bulletin of News for the Employees of Bethlehem Steel Corporation." Further, the Bethlehem Reviews, in their content, make more definite the fact that the Corporation concerned itself with labor relations and, in many respects, prescribed uniform labor policies for its subsidiaries. The issue for September 25, 1933, states, on page 2: Fifteen years ago Bethlehem started its Employees' Representa- tion Plan. Today the Plan is in effect in the various operation units in steel manufacturing, ship building, mining, and McClintic- Marshall. On page four of the issue of July 3, 1936, there appears the following : VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES Conferences of Management and Employees' Representatives Result in Detailed Program The vacation plan for Bethlehem employees which was an- nounced effective May 1st, for the year 1936, adds another fine activity in rounding out the comprehensive labor relations pro- gram which has been developed over the last few years under the Employees' Representation Plan. This program of vacations with pay has been under continuous consideration by employees' representatives and management since the first 1936 conferences held early in the year. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The terms of the plan are as follows : RULES PERTAINING TO VACATION FOR -EMPLOYEES, ON HOURLY, PIECE WORK OR TONNAGE RATES AT THE PLANTS OF BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY AND BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION , LTD.49 FOR THE YEAR 19 3 6 Employees at the plants of Bethlehem Steel Company and Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Ltd., on hourly, piece work or tonnage rates are entitled to a. vacation with pay during the year 1936 under conditions enumerated in these rules. The Reviews make it apparent that the Relief Plan and Pension Plan are policies of the Corporation and that the Corporation is a direct participant in these Plans. A reading of the Reviews makes it equally apparent that the Plans of Employees' Representation were considered together with and were closely bound up with the Relief and Pension Plans. The following quotations are typical. In the issue of February 20, 1935, Eugene G. Grace says : This issue of Bethlehem Review is dedicated to an appraisal of various Bethlehem employee relations policies, in the light of their operation during the past year. Most of Bethlehem's plans, such as Employees' Representation, Pension and Relief have been in effect for many years, and have achieved increased usefulness as time has gone on. Both employees and management may take a just pride in the fact that these plans have stood the practical test and this success typifies what can be accomplished by working together. In the issue of July 6, 1927, E. G. Grace says : Real progress in the relations between employer and employee is promoted by a substantial participation of the employees in the joint management of matters which directly affect their working conditions as well as in the ownership of the business. These are essential parts of the forward looking labor policy which Beth- lehem has established in cooperation with its employees. One of the most helpful results of this policy is the increasing interest of the employees in the business of the company, espe- cially in those activities which are jointly operated for their benefit and which the help us to run. se It should be noted that in Matter of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited and Industrial Union of Marine' and. Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 6, 11 N. L. R.. B. 105, the Board found that, the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of and had contributed financial and other support to the Plans of Employees' Representation at the Fore River and Boston Plants of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited. The Plans of Employees' Representation were substantially identical with the Plans of Employees' Representation at the Plants here involved. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 611 It is only logical that these activities-pensions, relief, em- ployees' representation , saving and stock ownership , home build- ing, safety, and first aid-should be the subject of an occasional report to the employees just as the corporation reports to its stock- holders at their annual meetings. Such a report is made in this Review. The opening paragraphs of the report referred to are : Annual conferences between employees and management repre- sentatives, held under the Employees Representation Plan in the various plants of the Corporation , have just been completed. This year more than ever before these conferences took on the nature of all annual report to employees just as the Corporation makes an annual report to its stockholders. Activities in which Bethlehem employees are interested were reviewed at these conferences and for the information of all em- ployees of the Corporation some of these activities are summarized in this number of the Bethlehem Review. We have referred above to the many articles by E. G . Grace, dealing, with labor relations, which appeared in the Bethlehem Reviews, and we have analyzed the effect of these articles . These articles are signed "E. G. Grace, President." In these articles Grace refers both to the Corporation and the Plans. Certainly, it cannot be said that Grace's statements were only for the Company ; rather, Grace was making these statements for Bethlehem as "an institution of business ;" for both the Corporation and the Company. We find that the Corporation , which controls the Company, must be held responsible for the activities of the Company in connection with labor relations . We find further that the Corporation has di- rectly participated in matters affecting labor relations. We therefore find that the Corporation had dominated and inter- fered with the administration of the Plans of Employees' Representa- tion at the various Plants of the Company and has contributed sup- port to them and that the Corporation has interfered with the em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. V. ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE STRIKE OF JUNE, 1937 The Cambria Plant of the Bethlehem Steel Company is located in .Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a city largely dependent for its economic existence upon the continuous operation of the mills of the Company. The population of Greater Johnstown (i. e. the city and the surround- iiag boroughs ) is approximately 125,000 persons, and that of the city proper, approximately 70,000 persons. 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In 1936, the total number of persons employed in the community was 19,222 . Of this number, 11,444 were employed by Bethlehem Steel Company. In 1936, the total figure for wages and salaries paid by the productive industries in the community was $22,681,400. $16,- 375,607, or 72.2 per.cent of this total, was paid by the Company to employees in its Cambria Plant and its coal mines in Greater Johns- town; $14,227,302 was paid by the Cambria Plant of the Bethlehem Steel Company. Part of the Cambria Plant is located in Franklin Boro, a borough adjoining Johnstown. Ninety-eight per cent of the taxes paid in Franklin Boro in 1936 were paid by the Company. It is clear that the mills of the Company were, in fact, the economic life- blood of the community. The Corporation owns all the capital stock of the Conemaugh & Black Lick Railroad Company, which operates a short line common carrier railroad in Cambria County, Pennsylvania. The railroad serves various industries, including the Cambria Plant and the Johns- town mines of the Company. A strike among the employees of the Conemaugh & Black Lick Railroad Company began on June 10, 1937. At 11 p. in. on Friday, June 11, 1937, employees of the Cambria Plant of the Bethlehem Steel Company struck: The strike was occasioned chiefly by (1) the demand of the S. W. O. C. for a signed agreement with the respondent, which was refused," and (2) the desire of the S. W. O. C. ° Cf. also the following exchange of telegrams , during the course of the strike, be- tween Phillip Murray. Chairman of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee , and officials of the Company . On June 16 , 1937, Murray sent the following telegram to Eugene Grace, president of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation : In view of failure of previous negotiations with representatives of your com- pany to reach understanding as to terms of written contract to contain joint signatures of company officials and ' officers of this committee and in view of subsequent strike situation your Cambria Works, Johnstown , Pennsylvania, we propose as settlement this entire controversy an election by secret ballot to he conducted under supervision National Labor Relations Board to determine whether majority your employees eligible for membership in union desire to designate this committee and its representatives as their exclusive agents for collective bar- gaining purposes in accordance with provisions National Labor Relations Act. If such vote is conducted and a majority of employees indicated designate unions as their collective bargaining representatives you to agree to written signed contract embodying terms mutually agreed upon in joint conference. The reply, sent the same day, was as follows : Your telegram of todays date to Eugene Grace has been referred to me because I have charge of labor relations matters here at the Cambria plant and have had and now have authority to, act on such matters at this plant. As you indicate in your telegram the question upon which I have not been able to agree with your representatives is whether we should make a signed agreement with your committee . In our conferences with your representatives we have given full consideration to all arguments presented by them regarding that subject but we have not been convinced that a signed agreement will be of advan- tage to our employees, the community or the company. The purpose of an election under the Labor Act is to determine representatives of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining . We call to your attention the fact that we have never refused to meet to bargain with representatives of your committee on behalf of those of our employees whom it represents and we BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 613 to support the strike among the employees of the Conemaugh & Black Lick Railroad. Shortly after the beginning of the strike at the steel plant the Citizens' Committee of Johnstown came into being. The Citizens' Committee had no formal organizational structure. Its activities were directed mainly by Lawrence Campbell, its secre- tary, Francis C. Martin, its chairman, and'the Reverend Mr. Stanton. Martin was vice president and cashier of the United States National Bank in Johnstown and was president of the Chamber of Com- merce. Campbell was managing director of the Chamber of Com- merce; Campbell was "loaned out" by Martin to do Citizens' Com- mittee work. The Reverend Mr. Stanton was a pastor of the West- mont Presbyterian Church. Carl Geis, a member of the executive committee of the Chamber of Commerce and a retail furniture merchant, Samuel H. Heckman, president and general manager of the Penn Traffic Store, a large department store in Johnstown, and George Fiig, who was in the retail clothing business, together with Martin and Campbell, constituted the executive committee of the O Citizens' Committee during the first phase of its activities. The Citizens' Committee had its inception at a meeting, arranged by Stanton, which was held in the Fort Stanwix Hotel in Johns- town on Sunday, June 13. Stanton, Fiig, Geis, Martin, Heckman, and some others were present. On Monday, June 14, 1937, Mayor Daniel J. Shields of Johnstown issued a proclamation relating to the strike, which appeared in that morning's issue of the Johnstown Democrat, a local newspaper. The opening paragraphs of the proclamation are as follows : Because of the existence of a major labor disturbance in the industry which is the backbone of our community, it becomes necessary for me to present to you facts which may arouse you to your proper sense of responsibility. shall continue to meet .your representatives and discuss or negotiate with them on any subject relating to wages, hours or other conditions of employment or any other subject pertaining to employment. Your action in calling a strike at this plant is not based on any claim that the terms of employment are unsatisfactory but rather for the purpose of forcing our employees to join your union and pay for a chance to work. We cannot legally and we will not knowingly be a party to the coercing and intimidating of our employees as your telegram in effect asks us to do. Your determination to coerce and intimidate our employees is clearly, shown by the lawless methods employed by your committee here at Johnstown . Our employes want to work but your organization has sought in every way to prevent them from doing so. Your armed pickets have ruthlessly attacked our employees who have at great personal peril continued at work. Your pickets have intimidated our employees and their families and have brought disorder and anarchy into a peaceful city and have disrupted the normal life of the entire community. (Signed ) S. D. EVANS, Management's Representative, Cambria Plant, Bethlehem Steel Co. 