Simplicity Pattern Co., Inc.

In the Matter of SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, and LOCAL 92, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA In the Matter of SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, and L. W. BUTLER I Cases Nos. C-472 and C-4173, respectively .Decided October 23, 1,939 Pattern Manufacturing and Fashion Forecast Publication Industry-Compro- mise Agreement : between respondent and union , at suggestion of Regional Di- rector, to withdraw charges upon reinstatement of employees and resumption of negotiations with union ; given effect in order to effectuate policies of the Act-Discrimination : charges not sustained as to two persons ; charges not considered as to employees covered by compromise agreement-Company-Dom- inated Union: no evidence ; stipulation providing for consent-election agreement and posting of notices ; no finding as to-Complaint : dismissed. Mr. Harold A. Crane field, Mr. Charles McErlean, and Mr. George J. Batt, for the Board. Burns and Hadsell, by Mr. Wilber N. Burns and Mr. Harold F. Klute, of Niles, Mich., for the respondent. Mr. George S. Keller, of Niles, Mich., for the Independent. Davidow & Davidow, by Mr. Leonard B. Netzorg, of Detroit, Mich., for the U. A. W. A. Miss Fannie M. Boyls, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 26, 1937, Local 92, International Union, United Automo- bile Workers of America, herein called the U. A. W. A., filed with Frank H. Bowen, Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) a charge, and on September 20, 1937, an amended charge alleging that Simplicity Pattern Company, Inc.,2 Niles, Michigan, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of 1 Although the style of the case, as it appeared in the complaint , did not include the name of L. W. Butler, it was amended at the hearing to include his name. 2 Incorrectly designated in the charges as Simplicity Pattern Company. 16 N. L. R. B., No. 34. 291 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. ,On June 14, 1937, L. W. Butler filed with the Regional Director a charge alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of :Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. On September 25, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the two cases be consolidated for the purpose of hearing. Upon the above charges the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint, 'dated September 30, 1937, against the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair ,labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, the U. A. W. A., L. W. Butler, and Independent Association of Pattern Makers, Inc., herein called the Independent, .a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the respondent. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent had between May-10, 1937, and the date of the complaint dominated and interfered With the formation and administration of the Independent and con- tributed support to it; that the respondent had between January 6, 1937, and March 3, 1937, discouraged membership in the U. A. W. A. by discharging 38 named employees,3' and in other ways discrimi- nating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of 5 of its ,employees ,4 because they joined and assisted the U. A. W. A. and engaged in concerted activities-with other employees of the respondent for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; and that the respondent had, by the foregoing acts, by threatening members of the U. A. W. A. with loss of employment, by making disparaging remarks about the U. A. W. A., and by other acts and statements, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On October 10, 1937, the respondent filed an answer in which it denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices and pleaded that the controversy concerning the dis- 3 The names of these employees are : L. W. Butler , Harry Janowzyk, Bessie Miner, Dorothy Burge, Olive Helmick, Ada Boxwell, Marie Jones, Virginia Jopling, Mildred Mc- Donald, Gertrude White, Betty McLaughlin, Leona Parry, Lydia Choulot, Helen Marshall, Gertrude Sweet, Rose Stone, Jane Truman, Justine Weller, Alma Sharpe, Ruth Lidke, Frieda Johnson, Evelyn Harbaugh, Mary Van Patten, Olive Pridavka, Margaret Pridavka, Laverne James, Bessie Medders, Helen Cody, Mildred Loomis, Margaret Wagner, Lorraine Lewis, Margaret McMahon , Ethel Gregor , Helen McMenamin, Marie Mihills, Irene Ivins, Dorothy Geisbert, and Leona Willer. 4 The names of these employees are : L. W. Butler, Fred Meyers, Dorothy Burge, Avery Stone, and Bessie Miner. SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 293 charges and other matters alleged in the complaint had been fully compromised and settled at the suggestion of the Board's Regional Director by the reinstatement, without back pay, of all employees named in the complaint except L. W. Butler, as well as a large number of other employees who had engaged in a sit-down strike at the re- spondent's plant. On October 7, 1937, the Independent filed a petition for leave to intervene and requested that the hearing on the complaint be consolidated with the hearing on a petition for investigation and certification theretofore filed by it. It also filed a proposed answer in which it denied that the respondent had dominated or interfered with its formation or administration or contributed support to it. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Niles, Michigan, on Octo- ber 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23 and on November 8, 9, and 10, 1937, before Thomas H. Kennedy, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the commencement of the hearing the Trial Examiner permitted the Independent to intervene, denied its request for con- solidation, and ruled that its proposed answer would be considered as its answer to the complaint. The Board, the respondent, and the. Independent were represented by counsel and participated in.the hear- ing. Full opportunity •to- be heard, to examine and cross-examine. witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. On motion of counsel for the Board at the commencement of the hearing, the complaint was amended by striking therefrom the name of Leona Willer and adding the names of Kate Smith, Anna Balon, Mildred Harrigan, Ezra Jones, Elsie Jones, Thomas Stratton, and one Draper, whose first name was unknown, to the list of employees alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatorily discharged. The amendment to the complaint was predicated upon a second amended charge filed by the U. A. W. A. on October 16, 1937. The Trial Examiner granted:.the respondent 5 days from the date of the filing of the amendment to the complaint within which- to file an an- swer thereto.and directed that no testimony be taken under the amend- ment to the complaint prior to the filing. of such answer.5 During the course. of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing counsel for the respondent was granted permission by the Trial Examiner to file a brief and counsel for the Board was granted permission to file a reply brief. 1 The parties subsequently stipulated that the original answer of the respondent should serve as an answer to the complaint as amended. 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On February 28, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the Independent, the U. A. W. A., and L. W. Butler. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respond- ent cease and desist therefrom, that it reinstate L. W. Butler to his former position, and that it make whole L. W. Butler and 28 other named employees 6 for any loss in pay suffered by them because of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. He further recommended that the complaint be dis- missed as to 17 other employees 7 who, he found, had not been dis- criminatorily discharged, and that it also be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the respondent had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent and contributed support to it. On March 21, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and on April 16, 1938, filed a brief. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was thereafter held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on April 21, 1938. The respondent and the U. A. W. A. appeared by counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has considered the respondent's excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and its brief. The exceptions, save those which we find unnecessary to consider in view of our findings below, and save those which are inconsistent with our findings below, are hereby sustained. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and licensed to do business in the State of Michi- gan. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling paper dress patterns for women's and children's clothing, and printing and publishing catalogues, fashion forecasts, and other printed material, 6 The names of these employees are : Harry Janowzyk , Bessie Miner, Dorothy Bulge, Laverne James, Bessie Medders, Olive Helmick, Ada Boxwell, Virginia Jopling, Mildred McDonald, Betty McLaughlin, Rose Stone, Justine Weller,' Ruth Lidke, Marry Van Patten, Ethel Gregor, Helen Cody, Margaret Wagner, Mildred Harrigan , Ezra Jones, Elsie Jones, Marie Jones, Gertrude White, Lorraine Lewis, Margaret McMahon, Leona Parry, Evelyn Harbaugh, Irene Ivins, and Fred Meyers. 7 The names of these employees are : Ellen Marshall, Gertrude Sweet, Alma Sharpe, Frieda Johnson , Lydia Choulot , Olivette Pridavka , Marie Mihillis , Dorothy Geishert, Anna Balon , Thomas Stratton , Avery Stone, Jane Truman, Mildred Loomis , Helen McMenamin, Kate Smith , Robert Draper , and Margaret Pridavka. SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 295 illustrating and describing the patterns so manufactured and sold. Its principal publication is known as Simplicity Pattern Forecasts. It also publishes the Pictorial Fashion Guide and the Dubarry Fashion Guide. It maintains its principal office and its designing department in New York City, and its pattern and printed material production plant, at which the unfair labor practices are alleged to have occurred, in Niles, Michigan. The principal commodity used by the respondent in its Niles plant is paper. Most of the paper is obtained from a paper mill in Cheboy- gan, Michigan, operated by the North American Pulp & Paper Cor- poration, a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent. All of the pulp used in the manufacture of paper at Cheboygan, however, is obtained from points outside the State of Michigan. Other com- modities used by the respondent in its manufacturing and printing are ink, glue, paste, shipping cartons, wrapping paper, twine, and banding steel, all of which is obtained from points, outside Michigan. In volume of patterns sold, the respondent ranks among the first in the pattern industry in the United States. It maintains branch warehouses in New York City, Atlanta, Georgia, Dallas, Texas, and San Francisco, California, which serve as distributing centers. It produces approximately 55 million patterns annually. These pat- terns are sold throughout the United States and in Great Britain. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 92, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, and Independent Association of Pattern Makers, Inc., are labor organizations which admit to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 25, 1937 During the latter part of November or the first week in December 1936, some of the respondent's employees in the cutting department of the Niles plant who were interested in forming a labor organization approached Harry Janowzyk,8 one of the cutters, and asked him whether he knew anyone who could advise them about organizing. Janowzyk knew one Billingsley, who was chief steward of the United Automobile Workers of America at another plant, and volunteered to arrange a meeting between Billingsley and the cutters who were interested in organizing. After agreeing to arrange the meeting Janowzyk prepared a paper for the signature of those who desired to organize, and just before quitting time on or about December 3, 8 This name was incorrectly designated in the complaint as Janowski , but was corrected by stipulation at the hearing. 247383-40-vol. 16--20 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD while the cutters were idle and waiting for more work, signed the paper and circulated it among them. He told them, "I wouldn't want to go into something and get fired for it if I was not responsible." Eleven cutters signed the paper. The meeting with Billingsley was arranged and held on the evening of Saturday, December 5. At noon on that day Janowzyk was laid off by Matthew O'Shaughnessy, the foreman in charge of pattern manufacturing, who told him to return 2 weeks after the termination of the Christ- mas holidays. Janowzyk returned at that time, and O'Shaughnessy then informed him that the respondent did not want him any more. The complaint alleges that Janowzyk was discharged because he joined and assisted the U. A. W. A. and engaged in concerted activi- ties with other employees of the respondent for the purposes of col- lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. Tunis D. Griffith, production manager of the respondent, testified that during the early part of December it became necessary for the respondent to reduce its staff of cutters, and that in reducing its staff it decided to dispense with the services of one of the cutters and to transfer four others, its newest cutters, to the drilling department. Griffith further testified that he selected Janowzyk for discharge. because O'Shaughnessy had theretofore criticized his work and his attitude. On the Thursday prior to Janowzyk's discharge, ' appar- ently before circulating the paper which we have above mentioned, Janowzyk had a dispute with his foreman concerning the manner in which a pattern had been cut. At the hearing Janowzyk attempted to minimize the seriousness of the dispute by claiming that he fre- quently had similar disputes with his foreman. That he did not actually consider the dispute as unimportant, however, is indicated by the fact that he asked O'Shaughnessy when being laid off whether the dispute had anything to do with his lay-off, and by the further fact that in later applying for reinstatement he wrote O'Shaughnessy, "I still think you.laid me off because I got hot headed with you." While O'Shaughnessy denied to Janowzyk that he ever told Griffith about any of the disputes, it is probable that he at least complained to Griffith about Janowzyk's work or attitude, as Griffith testified. O'Shaughnessy did not testify in regard to this matter. It has not been shown that the respondent knew about the paper circulated by Janowzyk on December 3 or about any union activities of the employees prior to the time Janowzyk was discharged. Griffith expressly denied that he had such, knowledge. Under, the circum- stances we shall accept the reason advanced by Griffith as the true reason for Janowzyk's discharge. We find that the allegations of the complaint in regard to Janowzyk are not sustained. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint as to him. SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 297 L. W. Butler was ohe' of the your newest cutters whom Griffith transferred from the cutting to the drilling department early in De- cember 1936. On January 6, 1937, he was discharged. Butler was the last cutter to sign the paper which Janowzyk com- menced circulating among the cutters on December 3. He attended the meeting with Billingsley on December 5 and shortly thereafter attended another meeting of employees interested in organizing. He contends that although he was active in union affairs away from the plant, he did not discuss union matters while at the plant. He nevertheless contends that he was demoted from his job as a cutter to the job of carrying stock in the drilling department and thereafter discharged on January 6, 1937, because he joined and