Wickwire Brothers

In the Matter Of `ICKWIRE BROTHERS and AMALGAMATED •ASS'N. OF IRON, . STEEL & TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA , LODGE. #1985, THROUGH S . W. O. C., AFFILIATED WITH TIIE C. I.. O.. Case No. C-1004.-Decided October 23, 1939 Wire and Screening Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: posting of notice by the respondent containing statements in derogation of a labor organization; coercive statements made by the respondent's super- visors to its employees ; responsibility of employer for acts of its supervisory em- ployees which are not effectively disavowed ; presence of supervisory employees at a meeting of its employees, and participation therein ; posting of election notices of neutrality to remove the ill effects on the election not sufficiently remedial of matters occurring prior thereto upon which findings of, are based- Agreement: consent-election agreement given effect to effectuate the Act as to dismissal of charges of violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act- Company-Domi-nated Union: charges of, dismissed; consent-election agreement between inside and outside unions, witnessed by agent of the Board, recognized the inside union as capable of representing the employees; events prior to election pursuant to such agreement not considered a basis for sustaining allegations with respect to domination of inside union; effect of coercive statements of supervisor made between the date of the consent-election agreement and the date of the election removed by respondent's posting a notice of neutrality in the impending election ; no evidence of domination after the election-Remedy: respondent ordered to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to post notices stating that it will so cease and desist. dlr. Peter J. Crotty, for the Board. Kelly & Maher, by Mr. John H. Hughes and Mr. William L. Broad, of Cortland, N. Y., for the respondent. Lusk, Buck, Ames & Folmer, by Mr. Morse E. Ames, of Cortland, N. Y., for the Association. Mr. Milton A. Harth, of New York City, for the Amalgamated. Mr. Roscoe L. Barrow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Amalgamated Ass'n. of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1985, 16 N. L. R. B., No. 36. 316 WICKWIRE BROTHERS 317 herein called the Amalgamated, the National Labor. Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York) issued its complaint dated July 19, 1938, against Wickwire Brothers, Cortland, New York, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un- fair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Amalgamated. The complaint alleges in substance : (a) that on or about July 1937 and thereafter, the respondent discouraged membership in the Amal- gamated by threatening to lay off or discharge certain members of the Amalgamated, by spying upon meetings held by the Amalgamated, and by urging employees of the respondent to vote against the Amal- gamated in a consent election held by the Board on March 3, 1938; (b) that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of Employees Association of Wickwire Brothers, herein called the Association, and contributed support thereto by permitting solicitation of memberships on company time and property, by grant- ing privileges to members of the Association while denying similar privileges to members of the Amalgamated, by coercing its employees to join the Association, and by coercing its employees to vote against .the' Amalgamated in the consent election conducted by the Board on March 3, 1938; and (c) that by these and other acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent's answer, dated July 27, 1938, admitted the interstate character of its business but denied that it had engaged in or was en- gaging in the alleged unfair labor practices. On July 25, 1938, the Association filed with the Regional Director its motion for leave to intervene in the proceeding to the extent that its interests were concerned. The Regional Director granted the mo- tion on the following day. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on August 1, 2, 3; 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1938, at Cortland New York before Charles E. Persons the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. All the parties were represented by counsel and participated 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. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds that 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 27, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices; withdraw all recognition from the Association as repre- sentative of its employees; completely disestablish the Association as such representative; and post notices in the plant stating that the col- lective bargaining contract entered into by the respondent and the As- sociation is null and void, that the Association is disestablished, and that the respondent will cease and desist from its unfair labor prac- tices. The respondent, on November 15, 1938, and the Association, on No- vember 21, 1938, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On September 16, 1939, the respondent filed its brief. On September 21, 1939, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., in which the respondent participated by counsel. The Board has considered the exceptions and brief filed and the argument presented. In so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, the Board finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 1 Wickwire Brothers is a New York corporation, having its princi- pal office and place of business in Cortland, New York. It is en- gaged in the manufacture and sale of wire, screening, and allied prod- ucts. The principal raw materials used in its operations are pig iron, scrap iron, ferro alloys, zinc, bronze rods, copper rods, and paints. During the year from July 1, 1937, to June 30, 1938, the respondent used in its operations raw materials costing approximately $652,000. Approximately 55 per cent of these raw materials were imported into New York State. During the