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A number of men not residents of our community-have been here for some months representing certain labor organizations. They have seen fit to call a cessation in our principal steel manu- facturing plant. Because of this discontinuance, certain dis- turbances have taken place which so far have been of a mini- mum character. In my official capacity as mayor'I feel justified in warning you that trouble of a serious character appears inevitable. I took the oath of office to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania. Particularly does that oath make binding upon me to protect your lives, homes- and properties against all foreign enemies. On Monday evening, June 14, 1937, a meeting, arranged by Stanton and Lawrence Campbell, was held at the Elks Club in Johnstown. The meeting was attended by about 60 or 70 persons, among whom were Mayor Shields, Stanton, Martin, Heckman, and H. G. Andrews, editorial director of the Johnstown Democrat. Stanton opened the meeting, stating that he endorsed the procla- mation of the Mayor, that his heart went out to the men who wanted to work and were being deprived of that right, and that it was neces- sary to back up the Mayor and preserve the right to work. Mayor Shields spoke of the splendid conditions under which the `.men had been working and stated that 90 per cent of the men .wanted to work. He said further that the police department was unable to control the situation and that the strike was influenced from without. Heckman, in his speech, said that, because of the flood,51 the strike was untimely, that the men were demonstrating that they wanted to work, and that the group present should protect them in that right. Heckman also said that David Watkins, subregional director of the S. W. O. C. in charge of the strike, had stated, when asked to control- the violence, that he could not do so. H. G. Andrews asserted that the strike was really not against the Bethlehem Steel Company but was against the community; Andrews said' that since the Cambria Plant was the only one of the Company's Plants at which the S. W. O. C. had called the strike, the S. W. O. C. was harming the city of Johnstown and not the Bethlehem Steel Company. Sidney D. Evans, Management's Special Representative at the Cambria Plant, attended the'meeting and was called upon to speak. He said that Bethlehem had decided to keep the plant open during the strike because of its responsibility to those of its employees who wanted to work and because it was fairer to the city of Johnstown 51Referring to a disastrous flood in Johnstown in 1936. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 615 since the shutting down of the Plant would have such a great eco- nomic effect on the city. At this meeting, Martin was elected chairman of the Citizens' Committee. Evans did not participate in the election of Martin. When the other persons present signed their names to a paper that was passed around, Evans refrained from doing so, according to his testimony, because I felt at that tinge, I still feel, for that matter, that if this committee or group was to carry on toward its objective, as I understood it, as being the support of law and order, or the support of those who were responsible for seeing that law and order was maintained, that it would be much better that no representative of the company be considered a part of that organization so that they could carry on their work impartially without taking sides in the situation in any way, shape or form, so for that reason I felt that it was not proper for me to sign the sheet and I also felt that I was there more in the nature of in observer than anything else. It can be seen that two themes predominated in the speeches made at the Elks Club-first, that "outsiders" were responsible for the strike; second, that it was unfair for the S. W. O. C! to have called the strike in Johnstown because of the hardship to a community just recovering from a flood, and because of the fact that the strike had not been called at the other Bethlehem plants. These themes were prominent in apress release, issued by. Evans, which appeared in the Johnstown Democrat the next morning, Tuesday, June 15.52 On Tuesday, June 15, Campbell suggested to Martin that the Citi- zens' Committee publish an advertisement in the newspaper. Martin approved, and all advertisement was prepared by Campbell and 5a S. D. Evans announced : The plant is continuing to operate in all departments . Employees want to work and given proper protection going to and from their jobs, there should be no difficulties . This is the responsibilty of every citizen in the community. The public authorities have given assurance that the employees will be protected persisting in their right to work . The citizens in general are rallying to their support and we have been assured by various groups of citizens that the efforts of outsiders to force a shut-down will be repelled by a united effort. There was some disorder on the turn last night but conditions are much improved this morning . Work was interrupted in only one division of a depart- ment . In some departments we have more men today than at any time since the strike started. The classes of material made here include wire products , plates, bars, cars, wheels and axles. The continued operation of the plant is essential to the welfare of Johnstown and its people as all products of this plant are in com- petition with mills elsewhere , many of which are located near to the market. Johnstown 's industries and industrial population have been enjoying prosperity for the first time in seven years . They are just recovering from the losses°of the 1936-flood and . industrial peace is.essential to• business, ,•revival. To insure the need is simply the preservation of law and order. 1901)35-40-vol. 14--40 ,616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Corbin, an assistant of Heckman's who is in charge of advertising for the Penn Traffic Company . The advertisement appeared on a full page of the Johnstown Democrat of Wednesday, June 16. It reads as follows : WE WILL PRESERVE LAW AND ORDER ! It is the Constitutional Right of every man to work if he so desires and if there is work for him. Constitutional Rights are being violated-ignored-in the pres- ent crisis existing between the Bethlehem Steel Company and the striking unionists. Peaceful picketing was promised by strikers-it has not been carried out ! Law -and Order was promised by strikers-it has not, been carried out! There was to be no intimidation-it has not been carried out ! Peaceful home life has been threatened. The lives of mothers, wives, sisters, and children of men who want to work, have been imperiled. These acts, these threats, these coercive measures are unlawful. Individual rights have been thrown aside. This must go no further ! THE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE IS RISING TO MEET THE SITUATION. Members of the Citizens' Committee of Johnstown are pledged to take necessary action in case regularly elected peace authorities need help in maintaining Law and Order. The Citizens' Committee is rising to meet the situation. The authority of the law must be restored and the Citizens' Com- mittee means to see that it is! JOHNSTOWN IS OUR CITY! JOHNSTOWN IS OUR HOME! JOHNSTOWN IS OUR GREATEST INTEREST ! WILL YOU ALLOW OUT- SIDERS TO COME IN AND DESTROY IT? CITIZENS' COMMITTEE OF JOHNSTOWN. Martin appointed Heckman, Geis, and Fiig to serve with Campbell 'and himself as the Executive Committee of the Citizens' Committee. ,On Wednesday morning, June 16, the Executive Committee had its first meeting, for the purpose of organizing and of discussing what its function should be. The Executive Committee telephoned Evans and :asked him to attend and give the Committee information about opera- tions at the Plant. When Evans told C. R. Ellicott, general manager .of the Cambria Plant, of this call, Ellicott authorized Evans to make an offer at that meeting of a $25,000 contribution from Bethlehem 'Steel Company to the Citizens' Committee. Evans went to the meet- ing about ten or fifteen minutes after he had received the telephone call. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 617 At the meeting, Evans said, in substance, that he had seen the adver- tisement of that morning, expressing the Committee's objective as the maintenance of law and order, that the failure of the S. W. O. C. to persuade men to stay away from the Plant had been followed by con- siderable violence, and that the Company felt that it might be neces- sary for the Committee to have some money. Evans then offered to contribute up to $25,000 to the Citizens' Committee. On the same day, Martin met Mayor Shields on the street and told him that if he needed any money, the Citizens' Committee had some available. At 7 that evening, Mayor Shields gave a speech over Station WJAC, the Johnstown radio station, in which he assailed the strikers. The speech is quoted below : My fellow citizens : You have heard my voice over this station on numerous occasions during the flood. I appealed to you to have faith in the future, and Johnstown would come back. My efforts were not in vain, and the result is that today our city is known as "The Miracle City," and properly so. People of Johnstown proved their ability to meet and handle situations, and at this time our community is called upon to handle even a more serious problem than the one we faced on March 17, 1936. On that day the hand of God was laid heavily upon us, and as a result, our homes in many instances suffered. All that was necessary at that time was to rely on our Christian Spirit and have faith in Him who does all things for the best. At no time has the Christian Spirit ever failed us and with shoulder to shoulder, we will march on and pass through the crisis which at the present time confronts us. We were fearful when the deluge hit us last year, but today we are courageous, because the mere hand of man is the only obstacle we have to remove, and this will be done. Some months ago a gentleman came to our community and as a result of his presence, many homes are sad today, and these homes will continue in that gloom until we rise up and do the things that all red-blooded Americans should do. Coercion, threat and intimidation will never deter us from the course we have chosen. It is only a fair statement to make that communism and anarchy are in evidence in our city today. Dis- respect for law and order and disregard for the rights of others is in evidence on all sides. Bullies, hoodlums, yes, cowards, who travel in the darkness of the night are operating in our city at the present time. Threats are being made against defenseless women and children. Law,abiding citizens are being beaten on our streets. Men desiring to work have had their clothes taken from them and forced to stand naked in the principal streets 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of our community. Such is the work of the invaders who now have.the audacity to conceal themselves in our city. As your mayor, I pledge my life to protect you citizens. As your mayor, I guarantee you the right to go to your work without molesta- tion; to return to your homes unaccosted and to enjoy that se- curity that rightfully belongs to every citizen. The time has not arrived when we red-blooded Americans are going to permit ourselves to be regimented. The time has not arrived when we will stand idly by and tolerate the invasion of our homes. And as good citizens of this country, we will not permit our fellow- man to be set upon on the public highway and for no good reason assaulted. Law and order must prevail. Months ago I had the assurance of Mr. Dave Watkins, the man who is the recognized. local head of the present labor disturbance, that Johnstown would never be made a victim. "Mr. Watkins, you have failed to keep your promise, and not only have you violated this promise, but you have shown utter disregard for all the promises you have made." Mr. Jones and Mr. VaiZandt, members of the Brotherhood, came to my office and made a formal complaint that Bethlehem Steel was operating locomotives with colored men; colored men used as strike breakers. That accusation was. made last Saturday afternoon and those gentlemen guaranteed me to produce evidence to sustain their charges, but up to the present time, they have been unable to even approach anything that might be accepted as proof of their statements. Fellow- citizens, it is not in haste that I come before you with this appeal. For months I have watched the activities in our community which today throws many of our citizens into idleness. But I am happy at this time to state that this idleness is now ended- A minority shall not hamper a majority. As your mayor, I ani thoroughly convinced that the majority of our citizens want to work and are opposed to the dictation of outsiders. Were Johnstown not invaded by undesirables, peace would reign at this time. I boast of fifty years residence in this town and at no time during those fifty years have I ever. observed an occasion when it seemed necessary for outsiders to enter our midst under the disguise of helping us. My friends, remember the old adage,. