The Maryland Bolt and Nut Company

In the Matter of THE MARYLAND BOUT AND NUT COMPANY and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE LocAL No. 2060 Cases Nos. 8-837 and C-798.-Decided August 16, 1939 Bolt and Nut Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements by supervisory employees during working hours and on company property ; questioning of employees as to union affiliation ; engender- ing fear of loss of employment because of union membership and activities ; expressed opposition to outside labor organizations-Company-Dominated Union: instigation of formation of, by stressing advantages of inside union over outside union ; domination of and interference with formation and administration ; sup- port ; solicitation of membership in, by supervisory employees ; statements by supervisory employees favoring inside organization and opposing outside organiza- tion; ordered , to refuse to recognize as representative of employees-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance employees, including weighmasters and three salaried clerks, but excluding other salaried and clerical employees , watchmen , foremen, assistant foremen, and other super- visory employees ; three clerks included with consent of union-Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of employees: major- ity status disputed by employer-Election Ordered: time for and eligibility date to be fixed after effect of unfair ' labor practices dissipated ; company-dominated union excluded from ballot. Messrs. Jacob Blum, Herbert O. Eby, and Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board. Mr. Raymond S. William, of Baltimore, Md., for the respondent. Mr. John Monarch, of Baltimore, Md., for Local 2060. Mr. Joseph Leiter, of Baltimore, Md., for the Association. Mr. J. H. Krug, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 24, 1938, Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 2060, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called Local 2060, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a petition alleging that a ques- 14 N. L. R. B., No. 49. 707 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI) tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of The Maryland Bolt and Nut Company,' Baltimore, Maryland, herein called the respondent, and requesting an investiga- tion and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of ,the. National Labor 'Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,.herein called the Act. Thereafter Loca1.2060 filed charges alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. On April 26, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein 'called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III;. Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the Regional Director to conduct an investigation of the question concerning representation, to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and to report to the Board regarding such investigation and hearing; and acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered the consolida- tion of the representation proceeding with the proceeding upon the charges filed by Local 2060. On May 20, 1938, upon the charges filed by Local-2060, the Board, by the said Regional Director, issued its complaint against the re- spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2, (6) and (7) of the .Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing upon the complaint, were duly served upon the respondent and upon Local 2060; and copies of the notice of hearing upon the representa- tion proceeding were duly served upon the respondent, Local 2060, and Maryland Bolt and Nut Employees Association,' a labor organ- ization, herein called the Association. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (a) dom- inated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association, and contributed financial and other support thereto ; and (b) by reason of said acts and by other acts, interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter the respondent filed an answer to the complaint, dated May 24, 1938, admitting that it was engaged in interstate commerce but denying the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at B<dtiinore, Mary- land from June 2 to 7, 1938, before Wright Clark, the Trial Exarin- 'Incorrectly designated in the petition and in the charges as Maryland Bolt and Nut Company. Incorrectly designated in the complaint as The Employees Association of The M iryl:ind Bolt and Nut Company. THE MARYLAND BOLT AND NUT C.OMPANX'}'' 709 iner duly designated by the Board. At the commencement of the hearing the Association filed a petition to intervene, which was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were represented by counsel, and Local 2060 `by an official of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee; all parties par- ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's case counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the evidence adduced by the Board had not been con- nected with the respondent. At the end of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence, and counsel for the Association moved to dismiss the petition for ,lack of evidence that Local 2060 represented a majority of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit. The Trial Examiner reserved rul- ing oil these three motions. Subsequently, in his Intermediate Re- port, the Trial Examiner denied the motions to dismiss the com- plaint made by counsel for the respondent at the