assisted the U. A. W. A. and engaged in concerted activities with other of the respondent's employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. Butler testified that shortly after December 15 he noticed that O'Shaughnessy appeared to be watching him closely and following him around as he delivered stock to the cutters. He called this fact to the attention of some of the cutters, one of whom, Lauris Burge, corroborated Butler's testimony concerning the close surveillance of O'Shaughnessy. On January 6, 1937, when Butler was discharged, O'Shaughnessy told him that he, Butler, had been talking too much during the previous week when O'Shaughnessy had been absent. Butler then asked Fuester, foreman of the drilling department, whether there was anything wrong with his work and Fuester replied that there was not, and added that if there had been anything wrong with it, he, Fuester, would have told Butler. Griffith testified that after Butler was transferred back to the drill- ing department, he did not seem interested in his work; that shortly before January 6, he talked to O'Shaughnessy about Butler and that O'Shaughnessy informed him that both he, O'Shaughnessy, and Fuester had spoken to Butler about loitering, indifference, and talk- ing; that Griffith thereupon again observed him for 2 or 3 days, then instructed O'Shaughnessy to dismiss him. Griffith contends that he was ignorant of any union activities on the part of Butler or any other employees prior to the time Butler was discharged. Butler's contention that his union activities were responsible for his transfer from the cutting to the drilling department is without support in the record. His testimony that O'Shaughnessy followed him around and watched him closely was not denied by O'Shaugh- nessy, and we accept it as true. Such activity, however, may have resulted from Butler's conduct about which Griffith testified and is not necessarily indicative of an intent to discriminate against Butler. We accept as true Griffith's explanation of his reasons for discharging Butler. { 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the allegations of the complaint in regard to the de- motion and discharge of Butler are not sustained . We shall there- fore dismiss the complaint as to him. IV. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY 24, 1937,. AND COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT OF CHARGES During January and February 1937, the International Printing,- Pressmen and Assistants' Union, affiliated with the American Federa- tion of. Labor, herein called the Pressmen's Union, organized the letter-press printers, the folding-machine operators, and the pattern cutters, and on February 24, the respondent entered into a closed- shop contract with that union covering the above classes of employees. McHugh, an organizer for that union, while negotiating for the print- ers, folding-machine operators, and cutters, expressed to 'Griffith hiss desire to organize the entire plant, but was discouraged in that pur- pose by Griffith's statement that he did not believe an organization of the entire plant "could possibly work out to advantage" due to the fact that the respondent employed a large number of women who married early in life and quit their jobs. A number of the- women employees, however, were interested in organizing and began discussing the organization of a union of their own. Dorothy Burge, an employee in the reorder department, arranged' a meeting of some of the women employees with representatives of the Pressmen's Union at a hotel in Niles for February 18. As the- employees left the meeting, they observed the foreman and assistant foreman of the shipping department sitting in a window across the- street from the hotel where they could see the employees who at- tended the meeting. Bessie Miner, an employee of the tracing de- partment, arranged for another meeting of the women employees at her home on February 24. At the suggestion of a representative of the Pressmen's Union who attended the meeting, she prepared a paper- designated by her as a "round robin," which provided sic e'for sig- natures within a circle, of employees interested in organizing. She- took the "round robin" with her to the plant on the following day and commenced obtaining signatures thereon during the noon hour.. A group of employees at her table who had been discussing and sign- ing the "round robin" dispersed after they noticed O'Shaughnessy- enter the room, apparently observing them. About this time other- employees had been grouping together during the noon hour and discussing the formation of a union. At quitting time on February 25 Dorothy Burge, Bessie Miner,, and 16 other employees were discharged. Between that date and SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 299 March 3, 20 more were discharged . The respondent gave them no reason for discharging them. Several of them approached Griffith and asked him why they were discharged . He told them that he had ;given them no reason for hiring them and felt that he need give them no reason for firing them. Practically all of the 38 employees ivho were discharged had either been active in attempting to organize It union, had associated with those who were active , or had been seen in discussion groups during the noon hour on February 25 and thereafter. Soon after the occurrence of