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Now we have the proverbial Greeks with us at this time. My, conclusion is that we do, but fellow-citizens, allow me at this time to guarantee you protection against all enemies of society. Let- me assure you that we have the local situation under perfect'con- trol. With 200 state troopers and several hundred special police-- men in addition to our regular police force, and with nme available- BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 619 24 hours a day, no harm can befall you. From this moment on a "Back to Work Movement" will gain momentum. You wives, mothers and sisters of our steel workers, fear not. Idle threats are being made, by the cowards, but let me assure you that I, as your mayor, am in a position to crush the lawless, the communist, the anarchist and preserve and protect the homes of you good citizens. Please have faith in me; please dispel any fear you may have had because the undesirable has been routed and law and order now prevail. The Citizens' Committee published another full-page advertisement in the Johnstown Democrat of Thursday, June 17.53 That evening the Citizens' Committee held a mass meeting in the auditorium of Central High School which was attended by about 1,000 persons. Mayor Shields, United States Congressman Clare Hoffman of Michigan, and if G. Andrews spoke. Mayor Shields opened his speech by stating that the strike was over. Congressman Hoffman devoted most of his address to Communism and the C. I. O. H. G. Andrews virtually repeated the speech he had given at the Elks Club on Monday evening. He also stated that the strike had not been pre- cipitated by the better elements of the steel workers but by a minority of agitators, and that persons had been brought in from the outside to make it an effective strike. On Thursday morning, June 17, Fulton I. Connor, a city council- man, who had been selected as treasurer of the Citizens' Committee, telephoned Martin and stated that the Mayor needed $10,000. Martin then called Evans, who said that the money would be available. Mar- tin and Connor went together to Evans' office shortly after noon and received the money, which was wrapped in brown-paper packages.54 The two men then took the money to the bank, rented a safety deposit box and placed the money inside. At 2 p. m. Connor returned to the bank, told Martin that the Mayor needed the money, and took it from the safety deposit box. Martin never asked the Mayor whether he had received the money. He testified that he assumed Connor gave the money to the Mayor. The next day, Friday, June 18, Connor telephoned Martin again and said that the Mayor needed $15,000 more. Martin called Evans and 53 The advertisement is set out in full in Appendix D. 51 They gave Evans a receipt , written in ink on a blank piece of white paper. The receipt was as follows : Received of S. D. Evans Ten Thousand Dollars. JOHNSTOWN, PA., June 17, 1937. F. C. MARTIN. FULTON I. CONNOR. Martin testified that the several packages were wrapped in one package. 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS BOARD arranged to send Morrison J. Lewis, the assistant cashier of the United States National Bank, for the money. Lewis received the money, which was wrapped in a brown-paper package , from Evans and carried it to Shields. A few days later, Evans came ' into Martin's bank and got a. receipt from Martin and Connor. The receipt, written in pencil on a blank piece of white paper , was as follows: JOHNSTOWN, PA., June 18, 1937. Recd $15,000 cash from Sidney Evans F. C. M. FuLTON I. CONNOR. Other money transactions of a similar nature took place on July 9' and July 28, 1937. On July 9, 1937, Connor 56 called Martin on the. telephone and told him that the Mayor needed $5,621.25. Martin called Evans, and asked whether the Company would be willing to. furnish the additional amount, even though it had already given $25,000, the amount it had promised in its original offer of contribu- tion. Evans agreed to give this money, and Owen Griffith, a teller in the United States National Bank got the money, wrapped in a brown-paper package, from Evans and delivered it to Shields. On July 28, 1937, Mayor Shields called Martin and stated that he needed an additional amount of about $1,457. Martin called Evans, and said that the Citizens' Committee needed an additional $1,457 to. close their accounts. Evans agreed to give the money; Martin per- sonally went to Evans' office, received the money, and then turned it over to Mayor Shields. These four transactions were not discussed with any of the other members of the executive committee of the Citizens' Committee prior to the time Martin testified at the Board hearing, and, in fact, Martin did not discuss these transactions with any persons other than Mayor Shields, Sidney Evans, and Fulton I. Connor. No accounting was ever made to the Citizens' Committee by the persons who received the moneys. Martin testified that this was because : A. Well, principally for the reason that the-we had faith in each other, that the thing would be handled correctly. The money wasn't in the hands of the treasurer, in so far as I know,. any length of time. He got it as he needed it, and as I assumed,, turned it over to the Mayor. ss At this time, Connor was no longer treasurer of the Citizens' Committee . Martin testified that Connor was treasurer for only a week. Connor never gave a statement or accounting to the Citizens ' Committee of the funds he had received. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 621 On another, occasion ,. C. R. Ellicott turned over $4,372 directly to Mayor Shields. Ellicott's testimony on that transaction is as follows : Q. (By Mr. S1IAwE) Mr. Ellicott, how long have you known Mayc;r Shields- .-approximately, of course? A. I have , known Mayor Shields approximately six years. Q. Did: you have any conversations or conferences with Mayor Shields during the months of June and July, 1937? A. Yes. Q. Did you personally deliver to Mayor Shields $4,372 in cash, on or about July 22, 1937? A. Yes. Q. Was this $4,372 drawn from the funds of the Bethlehem, Steel Company? A. Yes. Q. Prior to the delivery of the money to Mayor Shields, did you have a conversation with Mayor Shields in his office on the same day, July 22nd? A. Yes. Q. Will you please tell us what was said on that occasion by you and by the Mayor? A. On this day, July 22, I was in the Mayor's office, and I have no idea of what we were talking about . About that time there were discussions on flood control , and that may or may not have been the subject. I sat opposite Mayor Shields, and when I was about ready to move out of his office, or leave his office, the Mayor opened the drawer to his desk and pulled out a file of papers , saying that "I have a number of bills here that must be paid." I then made some comment to the Mayor , no doubt of this kind, that I suggest that you call Mr . Martin, chairman of the Citizens' Committee, he surely must have funds available for that payment. I left the office right after that statement. I left the Mayor's office and returned to my office. I had only been in my office a few minutes when my secretary told me that Mayor Shields wished to speak to me on the telephone. In answering the telephone, the Mayor told me that he had tried to reach Mr. Martin , and that he had been told that Mr. Martin had left town and would not be back for a period of ten days. The Mayor then said that being unable to reach Mr. Martin which meant that he was unable to secure the necessary funds, which placed him in an embarrassing position. 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I then told the Mayor that I would see what I could do about it. I did considerable thinking after that, and I reviewed in my mind what had transpired since the steel strike on June 11th. I was thinking of the excitement that we all experienced during the strike. I was thinking about the troubles we experienced during martial law, and also thought of the men being thrown out of work due to the dynamiting of the pipe lines, and I con- cluded that if the cleaning up of these bills would put us back to normal, that I was going to secure the amount required, and give it to the Mayor. I called Mr. S. D. Evans and told Mr. Evans that I would like to have some strike money to the extent of $4,372. Mr. Evans then presented me with a cash advance slip which I signed, and he then signed, and he left the office. A short time later Mr. Evans returned and delivered me an envelope-no notations on it-and he then told me that the envelope contained the money that I had specified. It was some time later that afternoon when I was either going out into the mill, or returning from the mill, I stopped at the Mayor's office and found the Mayor sitting at his desk, walked in, laid the envelope on his desk and then I said to the Mayor, "I told you at noon on the telephone that I would see what I could do, and that is what I done." I don't.recall whether the Mayor made any comment. I im- mediately left his office. That is all I know about it. On Saturday, June 19, 1937, Governor Earle issued a proclamation of martial law and ordered that the mills be closed. The Citizens' Committee then devoted its efforts to having the Governor reopen the mills by revoking the proclamation of martial law. To this end, the Citizens' Committee sponsored radio programs and published full- page statements in a large number of newspapers. This phase of the Committee's activities involved the employment of The John Price Jones Corporation and Thornley and Jones, Inc., of New York City, and Ketchum, MacLeod & Grove, and Ketchum, Inc., of Pittsburgh, publicity and public relations firms, to prepare advertising copy for newspapers and radio speeches for the active members of the Citizens' Committee. On Friday, June 25, 1937, the Governor ended the state of martial law. The Trial Examiner, after hearing many of the respondents' wit- nesses, found that violence and disorder did occur during the strike, and he thereafter precluded the respondents from adducing further testimony as to the violence. We find that the existence of violence and the apprehension of violence induced by newspaper reports of BETHLEHEM 'STEEL CORPORATION 623 violence in strikes at other steel plants were two of the factors leading to the formation of the Citizens' Committee. We do not find that the respondents induced or participated in the formation of the Citizens' Committee. It is evident from the foregoing account of the activities of the Cit- izens' Committee that its prime function was that of vilifying the union organization and engendering public hostility and opposition to the strikers. The Citizens' Committee considered that it could best achieve its objectives by directing its attack against the union organization and by ending the strike as soon as possible. This was perhaps most pungently expressed by H. G. Andrews on February 24, 1939, months after the Citizens' Committee had been active, in "The Round Table," a column appearing on the editorial page of the Johnstown Democrat. The column states, inter alia: There hasn't been very much testimony concerning the fact the Citizens Committee was organized for the purpose of break- ing the strike and for no other purpose. Bethlehem's Mr.. Evans was never under any misapprehension as to the actual purposes for which the committee was formed. That there were at least some members of the committee who knew what they were about must be taken for granted. The job on hand, from the Citizens' Committee standpoint, was the breaking of the strike and the resumption of work in the mills. The