hearing. The motion made by counsel for the Association to dismiss the petition is hereby denied. At the close of the testimony in the complaint case the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re- viewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju- dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On July 23, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re- port, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and, recommended that the respondent cease and desist from said unfair labor practices, withdraw recognition from the Association, and post notices to its employees that it would cease and desist from said unfair labor practices. On August 9, 1938. the respondent filed exceptions to the rulings of the Trial Examiner and to his Intermediate Report. On April 17, 1939, the respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions.a Pursuant to notice of hearing and to notice of postponement of the date thereof, a hearing was held before the Board in Washing- ton, D. C., on May 4, 1939, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent, Local 2060, and the Association were represented at the hearing and participated in the argument. 8 The respondent had previously filed a brief on July 13, 1938 , prior to the issuance of the Intermediate Report . This brief, which is substantially similar to the brief filed on April 17, 1939, has been considered by the Board. 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the brief in support thereof, and, in so far as the ex- ceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the cases, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 4 The Maryland Bolt and Nut Company is a Maryland corporation with its sole office and plant in Baltimore, Maryland. The respond- ent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of bolts, nuts, rods, and allied products. Its chief customers are railroads and public utili- ties. Sales are made through traveling salesmen and by mail. Ap- proximately 75 per cent of the raw materials used in the respond- ent's plant are purchased in States other than Maryland,, and are brought to the plant by interstate carriers. , Approximately 60 per cent of the manufactured products are shipped to points outside of Maryland. The total number of the respondent's employees as of February 1938 was approximately 100. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 2060, is a. labor organization, affiliated, through the Steel Workers Organizing Com- mittee, herein called the S. W. O. C., with the Committee for Indus- trial Organization, herein called the C. I. O. It admits to mem- bership production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding clerical and office employees, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees. Maryland Bolt and Nut Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor organization whose membership is confined to employees of the respondent. It admits to membership all such employees, ex- cept foremen, superintendents, and assistant superintendents. III. THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination of and interference with the Association; interference,, restraint, and coercion Organization of the respondent's employees for the purpose of collective bargaining did not begin until 1937. In October of that year S. W. O. C. organizers appeared at the gates of the respondent's 4 The facts in this section are derived chiefly from a stipulation entered into by counsel, for the respondent and counsel for the Board. THE NIArYLAND BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 711 plant and secured signed membership cards from several of the em- ployees. In November two meetings of the employees were held at the C. I. O. headquarters in Baltimore. At the second meeting, those present voted to ,establish a local union affiliated with the S. W. O. C., and to apply for a charter. They also elected officers and authorized representatives of the S. W. O. C. to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the respondent. On November 27, 1937, the S. W. O. C. granted a charter to the local union which then became known as Local 2060. By that time a large number of the respond- ent's employees had joined Local 2060. John Dix, an employee who had worked at the plant for 12 years,, was disturbed by the S. W. O. C. organizing activities. Dix worked in the shipping and, packing department, in which 18 persons were employed, and for the preceding 4 or 5 years customarily took the place of the department foreman, Jobe Russell, when the latter was absent: Dix testified that he was opposed to C. I. O. unions because they engaged in strikes. He discussed the matter with two other employees with similar views, Robert Imhoff and Charles W. Ward, and with Earl C. Blankenship, a traveling salesman employed by the respondent. Dix testified that while the S. W. O. C. organizing campaign was under way, in October and November 1937, he dis- cussed with these three employees the feasibility of forming an un- affiliated "inside" labor organization as a rival to the S. W. O. C.5 Although these preliminary conversations may have taken place as early as October, it is clear from the record that active steps for the formation of the Association were not taken until late in Decem- ber 1937 and early in January 1938. In December 1937 Charles S. Duvall, the respondent's secretary and manager, called about 20 em- ployees into his office and in the presence of Superintendent James McGarrity and Assistant Superintendent Walter Stranz, talked to them about unions.