these discharges a group of the women employees, and some of the men employees who were not eligible for membership in the Pressmen's Union, were organized by the U. A. W. A. On March 9, 1937, a committee of the U. A. W. A., consisting of one Merrill, an organizer , and 5 employees , met with Ralph M. Roscher, the plant manager , to inquire about the cause of the 38 discharges and to request the reinstatement of the discharged employees . Roscher told the committee that the respondent had good reasons for discharg- ing each of the 38 employees, refused to reinstate them , and refused to discuss the reasons for their discharges . He had before him a record of the earnings of members of the committee and attempted to evade discussing the discharges by talking to the individual members of the committee about their production records and comparing their earn- ings with the amount they might be earning elsewhere . On the same day, after the committee meeting had dispersed , and on the following day, Roscher again talked to the individual members of the committee, informed them that he "did not like a fellow like Merrill coming in and trying to tell the Company how to run the plant," told them that if they joined a union they would have two bosses instead of one and would only be paying out money to someone, and forbade them to talk about a union on the premises of the respondent either before working hours or during the noon hour. As a result of the respondent's refusal to reinstate the discharged employees or discuss its reasons for discharging them and its attempts to discourage collective bargaining and the organization of a union among its women employees, employees in several departments at the plant engaged in a sit-down strike on March 15 . They were ejected from the plant on 'March 17 under a mandatory writ of injunction issued by the Circuit Court of Berrien County, Michigan. On April 26, 1937, the U. A. W. A. filed charges with Frank M. Bowen, the Board's Regional Director , alleging that the respondent had by divers statements and acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, that it had on March 9 and thereafter refused to 300 --, DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargain. collectively with the U. A. W. A., and that it had .between February 25 and on or about March 17 discharged and refused to rein- state about 139 employees because they had joined and assisted a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid. Seventy or more of the 139 employees had engaged in the sit-down strike. On the following day, April 27, Griffith and the respondent's counsel, W. N. Burns, after having been informed of the filing of these charges, conferred with Bowen, the Regional Director, with reference thereto. After a discussion by the parties, Bowen suggested that if the re- spondent would reinstate all the employees alleged to have been dis- criminatorily discharged on February 25 and thereafter, including those who had engaged in the sit-down strike, without making repara- tion to any of them for loss of wages, and would also resume negotia- tions with the U. A. W. A. for the adjustment of other proposals on behalf of its members, Bowen would recommend to the U. A. W. A. that it withdraw the charges which had been filed. Griffith and Burns agreed to this proposal. Bowen then outlined the proposed settlement to Homer Martin, president of the International Union, U. A. W. A., by telephone, and the latter also agreed to it. On April 29 the respondent met with L. R. Richardson, a U. A. W. A. organizer, and a committee of the U. A. W. A., which accepted the proposed settlement as above outlined and as set forth in a notice which the respondent had prepared and which it subsequently posted at the plant. Although the U. A. W. A. did not claim to represent a majority of the employees within an appropriate unit, the respondent com- menced negotiations with it upon the provisions of a written proposal submitted by the U. A. W. A. covering wages, hours, and other condi- tions of employment. On April 30 the respondent mailed notices to those employees who had been discharged and refused reinstatement on or subsequent to February 25, offering them reinstatement to their former positions. It thereafter reinstated all of such employees who desired reinstatement. ' On May 6 representatives of the U. A. W. A. and the respondent again met and reached a tentative agreement con- cerning certain proposals relative to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Representatives of the respondent, however, informed the U. A. W. A. that they were not authorized to conclude an agree- ment without specific authorization from the president of the respond- ent in New York and agreed to consult with the president prior to May 11, at which time another conference with the U. A. W. A. was ar- ranged. On May 11 representatives of the respondent announced to the U. A. W. A. that the respondent would not enter into a written agreement with the U. A. W. A. but that it would promulgate to all its employees a statement of policy, a copy of which was submitted to the SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, .INCORPORATED 301 committee;., in which the:. respondent, recognized: and, agreed, sto meet, with the U. A. W. A., the Pressmen's Union, and the Independent as representatives of their members