academic members of the committee did the talking about the constitutional right of men to work. However, that right..didn't amount to two whoops in Hades unless the strike was broken. The Citizens' Committee made no appeal for funds other than at the mass meeting of.Thursday, June 17, and through a newspaper ad- vertisement, under the heading "We Protest," which appeared nation- ally on Thursday, June 24. Yet prior to the first appeal for funds, and at a time when the Executive Committee of the Citizens' Com- mittee was still considering what its function should be, Bethlehem Steel Company offered to contribute the sum of $25,000. The Com- pany was thus implementing and strengthening an agency which was seeking to defeat the efforts of the union organization and to destroy that organization by creating hostility toward it. This was not a straightforward attempt by the Company to present its case to the public. It was an attempt by the Company to cloak it.s attack upon the S. W. 0. C. by making it appear that the attack came solely from the Citizens' Committee, ostensibly a group of im- partial citizens interested in maintaining law and order. Evans, in testifying as to his reasons for not signing the paper at the Elks Club, indicated the necessity for impartiality by the Citizens' Committee. His subsequent activities, however, show a complete abandonment of 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that position ; the Company tried to utilize the apparent impartiality of the Citizens' Committee as a means of interfering with the self- organization and concerted activities of its employees. The course of activity followed by the Company was in contravention of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Evans testified that he did not know that the money which the Company gave to the Citizens' Committee was being turned over to Mayor Shields. Martin testified that he did not recall telling Evans that the money requested on the various occasions was to be given to the Mayor.56 However, the surreptitious character of the transactions, the fact that no accounting was ever made, -and the fact that no one was told of the payment of the monies convinces us that Evans knew that the money was for the Mayor and that Mayor Shields was aware of the source of the money. We so find. The Company was, by this use of the Citizens' Committee, indirectly giving $32,078.25 to.Mayor Shields. The statements made by Mayor Shields indicate that his conception of the best way to handle the strike situation was to create hostility to the strikers, encourage a back-to-work movement, and defeat the S. W. 0. C. In providing the money which was turned over to the Mayor, and in directly turning over a sum of money to the Mayor, the Company was following a, program calculated to insure the con- tinuance of this attitude; the Company was thus, in the most effective manner, interfering with the organization of its striking employees. In a situation in which impartiality by the city administration was essential to a proper preservation of the rights of the Company on the one hand and the union on the other, the Company was, by the pay- lnent of the money, engaging in a course of conduct which necessarily affected that impartiality. 57 Such action by the Company was in contravention of Section 8 (1) of the Act. We find that the Company, by making the payments described above, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. We w With respect to the first transaction of $10,000, Martin at first testified that he told Evans the Mayor needed $10,000 . He changdd his testimony on cross-examination. m The Company urges that its activities during the strike should be considered in the light of the situation then prevailing. In its brief before the Board, at page 36, the Company describes that situation , in part, as follows : The Police Department of the City of Johnstown did not have sufficient man- power or equipment properly to police the city even under normal conditions, and it was hopelessly incapable of meeting the emergency which then arose (e. g. Tr. 1251-2. 3042-3, 9930-1). The Sheriff of Cambria County and the police of Franklin Borough not only were unable to control the situation as it developed, but they appeared actually indifferent to the prevailing lawlessness ' (e. g. Tr. 10776-8, 10997-9, 11023-7, 11242, 11252-5, 11284-6, 11295-7). The Pennsyl- vania State Police, until about the fourth day of the strike, were under instruc- tions not to interfere with the conduct of the strikers or their sympathizers (e. g. Tr. 10117, 10421, 10576. 12634-6, 13560, 14231). BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 625 have ' found that the Corporation must be held responsible for the activities of the Company in connection with labor relations. We therefore find that the Corporation has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed-by Section7 of the Act. Apparently, the Company, finding the actions of the authorities of the State of Pennsylvania, the authorities of Cambria County, and the authorities of Franklin Boro insufficient for its purposes, believed itself justified in supporting and implementing the Citizens' Com- mittee. and Mayor Shields in the manner described above. But the Company cannot justify unlawful conduct on the assump- tion that such conduct was made proper because the Company thought that there had been a failure on the part of the State of Pennsylvania, Cambria County, and Franklin Boro to perform their proper func- tion. In this connection, it is significant to note Evans' statements at a conference held between Evans and Ralph Bashore, Secretary of the Department of Labor and Industry of Pennsylvania, and other representatives of that Department, on Friday, June 18,'the day on which Evans had given $15,000 to the Citizens' Committee, and the day after he had given $10,000. Evans was asked whether he thought there was enough police protection. He replied that as long as there was violence there was not enough police protection. He was then asked by these representatives of the State whether the Company was requesting additional police protection. , Evans replied that this was not a matter for the Company to request and that the matter of police protection was entirely in, the hands of the law enforcement agencies. Further, the record does not reveal impropriety in the actions of officials of the State of Pennsylvania, Cambria County, or Franklin Boro: V L THE RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYMENT OF PINKERTON'S NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. Bethlehem Steel Company utilized the services of Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., in 1935 and 1936, and in 1937, until it terminated the employment of the detective agency on March 31, 1937. Records of the Pinkerton Agency reveal that bills for these services were made out on plain paper, with Francis Dykes; the em- ployee of the Company who arranged for the services, appearing as debtor, and G. G. Hunt, an employee of the Pinkerton Agency, appearing as creditor.SS as In 1935, the Company paid $2,845 .37 to the Agency for services and expenses. These services were rendered at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania . In 1936, the Company paid $16,022 . 66 to the Agency for services and expenses . Of this amount , $1,506.93 was for 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Robert A. Pinkerton., president, of the Agency, testified ,that the type of services rendered was an investigation around certain plants' and the towns in which the plants were located "to determine whether there were any indications of violence or damage being done or contemplated to either persons or property of the company." The services of the Agency were discontinued in the fall of 1935, but the Agency was reengaged on June 27, 1936. Stanley Lee Stiles, a divi- sion manager of the Agency, testified that at a conference with Dykes and George Vary, another representative of the Company, on that day, Dykes stated that the Company desired to engage the services of the Agency to protect the plants and the lives of the employees against violence from outside communists and labor racketeers, whom Dykes defined as "people that get control of legitimate labor organ- izations and shake down the employer and the employee too," and from unlawful acts-by any agency. Various journal sheets of the Pinkerton Agency, which describe the services rendered, use similar language. Thus, the journal sheet dated July 3, 1936, states : Remarks: Old client, financially responsible. Not confirmed. Bills on plain paper. PHILA., July 3rd, 1936. On Saturday, June 27th, Asst. Genl. Mgr. Dudley and the Div. Mgr. conferred with our client in Bethlehem. Client stated that they have received information that radi- cals and other outside ' disturbers have been sent to Buffalo to annoy, harass, and disturb their employees. They desire us to, investigate these different characters as they desire to protect their employees. They expect us to keep them posted up to the minute on events and conditions as they occur from day to day. The journal sheet dated July 10, 1936, states : Remarks : Reports delivered through Phila. office. Bills on plain paper, Francis Dykes, Dr. to G. G. Hunt, Cr. PHILADELPHIA, July 10, 1936. Our client is interested in general conditions in Baltimore; i. e.,, activities of Communists, other radicals and outside dis- turbers who may come to Baltimore to annoy and disturb their loyal employees. Client authorizes us to keep them advised along this line. services and expenses at Sparrows Point, $4 ,293.35 for services and expenses at Lacka- wanna, $4,431 .39 for services and expenses at Bethlehem , $1,082 .49 for services and expenses at Baltimore, $37.51 for services and expenses at Philadelphia , and $1 ,107.06 for services and expenses at other towns. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 627 The journal sheet dated June 29, 1936, states : Remarks : Old client, financially responsible. Not confirmed. Bills on plain paper-"Francis Dykes debtor to G. G. Hunt." PHILA., June 29th, 1936. On Saturday, June 27th, Asst. Gen'l Mgr. Dudley and the Division Manager went to Bethlehem in response to a telephone call where they conferred with Mr. Francis Dykes, Manager of Public Relations and George W. Vary, Manager of Industrial Relations. This is a new job from Mr. Vary and this is the first time we ever met him. These gentlemen stated they have information that Com- munists and other radicals are creating disturbances and dis- content in Bethlehem, and they desire us to investigate the rad- ical condition there that they may take the necessary steps to protect their employees. Other quotations from the journal sheets follow : Our client desires that we establish additional contacts to determine to what extent Communists and radicals are in- fluencing their employees at Johnstown, Pa. They desire us to purchase information from some one in Johns- town on local conditions, also the activities of various men who are trying to annoy and disturb their employees in that town. Reports submitted by "correspondent D. K.," 59 to the Pinkerton Agency in connection with the work done for Bethlehem Steel Com- pany deal with union sentiment among employees. In August 1936, the Pinkerton Agency discontinued the practice of making written reports to its clients. From that time until he became ill in February 1937, Stiles had conferences with Vary of the Company once a week or once in two weeks at which he reported orally on the results of the Agency's work. The matter of progress or lack of progress of the S. W. O. C. was discussed frequently at these conferences. . It is evident that descriptions such as "communistic," "radical," or "outside disturbers," "harassing, annoying, and disturbing loyal employees" included within their scope activities of the union organi- zation. We find that the Company employed Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., for the purpose, inter alia, of obtaining information relating to union activity and organization. The respondents contend, with respect to the hiring of the detec- tive agency, that the Act in no way forbids surveillance with respect w An "operative" is a person in the regular employ of the Agency . A "correspondent' is one from whom information is purchased . The payments made to a correspondent are charged to the client as expenses. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to union activities per se. They argue that such surveillance can be, in contravention of the Act only (1) if the employees know they are under surveillance and, as a result, are intimidated into exercis- ing or refraining from exercising any of the rights guaranteed by the Act, or (2) if the employer uses the information obtained by the surveillance to do something which constitutes an unfair labor practice. The respondents then state that in this case the employees. had. no knowledge of the employment of the Agency and that the, record does not show that the respondents used the information obtained from the Agency to commit any unfair labor practice. These contentions are without merit. In our view, surveillance of union organization constitutes an interference with the employees' right to self-organization , even though there is no showing that the, specific information obtained was used in the commission of an unfair labor practice. We find that the respondents, in employing Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., for the purpose, inter alia, of obtaining infor- mation relating to union activity and organization, interfered with the, employees in their right .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 pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. VII. OTHER ALLEGED ACTS OF INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 We find that there is nothing in the record to sustain any part of the allegations in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the complaint. We will accordingly dismiss those paragraphs. We will also dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondents offered inducements to certain of their employees not to join or assist the union; conducted a so-called "back-to-work" move- ment of their employees in a manner to interfere with, restrain, and coerce their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; caused the streets of Johnstown and surrounding communities to be patrolled by armed men for the purpose of inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing their employees; interfered with peaceful picketing by their striking employees; caused union members and organizers to be unjustly arrested, detained, and sentenced; and caused union members to be brutally attacked and beaten in its Johns- town plant. VIII. THE EFFECT. OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondents, set forth in Sections III, V, and VI, above, occurring in connection with the operations of . BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 629 the Company, described in Section I above, and the operations of the Corporation, described in Section IV 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. IX. TIIE REMEDY Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondents have dominated and interfered with the administration of the Plans and have contributed support thereto. From the foregoing discussion it is manifest that the con- tinued existence of the Plans would operate to prevent the free exer- cise by employees of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining. In this connection, the reasoning of the Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., is peculiarly applicable here. In that case, Mr. Justice Stone said : ... a mere order to cease the unfair labor practices "would not set free the employee's impulse to seek the organization which would most effectively represent him"; that continued recognition of the Drivers' Association would provide respondent "with a device by which its power may now be made effective unobtru sively, almost without further action on its part. Even though he. would not have freely chosen "the Association" as an initial propo- sition, the employee, once having chosen, may by force of a timor- ous habit be held firm to his choice. The employees must be- released from these compulsions.60 Accordingly, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, to restore to the employees the full measure of their rights guaranteed under the. Act, and to free them from the domination and interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute' a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we will order- the respondents to withdraw all recognition from the Plans as repre- sentatives of the employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond- ents concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours. of employment, or conditions of work, and to disestablish them as such representatives. 60 National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 272, 275. Cf.. also Consolidated Edison Co., Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board,- 305 U. S. 197, at 236 (1038), where the Court said: The continued existence of a company union established by unfair labor practices or of a union dominated by the employer is a consequence of a violation of the- Act whose continuance thwarts the purposes of the Act and renders ineffectual_ any order restraining the unfair labor practices. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Reference has been made in this Decision to the Relief Plan, the Pension Plan, and the Saving and Stock Ownership Plan. Our order disestablishing the Plans of Employees' Representation as collective bargaining representatives is not intended to interfere with any such activities, provided that they are divorced from functioning in connec- tion with any labor organization and are continued without discrimi- nation against or in favor of any labor organization.61 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Steel Workers Organizing Committee and the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers-of North America are labor ,organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The 'Plans of Employees' Representation at the Cambria Plant, the Lackawanna Plant, the Lebanon Plant, the Steelton Plant, the Maryland Plant, the Bethlehem Plant, the Concentrator Plant, the Rankin Works, the Leetsdale Works No. 1, and the Leetsdale Works No. 2 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By dominating and interfering with the administration of the aforesaid Plans of Employees ' Representation and by contributing support thereto, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in -unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in ,the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing 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 re- spondents, Bethlehem Steel Company and Bethlehem Steel Corpora- tion, and each of t}lem, and their officers, agents, successors, and assigs, shall: al Cf. report of Senate Committee on Education and Labor (Report No. 573) on Senate -Bill 1958 , 74th Congress, 1st Session (enacted as the National Labor Relations Act). "Nor does anything in the. bill interfere with the freedom of employers to establish pension benefits, outing clubs, recreational societies, and the like, so long ' as such .organizations do not extend their functions to the field of collective bargaining, and so long as they are not used as a covert means of discriminating against or in favor of membership in any labor organization." Cf. Matter of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corpora- tion, Limited and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding il'orl ers of America, Local No. 5, 11 N. L. R. S. i05. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 631 1. Cease and desist from : ( a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Plans of Employees' Representation at the Cambria Plant, the Lackawanna Plant, the Lebanon Plant, the Steelton Plant, the Maryland Plant, the Bethlehem Plant, the Concentrator Plant, the Rankin 'Works, the -Leetsdale Works No. 1, and the Leetsdale Works No. 2, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of the employees, and from contributing support to the said Plans. of Em- ployees' Representation or to any other labor organization of the employees ; - (b) Recognizing the said Plans of Employees' Representation as the representatives of any of the employees for the purposes of dealing .`with. the, respondents concerning grievances ,, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of work; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through 11 representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the, Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from the Plans of Employees' Rep- resentation at the Cambria Plant, the Lackawanna Plant; the Lebanon Plant, the Steelton Plant, the Maryland Plant, the Bethlehem Plant, the Concentrator Plant, the Rankin Works, the Leetsdale Works .No. 1, and the Leetsdale Works No. 2 as the representatives of any of the employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents. concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and completely disestablish the said Plans as such representatives; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in each department of the Cambria Plant, the Lackawanna Plant, the Lebanon Plant, the Steelton Plant, the Maryland Plant, the Bethlehem Plant, the Concentrator . Plant, the Rankin Works, the Leetsdale Works No. 1, and the Leetsdale Works No. 2 notices stating ( 1) that the respond- ents will cease and desist as aforesaid , and (2) A hat the respondents withdraw all recognition from the Plans of Employees ' Representa- tion at the Cambria Plant, the Lackawanna Plant, the Lebanon Plant, the Steelton Plant, the Maryland Plant, the Bethlehem Plant, the Concentrator Plant, the Rankin Works, the Leetsdale Works No. 1, and the Leetsdale Works No. 2 , as the representatives of any of the employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concern- ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- 190935-40-vol. 14--41 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment, or conditions of work, and completely disestablish said Plans as such representatives; (c) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting; (d) Notify the National Labor Relations Board at Washington, D. C., in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraphs 12. and 14 of the com- plaint be, and they hereby are, dismissed. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations in the complaint which allege that the respondents offered inducements to certain of their employees not to join or assist the union; conducted a so-called "back-to-work" movement of their employees in a manner to inter- fere with, restrain,, and coerce their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; caused the streets of Johnstown and surrounding communities to be patrolled by armed men for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees; interfered with peaceful picketing by their striking employees; caused union members and organizers to be. unjustly arrested, detained, and sentenced; and caused -union members to be brutally attacked and beaten in its Johnstown Plant, be, and they hereby are, dismissed. APPENDIX A TABLE I.-Iron and steel producing plants of Bethlehem Steel Company., the only iron and steel producing sv.bsidiary of Bethlehem, Steel Corporation Shipments to plant in 1936 of Number of States, United States ter- ore, pig iron , cinder, scale . scrap, alloys, fluxes , and fuel ritories, and for- which originated outside of eign countries in which such ship- State in which plant is located menu originated Plant Location Approximate value at plant United Gross States ter- tons Percent of States ritories total of and for- Amount suchma- eigncoun- Serials tries received Bethlehem plant ---------- Bethlehem, Pa ---------- 927,939 $8,658,727 52 18 7 Cambria plant ------------- Johnstown, Pa., and vi- 2,553,703 15, 834, 754 70 23 5 cinity. Lebanon plant ------------ Lebanon. Pa ------------ 117,683 1,254,076 33 5 None Coatesville plant --------- Coatesville, Pa ---------- 15.420 266.353 74 . 8 None Harlan plant-------------- Wilmington, Del -------- 1.455 113.040 86 7 None Maryland plant ---------- Sparrows Point, Md----- 4,47.5.348 25,200.244 93 21 8 Lackawanna plant -------- Lackawanna, N. Y., 4,516,826 19.183, 524 83 i8 6 and Blasdell, N. Y. Steelton plant------------- Steelton and Danville, 350,764 2.346, 096 41 16 - 6 Pa. Seattle plant-------------- Seattle, Wash ----------- 62,801 816,127 49" 10 2 South San Francisco plant- South San Francisco , 8, 918 305,247 22 9 2 Calif. Los Angeles plant _ ------ Los Angeles, Calif. (Ver- 19,532 424. 774 33 8 2 non) Calif. Wire Rope plant I__:..----- Williamsport., Pa ------- 3.320 230.534 45 16 0 Wire Strand plant 1------- Sparrows Point, 1Id---- None None None None None I Title, acquired August 21, 1937, on receivership sale under orders from which an appeal is pending. Data, with reference to shipments, was obtained from records of previous owner. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 633 Number of States, Shipments in 1936 of products United States ter- Employees June to destinations outside of ritories, and for- 1, 1937 State in which plant is eign countries to located which such ship- ments were made Plant , Billed value States United Super- includ- )States, visory and All others Net tons Percent ing District. territories and clerical 2 Amount of total products of C l bi foreign t i shipped o um a coun r es Bethlehem plant--------------- 953 11, 278 563, 186 $31 , 105,573 06 I 47 46 Total-------------------- - 12,231 Cambria plant------------------ 17108 13.154 749, 205 32. 