° The meeting took place on company time. Duvall testified that he called the meeting because he had heard that the employees felt the management had curtailed production at the plant because of union activities, and that since his office was not large enough to hold all the employees he asked the superintendent to select three or four employees from each department and send them to his office. The record is clear that at the opening of the meeting Duvall explained that the curtailment in work at the plant was caused by • 5 John Evans , an employee , testified that he discussed the formation of an unaffiliated labor organization with Dix, Imhoff, and Ward in the summer of 1937, before the S. W. O. C. organizing campaign began. In view of the testimony of.Blankensbip , Dix, and Imhoff, we believe that Evans was mistaken, and that these discussions did not take place until after the S. W. O. C. became active. Duvall placed the date of the meeting in December . William Brooks, an employee who had Joined Local 2060, at first testified that the meeting took place on or about January 5, 1938, but on cross-examination said that it occurred in December. 190935-40-vol. 14--46 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD business conditions, and not by the union affiliation of the employees. He: then. said, "You are at perfect liberty to join any labor organiza- tion, or if you want to form your own, I can't see why you can't do it." He.also.remarked that the dues in an outside labor organization would be higher than the dues in an inside organization, and that the employees knew more about their problems than did outsiders, who were not especially concerned. At the close of the meeting Dix, who was present, inquired whether the employees, if they formed an in- side union, could "get as good bargaining as they get through the C. I. 0.," and Duvall replied that they could. . Late in, December, shortly after the meeting called by Duvall, Dix, Imhoff, Ward, Blankenship, and several other employees met at Blankenship's home to lay plans for the formation of an independent union and discussed a draft form of constitution prepared by Blank- enship. Early in -January 1938, John J. Mates, S. W. O. C. director for Maryland and Virginia, phoned Duvall stating that the S. W. O. C. represented a, majority of the employees at the plant, and requesting a conference for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. Duvall replied that he would have to submit the matter to Linus Keating, vice president of the respondent, who was then in New York City. Before any conference could be arranged with Keating, who came to Baltimore only twice a month, Mates was com- pelled.to leave Baltimore on business. He did not resume his efforts to negotiate with the management until early in March 1938. . In the middle of January, Dix, Imhoff, and Ward consulted .Joseph Leiter, an attorney. with whom Dix was acquainted, and secured legal advice concerning the formation of an independent union. Leiter prepared several sheets of paper, to be circulated among the employees, upon which there appeared the following : "We, The Undersigned, Voluntarily Agree To Become A Member Of The Maryland. Bolt And Nut Employees Association." During the fol- ]owing few weeks Ward and other members of the Association so- licited signatures extensively on company time and property. No- tices. of an Association meeting were also distributed by Dix and Ward on company time. Blankenship arranged to have the notices printed. At the meeting, which was held on January 20, the Asso- ciation adopted a constitution and elected officers. Dix was elected secretary,' Imhoff 'president, and Ward vice president. At this meeting some of the employees signed the Association membership lists, and six employees who had applied for membership in Local 2060 signed a paper reading: "We, the undersigned, on this 20th 'Dix resigned his "Job at the plant on April 21. 1938, to become a member of the Balti- more police force. He was succeeded as secretary of the Association by John Evans. THE MARYLAND BOLT AND NUT COMPANY, 713 clay of January, 1938, do-hereby resign from membership of .the Steel Works [sic] Organizing Committee." Although most of ,the em- ployees who testified were evasive on this point, it is clear, that some of the "resignations" were solicited by Dix, and that Dix forwarded the. paper containing the resignations to Local 2060. On February 7, 1938, Dix wrote to Duvall requesting a conference for the purpose of collective bargaining. On February 18 Keating and Duvall met with representatives of the Association, who claimed that the Association represented a majority of the employees.at the .plant, and requested recognition of the Association as collective bargaining agency.' Keating stated that the respondent would bar- gain with any labor organization that represented a majority of the employees. At this conference, or a day or two later, Dix gave Duvall a list of the,members claimed by the Association. On March 11 Mates conferred with Duvall and Keating. He as- serted that Local 2060 represented a majority of the employees at the plant, and a few days later, at Keating's suggestion, Mates and Duvall checked the Local 2060 membership cards against the respondent's employment records. Subsequently Duvall, at Keating's instructions, informed both Dix and Mates that the respondent could not recognize either the Association or Local 2060 as collective bargaining agency