only and in which it set forth its policy concerning certain terms and conditions of employment. The terms and conditions of employment announced in the statement of policy were substantially equivalent to the terms tentatively agreed upon on May 6. The U. A. W. A. thereupon refused to withdraw the charges which it had filed, assigning as its reasons therefor that the respondent had refused to execute a written agreement with the U. A. W. A. and that the respondent had announced its intention to bargain with the Inde- pendent, which the U. A. W. A. claimed was a company-dominated union .9 The Independent had apparently been organized at the plant between May 6 and May 11. We are of the opinion that the respondent has substantially com- plied with its agreement of April 27 with the U. A. W. A.10 It is apparent, from the record that both parties were in doubt as to the probable outcome of the charges, or some of them, if they should proceed to a hearing. The proposed settlement, suggested by the Regional Director, was not patently unfair or unjust, and a compro- mise of such matters on terms such as those agreed upon should not be discouraged. As we have heretofore stated in other cases," the Board is not precluded by a settlement or compromise of unfair labor practice charges from proceeding with a determination of such charges, even though the Regional Director or other agent of the Board, as here, may have participated in and sanctioned the com- promise agreement. Nevertheless, effective- administration of the Act requires 'that the Board recognize and respect matters of ad- justment in which its agents have participated. We believe that in the case before us the policies of the Act will best be effectuated by giving effect to the compromise agreement made between the re- spondent and the U. A. W. A. and by refraining from a considera- tion of matters set forth in the charges filed by the U. A. W. A. on April 26. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint in so far as it relates to matters covered by. those charges. 9 The respondent and counsel for the Board stipulated at the hearing that the facts relative to the proposed settlement and subsequent negotiations with the U. A. W. A. are substantially as set forth above. 10 By this statement we do not find that the respondent has bargained collectively within the meaning of the Act but only that it has•negotiated with the U. A. W. A. as required by the compromise agreement. No charge that the respondent has failed to bargain collec- tively within the meaning of the Act is before us for consideration. 1 Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Hill of Smelter Workers, Local No. 26, 11 N. L. R. B. 885; and Matter of Godchaux Sugars, lie. and Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 2188, affiliated with the America Federation of Labor, 12 N. L. R. B. 568. 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. ALLEGED DOMINATION OF AND INTERFERENCE WITH FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE INDEPENDENT Based upon charges filed subsequent to April 26, the complaint alleges that the respondent on and subsequent to May 10, 1937, domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent and contributed support to it. No evidence was intro- duced in support of these charges. At the hearing the U. A. W. A., the Independent, the respondent, and counsel for the Board entered into a stipulation wherein they agreed that an election by secret ballot should be conducted by the Board's Regional Director, or an agent designated by him, within 20 days among certain employees agreed upon as constituting a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, to determine whether such employees desire to be represented by the U. A. W. A. or by the Independent. It was further stipulated that the respondent, within 3 days from the date set for the election, would post throughout its plant a notice relative to refraining from the commission of unfair labor practices. We deem it unnecessary to set forth the provisions of this notice inasmuch as the parties further stipulated that nothing in the stipula- tion should be considered as evidence that the respondent had domi- nated, controlled, influenced, or interfered with the formation or administration of the Independent or had engaged in any other unfair labor practices. Under the circumstances, we can make no finding relative to whether or not the respondent dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Independent or contributed sup- port to it. We shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in such unfair labor practice. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations and business of the respondent, Simplicity Pat- tern Company, Inc., constitute a continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and between the States and foreign countries, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. Local 92, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, and Independent Association of Pattern Makers, Inc., are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by discharging Harry Janowzyk and L. W. Butler, has not discriminated in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INCORPORATED ORDER 303 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint, as amended, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.