389, 633 66 48 45 Total---------------- ------- 14,262 Lebanon plant ----------- ------ 286 2,350 57,391 4, 511,688 62 44 35 Total ------------------- --------- 2,636 Coatesville plant -------------_ 42 646 5,602 620, 770 70 33 10 Total -------------------- ------- 688 Harlan plant -------------------- 33 318 837 645,074 100 5 None Total - - - - ---------------- ---------- 351 Maryland plant ._ __________ 999 17,617 1,252,509 57 , 927,518 81 47 71 Total -------------------- ---------- 18.616 Lackawanna Plant ------------- 905 10,845 1, 071', 351 37, 615, 226 77 48 43 Total----------------- ------_ 11.750 2 2 862 2 Steelton plant ------------------ 421 4,86 179, 19 , 3 6, 1 49 43 24 Total-------------------- ---------- 5,283 Seattle plant------------------- 63 745 48,116 2;162, 782 53 10 3 Total------------------ --------- 808 South San Francisco plant----- 84 968 9,231 497, 444 10 11 4 Total-------------------- ---------- 1,052 Los Angeles plant-------------- 90 694 1,775 96,973 2 9 2 Total-------------------- -- 784 Wire Rope plant--------------- 153 482 5,589 2,009, 277 83 46 • (3) Total -------------------- - 635 Wire Strand plant----_------_ 5 35 3 , 716 429,073 96 42 (8) Total ------------------ I ------- 40 2 NOTE.-These amounts are computed on the average value per ton (f. o. b. mill) for all shipments in 1936 from each plant to trade, inter-company, and inter-plant. 3 Not available. APPENDIX B [Refer to footnote 27, above] I. On May 4, 1934, the following amendments to the Bethlehem Plan were effected by vote of the Joint Committee on Rules:* 1. Article I, Section 3, was so amended to read : "Adjustments in units of representation shall be made in ac- cordance with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Rules to the Joint Committee on Rules." - 2. Article IV, Section 2, was so amended to read : "All nominations and elections shall be conducted by the em- ployees themselves, in accordance with rules and regulations pre- 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD scribed by the Committee on Rules, with only such suggestions, from the Management as may be requested by said Committee." 3.' Article IV, Section 13, was so amended to read : "Each voter shall deposit his own ballot in a. box provided for the purpose by the Committee on Rules, and the ballots shall be counted under the direction and supervision of said Committee. The candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected." 4. Article VIII, Section 2^-A, was so amended to read: "Regular meetings of the General Body of Employees' Repre- sentatives shall be held every month." From the date of inception of the Bethlehem Plan to June 1, 1924, the following amendments, inter alia, were adopted by action of the successive Joint Committees : December 20, 1922.-Article II, Section 1: Representatives shall be elected for a term of one (1) year, Beginning April 1st following election and shall be eligible for re-election. April 23, 1923.-Article IV, Section 8: There shall be three .persons nominated for every. person to be elected, Except for Departments Entitled to Elect Only One Representative, Where Five Persons Shall Be Nomiinated. August 20, 1923.-Article VIII, Section 2-A: Regular Meet- ings of the General Body of Employees' Representatives Shall Be Held Every Two Months, Beginning January 1924. II. After the date of inception of the Steelton Plan and prior to May 12, 1926, the following rules under and amendments to the Plan were adopted by vote of the Joint Committee on Rules : 1. On December 15, 1921, the following rule relating to Ar- ticle 1 of Section VII of the Steelton Plan was so adopted : "On the first Tuesday after each annual election the, Repre- sentatives shall meet for the purpose of electing from among themselves, a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Secretary and members of the General and Rules Committee." .2. On April 13, 1922, Article 5 of Section V of the Steelton Plan was so amended to read as follows : "There shall be two persons nominated for every person to be elected." 3. On May 11, 1922, Article 11 of Section V of the Steelton Plan was so amended to read as follows : "11. Those who have received the largest number of votes up to two times the number of Representatives to be elected shall be declared nominated and shall be candidates for election.'' BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 635 4. On October 12, 1922, Article 2 of Section III of the Steelton Plan was so amended to read as follows: "2. All employees who have been on the Company pay roll for a period of at least sixty days prior to the date fixed fornomi- nations shall be entitled to vote." III. After the date of its inception and prior to June 7, 1926, the Maryland Plan was amended by vote of the Joint Committee on Rules .thereunder, as follows : 1. On October 6, 1919, paragraph 1 of Section III of the Mary- land Plan was so amended to read as follows : "Any employee who has been on company's pay roll for a period of six months prior to nominations, who is 21 years of age or over and who is an American Citizen shall be qualified for nominations and election as a Representative." 2. On January 3, 1920, the Maryland Plan was so amended by inserting therein the following provisions: "Any member absenting himself from two consecutive meet- ings of,his Committee without a reasonable excuse, shall have his seat in that Committee declared vacant. "Any representative absenting himself from two consecutive meetings of the Works Committee shall be notified to appear at the next regular meeting of the Rules Committee and if a reason- able excuse cannot be given, his place shall be declared vacant." IV. After the date of its inception and prior to June 17, 1926, the following rules under and Amendments to the Lebanon Plan, inter alia, were adopted by the Joint Committee on Rules : 1. On January 6, 1919, Rules of Procedure under the Lebanon Plan, consisting of 15 Rules, were adopted. Among the rules are the following : "Rule #3. The entire body of Employees' Representatives shall be known as the `Employees' Representatives.' The sub- divisions of the entire body shall be known as the `Standing Committees.' "Rule #4. The Standing Committees' meetings shall be held once a month, beginning with the first Monday in the month, as follows : "Monday-2 to 4 P. M.-Standing Committee on Rules, Ways and Means. "Tuesday-2 to 4 P. M.-Standing Committee on Practice, Methods and Economy, Wages, Piece Work, Bonus and Tonnage Schedules. "Wednesday-2 to 4 P. M.-Standing Committee on Safety and Prevention of Accidents, Employment and Working Condi- 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions, Continuous Employment and Condition of Industry, Health and Works Sanitation. "Thursday-2 to 4 P. M.-Standing Committee on Employees Transportation, Education and Publications , Pension and Relief, Athletics and Recreation. "Friday-2 to 4 P. M.-General Standing Committee. "Rule #5. The Employees ' Representation meetings shall be held once a month, on the Thursday following the last Standing Committee meeting. "Rule #6. The time allowed each Representative for attend- ance at meetings shall be handed in by the secretary of the committee, on pink time cards to the Management 's Representa- tive for his approval and will then be sent to the Superintendent of the Department in which the representative is employed for the Superintendent's approval. "Rule #7 . The purpose of holding a regular monthly meeting of the Employees' Representatives is to hear the reports of the Chairman of the five Standing Committees on the. Standing Committees' activities during the past month. The Employees' Representatives shall not have the power to take any action on the reports of the Standing Committees." 2. On November 7, 1921, the Lebanon Rules were so amended as hereinafter in this subdivision (c) set forth , to wit : (a) Rule #6 was so amended to read as follows: "The time allowed each Representative for attendance at meetings shall be handed in by the Management 's Representative to the Time Department." (b) Rule #7 was so amended to read as follows : "The purpose of holding a regular monthly meeting of the Employees' Representatives is to hear the reports of the Chair- man of the Standing Committees on the Standing Committees' activities during the past Month . The Employees' Representa- tives shall not have the power to take any action on the Reports of the Standing Committees." V. On February 15, 1934, the Rankin, Leetsdale No. 1, and Leets- dale No. 2 Plans were amended by vote of the Joint Committee thereunder as follows : Paragraph 1 of Section I was so amended to read as follows : "Employee representation shall be by voting division which shall be based upon departments or units of the plant. There shall be one Employee Representative for each one hundred (100) employees of the plant or major fraction thereof in each voting division , with a minimum of five Employee Representa- tives under the plan, based on the average number of employees BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 637 in such division during the mouth of January preceding the annual election." VI. In the Cambria Plant the Joint Rules Committee on May 19, 1925, passed a resolution (1) that Any Representative missing two consecutive meetings of the General Body without having an excuse approved by the Joint Committee on Rules, shall be dropped from the roll and the next highest man, according to the election returns of the preceding election, be given an opportunity to serve the remainder of the elective year. (2) On July 20, 1925, the Joint Rules Committee passed a resolution that "Any Employee Representative missing two consecutive meet- ings of the General Body without having an excuse approved by the Standing Committee on Rules, shall be dropped from the roll and the next highest man, according to the election return of the preceding election, be given an opportunity 'to serve the remainder of the elective year." (3) On May 17, 1926, the Joint Rules Committee passed a resolution changing the date of the Annual Election of Repre- sentatives, by action described in the minutes as follows : "Mr. McDivitt [an Employee Representative] remarked that the matter of changing the date of the election of Employee Representatives, as suggested by Mr. Grace [President of Beth- lehem Steel Company] at the Annual Conference, May 3, was before the Committee for discussion. In the discussion of this proposed change, Mr. Bennett;. [a Management representative] made the following motion,. which was properly seconded and unanimously carried, that `The time of election of Employee Representatives be changed from October, 1926, to March, 1927, and that the 'Present Representatives serve until the next election."' (4) On May 19, 1930, the Joint Rules Committee adopted a report of the Secretary of the Committee (who was E. L. Roberts, Secretary to the Management's Representative) recom- mending the following rules of procedure for the election of officers of the General Body and members of Standing Com- mittees : "Procedure for re-organization of General Body, standing and Joint Committees. "1. The Chairman of the General Body for the preceding year shall act as temporary Chairman during the election of Secre- tary for the General Body, and the Management's Representa- 638 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hive' shall, act :as temporary' Chairman during the election. of Secretary for the Standing and Joint Committees. "2. Temporary Chairman takes charge, of the meeting and calls for nominations for the office of Secretary ; nominations are made from the floor and after proper motion has been made to close the nominations, the nominees are voted on by secret ballot and the man receiving the largest number of votes is declared elected. When only one Representative is nominated, election can be by a motion for a unanimous vote. "3. Temporary Chairman retires and the Secretary takes charge of the meeting. He calls for nominations for the office of Chairman. The same procedure is followed as in .the case of Secretary. "4. The Chairman then takes charge of the meeting and calls for nominations for the office of Vice-Chairman. The same pro- cedure is followed as in the case of Secretary. "5. The Chairman then appoints a nominating committee of five members from the General Body. This committee immedi- ately goes into session with the names of the entire membership before them and selects five members for #1, #2, #3, and #4 Committees and three members for #5 Committee (as the Chair- man and Secretary of the General Body, according to the Plan, `shall be members of #5 Committee'). The Chairman then calls for nominations from the floor, if any names are added to the list as presented by the Nominating Committee the entire list is placed before the Body for a ballot vote. The vote is tallied by the Nominating Committee and the men receiving the highest number of votes is declared elected. In case of a tie, years of service shall determine the choice. In case no names are added to the list as presented by the Nominating Committee, the elec- tion can be by a motion for a unanimous vote." (5) On February 19, 1934, the Joint Rules Committee adopted amendments of the Cambria Plan as shown in the minutes of its meeting held on that date. The minutes follow : BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY CAMBRIA PLANT Minutes of Special Meeting of No.1 Joint Committee-Rules, Etc. February 19, 1934 Meeting called to order at 3: P. M., by Chairman Clare H. Williams Roll Call: Employees' Members-Present ! H. Curtis Comrners, Russell Gibson, Donald E. Leber, Stephen J. Simkovich, Clare H. Wil- liams. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 639 Company Members-Present : G. R. Baer, E. O. Murray, D. W. O'Leary, F. E. Thompson, J. H. Wilbur-Alt. Absent : E. W. Trexler. The Chairman called on S. D. Evans, Management's Represent- ative, to state the purpose of the meeting. Mr. Evans stated that according to the Plan of Employees' Representation, No. 1 Joint Committee' is authorized to set up rules and regulations regarding the nomination and election of employees representatives. The question of procedure regarding the election itself is entirely in the hands of No. 1 Standing Committee. Mr. Evans stated that the real purpose of this special meeting was to consider any changes that might be necessary in the present plan, The first item considered by the Committee was that of the basis of representation. At the present time the Plan calls for one representative, for each three hundred (300) employees .,or major fraction thereof. It was brought out in the discussion that in some cases the basis of three hundred (300) results in a representative handling a group, which is spread over several departments. A motion was made, seconded and carried that Article 1, Section 1, of the Plan of Representation be changed to read as follows :- Representation shall be by departments on the basis of one Representative for each two hundred (200) employees, or major fraction thereof, based on average number of employees in each division during the month of January preceding the annual election. The next subject, considered was that of the time of holding nominations and elections. The present Plan calls for holding of nominations on the second Monday and the elections on the following Friday in the month of March. Mention was made of the difficulty of holding strictly to this Plan under present operations. Following some discussion a motion was made, sec- onded and carried that Article IV, Section 2, of the Plan of Representation be suspended for one year, placing in the hands of No. 1 Standing Committee the selection of dates for nomina- tions and elections. Attention was called to Article IV, Section 13, of the Plan of Representation as printed, which reads as follows : "Each Voter shall deposit his own ballot in a box provided for the purpose by the Committee on Rules, and the ballots shall be counted under the direction and supervision of said Com- mittee and a representative of the Management. The candi- dates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected." It was brought out during the discussion that it has DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD never been the practice in this Plant to have a representative of the Management assist in the counting of votes and it was felt that this part of the Rule should be eliminated. A motion was made, seconded and carried that the statement "and a Rep- resentative of the Management" be stricken from Article IV, Section 13. Mr. Evans stated that due to the amendment in the Unit of Representation of the Plan it will be necessary to make a new grouping of the entire Plant to conform to the Unit of two hundred (200). A revised grouping for Representation to be used for election purposes this year was presented. Following some discussion of this grouping a (notion was made, seconded and carried that the departmental grouping for representation, as presented, copy of which is herewith attached, shall be adopted for election' purposes for 1934-35. Attention was called to the fact that this increases the number of representatives in Cambria Plant from 27 in 1933 to a total of 41 for 1934. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the committee, upon motion duly made and carried, meeting adjourned at 5:10 P. M. CLARE H. WILLIAMS, Chairman. H. CURTIS COMMERS, Secretary. (6) On February 14, 1935, the Joint Rules Committee passed a resolution suspending for one year as to certain employees the provisions of Article I, Section 1, of the Cambria Plan, and took action described in its minutes as follows : "The Chairman stated that this meeting had been called to consider matters regarding any changes in rules, in connection with the election of employees' representatives. He called on S. D. Evans,- Management's Representative, to bring up, any questions regarding this matter. Mr. Evans stated that accord- ing to the Plan the Joint Rules Committee is concerned only with changes to be made in the rules governing the election of employees' representatives. All details, in connection with the election, are in the hands of the Standing Committee. "Mr. Evans presented to the Committee a proposed grouping of units into election districts for the coming election. "Mr. Evans then presented the proposed set-up of representa- tives according to departments, which calls for the election of 53 representatives, 45 of whom will sit on the General Body. - A motion was made by Representative Commers, seconded by Rep- resentative Leber, that the grouping of departments, copy of which is attached, be adopted. Motion was unanimously carried. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 641.: "Mr. Evans called attention to Article IV, Section 2, of the Plan of Representation, which called for the holding of nomina- tions on the second Monday and elections on the following Friday of the month of March. It was pointed out that, due to operat- ing conditions, the dates of nominations and elections should be left to the judgment of #1 Standing Committee. A motion was made by Mr. Baer, seconded by Representative Steeg, that Arti- cle IV, Section 2, of the Plan of Representation, be suspended for one year, the selection of dates' for the nominations and election to be placed in the hands of the Standing Committee.", APPENDIX C [Refer to footnote 28, above] The following appears in the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Rules held on December 17, 1934: PLAN OF EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATION BETHLEHEM PLANT Regular Meeting of Joint Committee # 1, Rules, Etc., December 17, 1934 The meeting was called to order by Chairman C. E. Underwood at 3: 15 P. M. Roll call : Employees' Representatives-Present : Fred Rooney, E. J. Baur, Daniel Boyle, George Suto. Company's Representatives-C. E. Underwood, W. O. Shafer, A. C. Morgan, E. R. Long, R. G. Cook. Chairman and Secretary of Employees' Representatives-El- wood H. Smith, Oliver Werst. Management's Representative-John K. Robinson. Absent: Joseph Leary. The minutes of the meeting held October 15, 1934, were read and approved. Communication and unfinished Business. Chairman Smith: Does each member of the General Body have a typewritten copy of the Plan of Employees' Representation as last amended? John K. Robinson: A copy was given only members of the Rules Committee and the two officers of the General Body. Before it could be decided to proceed with the printing and distribution, other amendments were proposed. 3 642 DECISIONS OF NATION AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chairman Smith: These amendments were included in the minutes of one of the General Body meetings. W. 0. Shafer: Before making any further amendments or changes in our Plan ' of Employees' Representation would not it be better to wait until after the meeting of the State Legislature? John K. Robinson: Not only until after the meeting of the State Legislature but also of Congress. The following appears in the minutes of the meeting of the Stand- ing Committee on Rules held on May 29,1935: Mr. Pillar asked if it had been decided to hold a special meet- ing of the Rules Committee to go over the matter of the Plan of Employees' Representation and its amendments in order that, new books could be printed and distributed. Mr. Robinson felt in the matter of Rules we were in somewhat the same position as we were some time ago and perhaps a little more so. He stated that the United States Senate had passed the Wagner Labor Disputes Bill but as to whether or not it would be passed by the House and approved by the President in its present or a different form, there was no way of telling. In view of the uncertainty with respect to that Bill, either in its present or some other form, there is a possibility that it may have the effect of making it necessary or desirable to change some of the provisions of our Plan. He thought it would be advisable to let it run along until we could see just where we stood, meanwhile to be studying the Plan. He stated that the best that could be done now is either decide that the Plan as amended is all right and have the books printed and the other thing would be to decide if there are other amendments to make, but in the course of a few months there may be certain legislation passed that might require further changes in the provision of our Plan. Motion was made by Mr. Stoever, seconded by Mr. Pillar and carried that the Chairman and Secretary of the General Body of Employees and Chairman and Secretary of the Rules Committee meet for the purpose of going over the Rule Book for any sug- gested changes and then submit it to the Joint Rules Committee at a later meeting. R. A. Lewis, general manager of the Bethlehem plant, entered the meeting of the General Body held on May 29, 1935, and said, inter alia : No doubt the decision of the Supreme Court on the NRA, as well as the Farm Mortgage Moratorium Law, will have a very BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 643 decided influence on national legislation, and no doubt places a different picture on the Wagner Bill, which has given us consid- erable concern. The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision certainly strengthens employees representation to, a greater extent than we have ever had it heretofore. It is further interesting to note, in the statistics brought out by Mr. Purnell at the Iron & Steel Institute meeting, that there were 101 Companies under the plan of employees representation, which constituted 90% of the employees engaged in the steel .industry. It is also interesting to note that in 1934 there were 15,600 questions brought up under the representative plan. 73% were decided in'favor of the employees, 16% were decided in the negative, 6% were compromised and 5% withdrawn, which is an excellent showing and shows the scope of the employees repre- sentative action in the steel industry. The outstanding point of Mr. Purnell's talk was : "It cannot be emphasized too strongly that any successful plan of dealing with employees must be founded upon the basic principle that there can be harmony and mutual consideration between employees and employer, upon honesty of purpose, freedom of speech and due regard for the rights and aspirations of both. They must work out their problems together, in a peaceable manner, instead of in an unnatural condition of hostility. The steady and suc- cessful-operation of a manufacturing plant is a matter of com- mon interest both to the employees and the employer, and, there- fore, operating problems should be discussed and settled by work- men and management for the benefit of both." This is a rather outstanding statement; however, it had the endorsement of all those engaged in the'steel industry. I personally believe that the Employees' Representation Plan is stronger today than it has been at any time in its history, and its continued strength will remain entirely with employee and em- ployer as they choose to make it. At a meeting of the General Body held on June 26, 1935, R. A. Lewis stated to the Employees' Representatives : There are, however, proposed bills ahead of the present Con- gress