because of duplications in the membership claims of the two labor organizations. Thereupon Local 2060 filed its petition requesting certification as collective bargaining agency. There is much testimony that during the period between November 1937 and the end of March 1938 the respondent's supervisory em- ployees discouraged membership in Local 2060 and encouraged mem- bership in the Association. Walter H. Klopp, an employee who joined Local 2060 in November 1937, testified that Superintendent James McGarrity asked Klopp and Carl J. Reter,9 another employee, while they were working, if they belonged to the C. I. 0., that both replied in the affirmative, and McGarrity then shook his head and went away. Klopp also testified that a, few days later Superintend- ent McGarrity remarked to him : It is, I guess, about all over with the C. I. O. . . . It would not be if the men paid their dues. Why don't they pay up? .. . I got nothing against the C. I. O. personally. I have got rela- tions in the C. I. 0., but . . . I feel sorry for the men in the shop. Mason F. Pennell, an employee who joined Local 2060 in Novem- ber 1937, testified that Superintendent McGarrity asked him and a s Keating testified that the only conference lie attended with representatives of the Asso- ciation took place on March 17, but in view of Duvall's testimony and in view of copies of correspondence introduced in evidence which set the date of the meeting , we believe Keating attended a conference with the Association officials on February 18. 11 The name is incorrectly spelled "Ritter" in the transcript of testimony. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fellow employee, while both were at their work, if they belonged to the C. I. 0., and that they gave an affirmative reply. William D. Brooks, an employee who -joined Local 2060 late in November 1937, also testified regarding a conversation with Super- intendent McGarrity. According to the testimony of Brooks, Mc- Garrity called Brooks and another employee, Richard L. McDermott, into his office in December 1937 during working hours, and made substantially the following observations : that he, McGarrity, was not for or against the C. I. 0., and that Brooks and McDermott should join if they thought it was best, but that they should think twice; that if the C. I. O. campaign was successful it might result in a shut- down of the plant, and Brooks and McDermott would have difficulty in finding other jobs; that Henry Ford was a very stubborn man,, and would shut down his plant before submitting to any labor organ- ization; that other employers would do the same; and that C. I. O. members would have "a hard time to get work at any other place." Superintendent McGarrity did not testify at the hearing, and the respondent did not explain his absence. We credit the testimony of- Klopp, Pennell, and Brooks. Four employees, Pennell, Klopp, Albert Ramanauskas, and Frank- R. Wagner, testified that Walter Stranz, assistant superintendent in the respondent's plant, made certain anti-C. I. O. statements. The- testimony of these witnesses, which was denied by Stranz, is summa- rized below. Pennell testified that over a period of 3 or 4 months, beginning late in November 1937, Walter Stranz used to come to his machine, during working hours, and talk about the C. I. O. On one occasion, he testi- fied, Stranz asked if he had joined the C. I. 0., and when Pennell replied that he had, Stranz inquired where the dollar he paid as initia- tion fee went, reminded Pennell of the fine residence owned by John L._ Lewis, asked what benefit would be derived from the C. I. O., and" declared that an employee could obtain the same benefit from the- Association. Klopp testified that in December 1937, Walter Stranz came to his- place of work and told him that if Vice-President Keating discovered' that the employees were joining the C. I. O., he would shut down the plant; that Keating had closed the plant following a fire which had occurred a few months previously, and could do it again.10 . Klopp- testified further that in February 1938, when his work had been cut to 2 days a week, Stranz remarked that if the employees dropped out- of the C. 1. 0., their work would be increased to 3 or 4 days a week. On one occasion, according to Klopp, Ward came to his place of work and 10 On cross-examination KIopp placed the date of this conversation in January or February- 1938. THE MARYLAND BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 7,15 handed him an Association card, and Stranz thereupon asked Klopp why he did not join the Association. Albert Ramanauskas, an employee who joined Local 2060 on Decem- ber 14, 1937, testified that Walter Stranz spoke to him about his union affiliation about 50 times, the conversations beginning in the middle of December and extending over a period of several months. The substance of Stranz's remarks, according to Ramanauskas, was that the C. I. O. would not benefit him. On the first occasion, he testi- fied, Stranz came to his place of work and asked if he belonged to the C. 1. 