same period, the respondent manufac- tured products having a selling price of approximately $2,580,000. Approximately 69 per cent of these finished products were shipped outside New York State. ' These findings are based on a stipulation of facts. WICKWIRE BROTHERS 319 In its answer, referred to above, the respondent admits that dur- ing 1937 and during 1938, to the date of its answer, it was engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1985, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, and represented by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, which is also affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.2 The Amalgamated admits to membership all employees of the respondent who are not acting in a supervisory capacity. Employees Association of Wickwire Brothers is an independent labor organization admitting to membership all employees of the respondent who are not acting in a supervisory capacity.s III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The complaint alleges that on or about July 1937 and at various times thereafter, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby discouraging membership in the Amal- gamated, by threatening to lay off or discharge certain members of the Amalgamated, by spying upon meetings held by the Amalga- mated, and by coercing its employees to vote against the Amalga- mated in a consent election held by the Board on March 3, 1938. The respondent's answer denies these allegations of the complaint. Organizational activity in, the respondent's plant was begun by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., acting for the Amalgamated, in the spring of 1937. There had been no union activity in the respondent's plant prior to the advent of the S. W. O. C. The Amalgamated's charter was issued during June 1937. On June 26, 1937, the respondent posted a notice in its plant, con- cerning the affiliation of its employees with the Amalgamated. The ' Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The constitution of the Association provides that "Any employee of Wickwire Brothers Plant may be admitted to membership upon the signing of this Constitution until such time as the Charter shall be declared closed. Thereafter any employee of Wickwire Brothers may become a member upon a vote of the majority of the representatives and the signing of this Constitution ." During the hearing members of the Association testified that under the interpretation placed upon their constitution by them, supervisory em- ployees are not eligible for membership in the Association and that no supervisory employees have been admitted to membership therein. 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO_NS BOARD notice was kept posted 'until October 6, 1937, when it was taken down on the advice of an agent of the Board. The text of the notice is as follows : JUNE 26, 1937. A MESSAGE To our employees: In their efforts to get you to join their union, the C. I. O. Organizers are saying- -that you must join their union to (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: There is no law or rule of government that requires you to join a union or to surrender your rights 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. Advancement in or the holding of a job with this company depends on individual merit, efficiency and length of service. These are the fundamental American principles to which in the interests of yourselves, your families, our stockholders, our community, this company will steadfastly adhere. W ICKWIRE BROTHERS. /S/ CHARLES C. WICKWIRE, President. The respondent claims that this notice was posted in answer to numerous questions put by employees to supervisors, and that its only purpose was to inform the employees that it was not necessary for them to join any labor organization. The notice set forth above is not and plainly was not intended to be an impartial statement of fact. The pointed reference to "Outsiders," coming at a time when the Amalgamated was conducting a campaign to organize the re- spondent's employees and when the Amalgamated was the only labor organization carrying on activities among the respondents employees, 'WICKWIRE BROTHERS 321 had the effect of warning the employees that they should not join the Amalgamated.4 A number of cases arising under the Act have held that coercive statements made by an employer or his supervisory officials to the employees are not protected by the First Amendment.5 We think that the principle established as to oral statements is applicable to the circulation among employees of literature having a coercive effect.° During the fall of 1937, when the Amalgamated and the Associa- tion were competing for the majority status in the plant, Fred A. Wilkins, superintendent of the wire mill, made statements inimical to the Amalgamated to a number of employees. Stanley E. Ryan, one of the respondent's employees, testified that Wilkins stated to him that the Amalgamated was not a good organization and that it had about 3,000,000 members, all of whom paid a dollar each month to it. Wilkins further asked him why he had joined this organiza- tion and whether or not he knew where the dues went. Wilkins tes- tified that as Ryan was complaining about his financial condition, he told Ryan that he would be better off if lie would keep the dues which he was paying to the Amalgamated, and that he should not send his money out of town. Wilkins is a supervisory official who, at the time of the hearing, had been in the respondent's employ for 52 years. He was aware of the respondent's policy towards the Amal- gamated as expressed in the respondent's message to its employees posted on June 26, 1937. His conduct shows that lie was actively combating the Amalgamated in its efforts to organize the plant. We do not feel that his statement was intended as or was received as friendly advice. Under the circumstances we give credence to the testimony of Ryan, and we accept his version of the conversation. Paul Owens, another employee, testified that during November 1937 Wilkins spoke to