that, according to the President's program, must be enacted before adjournment, that have a'tendency of not inspiring con- fidence so far as business conditions are concerned. The most outstanding perhaps is the Wagner Labor Disputes Bill. In the event that this is enacted in some form, it may con- flict with the relations as set up by the existing National Recovery Act. There certainly are many things in the proposed bill that are disturbing, it seems to me, if enacted, and might seriously 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD handicap the effectiveness of our present plan of employees' rep- resentation. The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules held on July 22, 1935, are set out below : The minutes of the regular meeting held May 20, 1935 were read and approved. Communications : None. Unfinished Business : Mr. Robinson said with reference to the Joint Committee on Rules' consideration of proposed amendments to the Plan of Em- ployees' Representation, the Management's members of the Com- mittee felt they should further consider and study at least some of the proposed changes, particularly as to just what may be their effect; also since the Wagner Labor Disputes Bill had now been passed and approved by the President. He said the question of making changes in the Plan is a serious matter. He said we have a good Plan that is functioning effi- ciently and satisfactorily on an hour to hour and day to day basis, and there is nothing being delayed or held up under our Plan as it is Iiow set up. He said he believed we all feel that we have a, good, effective, sound Plan, and that nothing should be done that would impair the fundamentals of the Plan or the fair, co-operative spirit in which it is operating, and he hoped that something en- tirely satisfactory could be worked out that would not endanger. the splendid relationship we have had for many years. Mr. Easton, Mr. Steffy and other members of the Committee said they agreed with Mr. Robinson, and said they felt the Com- pany is "playing ball" in complete good faith under the Plan with •the employees and going more than 50-50 with them in its dealings and adjustments with the Representatives and the men. Certain features of the Plan and of the proposed amendments were discussed, particularly those insuring to the employees and their chosen employees Representatives full control of their own elections, meeting and affairs, which all agreed is essential but need not and should not impair the joint, co-operative, collective bargaining value and effectiveness of the Plan. It was the senti- ment of the Committee and Messrs. Easton and Coburn that fur- ther study and consideration of amendments to the Plan is desir- able to insure against injury to it as well as to improve it 'where possible. New Business : The Committee discussed the motion at the last General Body meeting referring to it the question of a few Employee's Repre- BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 645 sentatives of each of the plants of the Corporation. meeting annually to exchange ideas and information. Mr. Robinson ques- tioned the value, justification or desirability of such a meeting, since so many;, of the conditions, operations and problems differed in the various plants, and pointed out that generally the, chair- man of the Employees' Representatives of the various plants of the Corporation meet annually as trustees of the Relief Plan. [Italics supplied.] Motion was made by Mr. Jaworski, seconded by Mr. Ramsay and carried that the Committee endorse the idea but decided to hold the question over for further discussion and consideration. There being no further business , on proper motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 P. M. ( S) JOHN RAMSAY, Secretary. The minutes of the meeting of the General Body held on July 30, 1935, contain the following : Chairman Easton stated that the question of several repre- sentatives of each of the Corporation 's plants meeting annually to exchange ideas and information appeared to him and members of the Committee on Rules to have considerable merit, but the Committee and he felt the question should be held in abeyance and further considered. and developed , there appearing to be no immediate reason for same and it being recognized that it would involve considerable expense, etc. In regard to the Rule Book, he said he had hoped to have something definite to report at this meeting, but as was known, the Wagner Bill has now been signed and it is a question whether it will be found constitutional or not; that since our Plan in its present form is operating very successfully the way we are going, action was, postponed on the question of amendments and re-printing of the Rule Book. He said there was no question the Company was playing 50-50 and more and he was more than satisfied with the treatment that the management has given in every way . Also there was no question that in matters involv- ing expenditures or fairness to employees that the management has considered it and given us the benefit of the doubt. The following appears in the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Rules held on August 19, 1935: Communications : None. Unfinished Business: Mr. Underwood asked whether there was any further infor- mation to be submitted with reference to the proposed amend- ments to the Plan. '646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Robinson stated that the proposed amendments were, as had been requested and decided advisable, being carefully studied and considered and it was hoped the results would be in shape within the next ten days for consideration by the Committee on Rules which had proposed amending the Plan. He expressed belief that both the Committee and Joint Committee on- Rules- would be well pleased with the draft of the Plan along the lines of the proposed amendments. In the meantime, he pointed out, the Plan was continuing its smooth and effective operation day by day as attested by the officers of the General Body and the Employees' Representatives generally. Chairman Underwood stated that no matter what is in the Rule Book, when it comes to the actual operation of the Plan, questions that come up are handled in a way that is fair to both the employees and the Company, which is the important thing. The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules held on August 29, 1935, signed by James R. Steffy, Chairman, and 11 John G. Ramsay, Secretary, appear below : Mr. Steffy stated that this special meeting was called at the request of himself and Mr. Easton, Chairman of the General Body, for the purpose of going over the draft of the Plan of Employees' Representation containing changes which had been proposed by them and other members of the Committee on Rules and Employees' Representatives. He distributed copies of the draft to each one present and said he hoped that the re-drafted Plan and changes in it would be found to meet with the approval of the Committee as well as Mr. Easton and Mr. Coburn. Mr. Robinson, in answer to a question, said Mr. Lewis and lie. had gone over carefully such draft and felt it would be satisfactory to the Management, especially as it was in line with the wishes of the Committee on Rules, the officers and others of the Employees' Representatives. That while some of the provisions appear rather long and spelled out, this was often necessary to make them clear and subject to only one interpretation. That the Company's desire and aim with respect to the Plan is the same as-that of the Employees' Representatives and employees generally,-to have it operate fairly, effectively and promptly. The draft of the Plan was read aloud word by word, discussed, considered and analyzed thoroughly with the result that motion was made by Mr. Stoever, seconded by Mr. Pillar and un-animousTr passed by the Committee "Approving, after thorough review and consideration, the draft before it of the Plan. of Employees' Rep- resentation containing changes proposed by' the Committee and BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 647 other Employees' Representatives and recommending that the Plan be amended in accordance with such draft." Mr. Easton and Mr. Coburn expressed their full approval of the changes proposed and approved by the Committee and joined in recommending that the Plan be amended accordingly. The Committee asked, and were joined by Mr. Easton and Mr. Coburn, that a special early meeting of the General Body of Employees' Representatives be called so that it could be fully acquainted with and have the opportunity to express its opinion of the changes in the Plan proposed and recommended by the Committee prior to final consideration and action as to such changes by the Joint Committee on Rules: It was decided that a special meeting for this purpose of the General Body be called for 2.00 P. M. next Wednesday, September 4th. The Committee and Mr. Easton and Mr. Coburn requested that the Company have, say, 15,000 copies printed, in booklet form, of the Plan when and as amended for distribution to present and future Plant employees. There being no further business, on proper motion, the meeting adjourned at 5.00 P. M. The minutes of the meeting of the General Body held on September 25, 1935, contain the following: Chairman Easton stated that he was informed that 15,000 of these books will be completed at an early date and sent to each Superintendent or Representative for distribution.. That there are some departments working three shifts and if the Represent- ative was working on the day shift, he should make arrange- ments with his Superintendent for distribution to the employees working on the other shifts. He said that if it took the Repre- sentative an hour or more over his regular shift to distribute these Plans, the Company would, he felt, be willing Ito pay for that additional, hour or more. Replying to a question, Mr. Robinson said he agreed with Chair- man Easton's suggestion; that this is the amended Plan proposed by the Committee on Rules and endorsed by the General Body and that it should it seemed to him be distributed by the Em- ployees' Representatives. To facilitate this, he said that enough copies of the Plan could be sent to each department to cover every employee of the department, and when received .there the Em- ployees'- Representatives -would be notified, and could work out with the Superintendent the best method of their getting them 190935=40-vol. 14--42 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the men, and this would give the Employees representative an opportunity to explain where requested the amended Plan. Mr. Robinson read the talk of Mr. Lewis as follows : * * * * * * I believe that the new Plan of Employees' Representation has been printed and distributed to you representatives. I under- stand that there are sufficient copies printed for complete dis- tribution in the Plant. Of course, you are all aware of the many changes to the old Plan, and these should be explained to the men that you represent. I believe that Mr. Robinson will make some statement on the method of delivery of these plans to the men in the. plant. This plan is your plan, and it should be up to you to see that every workman in the plant thoroughly understands it. APPENDIX D [Refer to footnote 53, above] WE WILL 'KEEP JOHNSTOWN SAFE FOR'JOHNSTOWNERS ! WE WILL PRESERVE LAW AND ORDER ! ' These dastardly attempts to scare the families of working men while working . . . This throwing of stones and missiles at men who want to work . . . This wrecking of workers' automobiles .. . This cowardly ganging of one lone, willing worker . . . These vile names hissed from the lips of human beings aimed at men who want to work . . . This throwing of dynamite . . . This breaking of win- dows in workers' homes-all these things, all these atrocities MUST stop ! , Johnstowners will not condone this means of gaining an end-REGARDLESS OF THE END. A MAN MAY "STRIKE" BY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ! AND SO' CAN A MAN "WORK" BY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ! Whether a man "Strikes" or "Works," Law and Order must be maintained ! The Citizens Committee of the City of Johnstown de- mands that it be maintained ! Let all the ears within hearing dis- tance and several out of hearing distance know and be assured that the Citizens Committee means Business; it means to preserve Law and Order ; it means to preserve the lives of Johnstowners ; it means to make its streets as. well, as its homes safe for its Mothers, Fathers, Daughters and Sons. That is the obligation of the Citizens of Johnstown`'and the Citizens Committee is taking the lead to uphold that American obligation ! CITIZENS' COMMITTEE OF JOHNSTOWN. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. ,