0.; Ramanauskas replied that he did, and showed the S. W. O. C. button he was wearing; and Stranz said membership in the C. I. O. was no good. Ramanauskas also testified that late in December 1937, when his work was reduced to 2 days a week, he said to Stranz, "Gosh, we got work. Why don't we work more?", and that Stranz replied, "Well, you wanted the C. I. O. You got it." In March 1938, according to Ramanauskas, he asked Stranz why William McGarrity and Rich- ard L. McDermott had been laid off although employees with much less seniority were retained ; and Stranz replied that if there were no C. I. O. the two employees would not have been laid off. Frank R. Wagner, an employee who joined Local 2060 in December 1937, testified that on at least five or six occasions, beginning in De- ,cember 1937, Walter Stranz disparaged the C. I. O. in conversations with Wagner on company time. In one of these conversations, Wagner testified, Stranz asked him if he were willing to take the consequences of joining the C. 1. 0., and Wagner replied that he was willing, because he was a member of Local 2060. On another occasion, according to Wagner, Stranz told him that "whether the C. I. O. won or not, Mr. Keating would not tolerate a closed shop and he would not tolerate seniority." Wagner also testified that Stranz told him that after the fire, which had resulted in a virtual shut-down of the plant, the re- spondent had purchased and resold bolts at a profit, and that "if the worst came to the worst, they could always do that." Stranz denied the foregoing testimony of Pennell, Klopp, Rama- nauskas, and Wagner. He admitted, however, that in February 1938, at .the request of Superintendent McGarrity, he had asked the six or .seven employees in the machine shop whether they belonged to the C. I. O. We find that Stranz made the statements attributed to him by Pennell, Klopp, Ramanauskas, and Wagner, substantially as above set forth. Hubert A. Correlli, an employee who joined Local 2060 in November 1937 and was elected financial secretary, testified that his foreman, John I. Garpstas, spoke to him more than once about his union affilia- tion. In January 1938, according to Correlli, Garpstas inquired if he belonged to the C. I. 0., and when Correlli said that he did, Garpstas 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD asked'what benefit he could expect from the C. I. 0.; Correlli inquired what benefit could be derived from the Association; and Garpstas then called the C. 'I: 0. "a bunch of radicals." This conversation, Correlli asserted, took place on company time. Correlli also testified that Garpstas told him lie would get a 2 weeks' vacation if he joined the Association. While he was at work, Correlli testified, Garpstas said that Correlli was "the big shot of the union" in the department in which lie worked, and that if he joined the Association the other em- ployees in the department would also join. Although Garpstas denied that he had had any conversations concerning union activities with employees in his department, we believe that he made the statements attributed to him by Correlli. Contrary to the respondent's contention that the Association origi= nated from the spontaneous action of its employees, and that the management did not foster or sponsor it, we find that the formation and growth of the Association were inspired and assisted by the respondent. In December 1937, at the time of the meeting in Duvall's office, a large number of employees at the plant had become members of Local 2060. Duvall, Superintendent McGarrity, and Assistant Superintendent Walter Stranz were aware at this time of the organiz- ing activities of Local 2060 among the respondent's employees. Duvall then proceeded to call some 20 employees into his office and to impress upon them, in effect, that it would be to their interest to form an inside labor organization. His explanation that he merely sought to inform the employees that the curtailment of work at the plant was caused by business conditions and that their union affiliation was of no concern to the management, is unconvincing, since he admitted, in his testimony that he went further and pointed out to the employees the advantages of an inside union. We believe that Duvall was disturbed at the growth of Local 2060, an affiliated or "outside" type of organi- zation, and that he called the meeting for the purpose of instigating the formation of an inside union, and thereby thwarting the efforts of the employees toward self-organization into Local 2060. The respondent's brief urges that "the Act does not prohibit con- ferences between employers and employees," and that Duvall's re- marks constituted no more than "the mere statement of undoubted, facts." We regard this contention as unrealistic. Duvall's statements were not made in a vacuum ; they were volunteered by the general manager of the plant to a group of employees, and they stressed the advantages ' of an inside union at a time when an outside labor organi- zation had made substantial progress among the employees at the plant. The pointed suggestions made by Duvall were promptly put into practice . Although Dix and three or four other employees had talked about forming an unaffiliated union , no further steps had been taken in that direction at the time of Duvall's meeting. Within a THE MARYLAND BOLT ' AND NUT COMPANY 717 week or two thereafter, however, the actual organization of the Association began. Throughout its formative period the Association was assisted in' its growth by the activities, most frequently occurring on company time, of James McGarrity, Walter Stranz, and John I: Ga.rpstas: ' , The questioning of employees as to their membership in Local 2060, the disparaging of the C. I. 0., the various hints, warnings, and threats of discrimination and loss of employment' because of membership ill' Local 2060, the emphasis laid upon the advantages of membership in the Association, and the express requests to join the Association, were