him, indicating by his conversation that he had seen Owens at a meeting held by the Amalgamated on the pre- vious evening. Owens admitted to Wilkins that he attended this meeting. This conversation was not denied by Wilkins. Peter Gattola, an employee, testified that he also attended this meeting, that on the following day Wilkins asked him whether or not he attended the meeting and whether or not he had paid his dues, that * It is contended in the respondent 's brief that the statement concerning "Outsiders" referred to James Struglia , S. W. O. C . organizer ; who was not an employee of the respondent, and that it did not refer to any labor organization . No such limitation was indicated in the notice itself, or brought to the attention of any of the employees. While we accordingly do not credit the respondent's claim in this respect , the statement would be equally an interference if it were directed only at the particular organizer. ,',National Labor Relations Board v . The Falk Corporation , 102 F. ( 2d) 3813; National Labor Relations Board v. Union Pacific Stages, Inc., 99 F. ( 2d) 153. 179. *Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, 14 N. L. R . B. 346. 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he replied, "Yes," to both questions, and that Wilkins then said, "Well, the door is open." Although Wilkins' testimony is not clear, it would appear from his testimony that he asked Gattola whether or not he had paid his dues to the Amalgamated. He admits that Gat- tola told him that he had paid his dues. Wilkins testified that he then said, "The door is open, join anything you want to." It is improbable that an employee would voluntarily tell the plant super- intendent that he had paid dues to an organization to which the respondent had expressed opposition. We find that Wilkins ques- tioned Gattola concerning his union activities. Joseph Salce, another employee, testified that on the day following this same meeting held by the Amalgamated, Wilkins asked him whether or not he attended the meeting, that he answered, "No," and Wilkins said, "You're a God damn liar," whereupon Salce replied, "You're a God damn liar." Wilkins denied having had this con- versation. Angelo Rinaldi, another employee, testified that Wilkins had talked with him a few times about the Amalgamated, and that during November 1937 Wilkins told him the Amalgamated was no good and that any money paid to it was thrown away. Wilkins denied having made such a statement. Since Wilkins had made similar statements to other employees in the plant during this same period, we give credence to the testimony of Salce and Rinaldi, and we find that Wilkins made the statements which Salce and Rinaldi Rttribute to him. During a noon hour in December 1937, the Amalgamated held a meeting in the street adjacent to the plant. The meeting was author- ized by the local authorities. Several foremen employed by the respondent attended the meeting and participated in the discussion there. We find that during this meeting Robert Wallace, a foreman, stated that the independent union at Crucible Steel, a neighboring con- cern, was proving successful, and that John Steele, another foreman, stated that Ford had been able to get along without a union. Aside from their statements, the presence of foremen at such a meeting of the employees necessarily was an interference therewith. Where meetings are thus held in a public street near the entrance to a plant, supervisory employees may, it is true, legitimately pass in that vicin- ity. But the facts here show that foremen attended this meeting and voluntarily entered into discussions concerning unionism, ex- pressing hostility to the S. W. 0. C. The respondent's witnesses testified that on December 7, 1937, and on several occasions thereafter, Charles C. Wickwire, president of the respondent, told his assembled supervisory employees that, although they should permit no union activity on company time and property, they were not to discuss unions even in their own homes. No such WICKWIRE BROTHERS 323 sentiments were communicated directly to the employees, however. Most of the events discussed above occurred prior to this announce- ment by the respondent's president. As to those events which may have occurred after the announcement was made (the exact dates of some of the events are not available), the issue is whether the policy announced was translated into a course of conduct in the plant con- sistent with that policy. As late as February 1938 at least one super- visor persisted in making anti-union statements to the employees.? We have frequently stated that the acts of a supervisory employee are the acts of the employer unless they are effectively disavowed. The employees must look to the supervisory employees with whom they come in contact for the policy of the company. Their supervisors here expressed anti-union sentiments, as had the respondent in a previous message to the employees. Under these circumstances a statement that the respondent was pursuing a policy of impartiality, made to the supervisory employees and not communicated directly to the other employees, did not effectively. disavow the acts of its super- visory employees.8 We find that the respondent by the foregoing acts has interfered. with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged domination and support of a labor organization; the consent election The complaint alleges that the respondent dominated and inter- fered with the formation and administration of the Association and contributed support thereto, by permitting solicitation of member- ships on company time and property, by granting privileges to mem- bers of the. Association while denying similar privileges to members of the Amalgamated, and by coercing its employees to vote against the Amalgamated in the consent election conducted by the Board on March 3, 1938. The respondent in its answer denied the allegations of the complaint. The Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report that the respondent formed and sponsored the Association and dominated and interfered with its administration. 