all calculated to impress upon the employees that the management opposed Local 2060 and favored the Association. Counsel for the respondent emphasized in his brief and at the oral argument that, according to the evidence, there was no bitter con- troversy at the plant, and the relationship between ordinary employees and supervisory officials was harmonious; and contended that the evidence of anti-C. I. 0. and pro-Association activities of supervisory employees should be considered in the light of these circumstances. We have considered the evidence pointed out by counsel for the re- spondent, but it does not alter our conclusion that the growth of the Association was promoted and assisted by the respondent through the activities of its supervisory employees.11 We are convinced that Dix and his associates proceeded with the formation of the Association because Duvall made it clear at the meet- ing in his office that .the respondent desired an inside organization to be formed,12 and that the growth of the Association was aided and promoted by the activities, above outlined, of McGarrity, Stranz, and Garpstas. We find that the respondent, by the acts above, set forth, has domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and has contributed support to it. We find that the re- spondent, by the aforesaid acts, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. u We are similarly unimpressed by the contention made by counsel tor the respondent that "there is not enough evidence . ' .. that the employees were intimidated in the sense of being physically intimidated." See Matter of Enwco Derrick and Equipment Company ( D &'B Divi- sion) and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 11 N. L. R. B..79. Nor do we believe, as counsel for the respondent contends in his brief , that special' significance should be attached to the fact that Stranz and Garpstas do not possess the power to hire and discharge. The evidence shows that they select employees to be laid off or dismissed , and make'recommenda- tions to Superintendent MeGarrity . As counsel for the respondent seemingly admitted at the oral argument, the respondent , having placed such power in the bands of Stranz and Garpstas, must held responsible for their statements to employees with respect to union affiliation. 12 See Matter of Crawford Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 8 N. L. R. B. 1237. '718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore as nearly as possible the condition which existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices. We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and contributed support thereto. By such domination and interference the respondent has prevented the free exercise by its employees of their right to self- organization and collective bargaining. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, to restore to the employees of the respondent the full measure of their rights guaranteed under the Act, and to free them from such domination and interference, which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondent to refuse to recognize the Association as representative of the respondent's em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work. VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The evidence shows, and the parties stipulated at the hearing, that Local 2060 requested the respondent to bargain collectively: with it as exclusive representative of the respondent's employees, claim- ing to represent a majority of these employees for purposes of collec- tive bargaining, and that the respondent, although expressing its willingness to bargain collectively with any labor organization which could show that it represented a majority of such employees, denied the request of Local 2060 upon the ground that the Association had made conflicting claims to representation of a majority of such employees. We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of employees of the respondent. THE MARYLAND BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 719 VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of. the respond- ent described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substan- tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of comnmerce. VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT At the hearing Local 2060 asserted that all production and mainte- nance employees of the respondent, excluding watchmen, salaried and clerical employees, foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining. Evidence was introduced showing that the S. W. 0. C. has negotiated a large number of contracts with employers in the steel industry in which such a unit is agreed upon by the parties. With the exceptions noted below, the respondent made no conten- tions regarding the appropriate unit. Inasmuch as we have found the Association to be employer dominated, we shall not consider its contentions regarding the unit. There was some controversy concerning the propriety of including within the unit three salaried clerks, Vernon Leach, Bernice Desser, and Howard Butler. These employees work in the production de- partment, and their duties consist of seeing that orders are filled and maintaining inventory. The respondent contended that the three employees should be included in the unit. At the outset, Local 2060 urged that they should be excluded, but at the close of the hearing consented to their inclusion. We shall include them in the unit. There was also some controversy at the hearing concerning the in- clusion of William D. Brooks and Harry Smith 13 in the appropriate unit. Brooks is designated as weighmaster. He keeps time, weighs bolts, and makes out production reports to the plant superintendent. Smith performs similar work in the threading department. Since Smith and Brooks weigh material as well as fill out reports,. and since they are paid on an hourly basis, we find that they should be included in the unit. We find that the production and maintenance employees of the re- spondent, including Vernon Leach, Bernice Desser, and Howard Butler, but excluding other salaried and clerical employees, watch- 13 There are two employees named Smith at the plant, Harry Smith and Charles F. Smith. The record indicates that Harry Smith is the employee referred to in the testimony discussed below. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD men, foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for thei'purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. Ix. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES At the hearing, both the Association and Local 2060. claimed to,rep- resent a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and intro- duced documentary evidence' in support of their claim. Having found the Association to be employer dominated, we shall disregard its claim of majority and shall omit its name from the ballot. The nature and amount of the evidence introduced in behalf of the claim of Local 2060 is insufficient to show that it represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.' We find that the question which has arisen concerning representation of employees of the re- spondent can best be resolved by holding an election by secret ballot. Counsel for the Association asserted at the hearing that %eight~ per- sons, claimed by Local 2060 to have designated it as their collective bargaining representative, were no longer in the employ of the re- spondent, had secured permanent employment elsewhere, and had no desire to reenter the employ of the respondent. In the election which we are directing any of these employees who may otherwise be eligible to vote will be permitted to vote subject to challenge. We shall not at this time fix a date for holding the election, since the election should not be held until sufficient time has elapsed to permit a free choice of representatives unaffected by the respondent's unfair labor practices. At the time We direct such election, we shall determine the pay-roll date to be used in ascertaining the eligibility of employees in the' appropriate unit to vote. 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: Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 2060, and Mary- land Bolt and Nut Employees Association, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma- tion and administration of Maryland Bolt and Nut Employees Asso- ciation, and by contributing .support, thereto,. has: engaged -in and, is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. r THE MARYLAND BOLT-AND NUT COMPANY 721 3:;The respondent; by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join,. .aid assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of, collective bargaining or other mutual :aid or protection, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within'the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. A, question. affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the respondent, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6.. The production and maintenance employees of the respondent, including Vernon Leach, Bernice Desser, and Howard Butler, but excluding other salaried and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) 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 respondent, The Maryland Bolt and Nut Company, Baltimore, Mary- land, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and ' desist from : (a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra- tion of Maryland Bolt and Nut Employees Association, or the forma- tion or administration of any other labor organization of its em- ployees, and from contributing support to said Association or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of 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 con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Refuse to recognize Maryland Bolt and Nut Employees Asso- ciation as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work; 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its plant, and maintain such notices for a period of sixty (60) consecu- tive days stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a) and (b) and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) of this Order; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat: 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bar- gaining with The Maryland Bolt and Nut Company, Baltimore, Maryland, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted at such time as the Board shall hereafter direct, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the production and maintenance employees who were employed by The Maryland Bolt and Nut Company within a period to : be determined by the Board in the future, including Vernon Leach, Bernice Desser, and Howard Butler, but excluding other salaried and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 2060, affiliated with the Committee for. Industrial Organization, for the purposes of collective bargaining. Mit. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.