7 These statements , made by Edward B. Healey, night superintendent, are referred to below. 8 Matter of Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company (D & B Division ) and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 11 N. L. R. B. 79; Matter of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. and Bookkeepers', Stenographers' and Accountants' Union, Local No. 16, et al., 6 N. L. R. B. 216. As set forth below, the respondent did, at a later date, post a notice to its employees expressing a neutral attitude in the election then impending. 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The formation of the Association was begun during August 1937. The respondent recognized it as the representative of the employees for the purposes of collective bargaining on November 26, 1937, and entered into a collective bargaining contract with it on January 24, 1938. On December 4, 1937, the Regional Director discussed with the respondent certain charges which had been filed by the Amalgamated alleging that the respondent had violated Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. An investigation was begun, and as a result of the investi- gation the respondent was advised to refuse to recognize the Associa- tion. The respondent continued to negotiate with the Association. On February 17, 1938, the Association, the Amalgamated, the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, and the respondent reached an agreement, witnessed by the Regional Director, which provided that a consent election should be held to determine which of the above unions the employees wished to have represent them for purposes of collective bargaining. In the election, which was held on March 3, 1938, the Association received 485 votes, the Amalgamated received 310 votes, and the American Federation of Labor received 1.12 votes. Between February 17 and March 3, 1.938, certain coercive statements were made by one of the respondent's supervisory employees. At the Regional Director's request, notices counteracting these statements were posted throughout the plant. A teller's report stating that the balloting was fairly conducted was signed by representatives of the Board, the respondent, the Amalgamated, the Association, and the American Federation of Labor. At the opening of the hearing, at the close of the Board's case, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent and the Association moved to dismiss the complaint in so far as it is based on events which occurred prior to March 3, 1938, the date of the election. Throughout the hearing the respondent and the Association made motions to strike all the testimony relating to such events, on the grounds that charges similar to those on which the complaint in this case is based were filed prior to the consummation of the election agreement; that as con- sideration for the agreement to hold a consent election the Amalga- mated agreed that these charges would not be pressed; and that, in any event, the charges were waived by the Amalgamated's participat- ing in the election. The Trial Examiner denied the motions, and in their exceptions to the Intermediate Report the respondent and the Association took exception thereto. We do not find that the Amalgamated agreed, as consideration for the consent election, that it would not press charges based on events which happened prior to the consent-election agreement. The consent- election agreement does not purport to compromise the respondent's interference, restraint, or coercion in the exercise of the rights guar- WICKWIRE BROTHERS 325 anteed by Section 7 of the Act. The evidence adduced at the hearing does not show that such an agreement was orally made. Although there was no oral or written agreement that the Amal- gamated would refrain from instituting charges based on events which occurred prior to the election , we feel that in acquiescing in the consent-election agreement , in designating the Association on the ballot, and in conducting a consent election in which the Associa- tion was a competing labor organization , the Board's agents by implication acknowledge that the Association was capable to act as a representative of the respondent's employees . Coercive state- ments were made by one of the respondent 's supervisory employees between the date of the consent-election agreement and the date of the election, but the respondent , at the Regional Director's direction, posted notices repudiating the bias expressed in these statements. The Board's agents considered this a sufficient remedy and permitted the election to be held . While we do not agree that the Board is thereby estopped from proceeding with charges of domination of and interference with the administration of the Association, we be- lieve that the. effective administration of the Act requires that the Board 's agents have the respect and confidence of labor organiza- tions and employers with whom their work brings them in contact. It is our opinion that the policies of the Act will best be effectuated by giving effect to the election agreement, which the Board's agent witnessed , and by recognizing the Association as a labor organiza- tion capable of representing the respondent 's employees . Therefore, we shall not consider the events which transpired prior to March 3, 1938, as a basis for sustaining the allegations of the complaint with respect to the respondent's domination of and interference with the Association and for ordering its disestablishment as a representative of the respondent's employees.9 If the respondent had engaged in further unfair labor practices after the consent election, we would disregard the consent -election agreement.Y° Any such agreement obviously contemplates that the employer will not engage in any further unfair labor practices. If the respondent's conduct after the. consent election showed a con- tinuity with its conduct prior thereto, we would consider the whole 9 Matter of Hope Webbing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0., Local No. 14 , 14 N. L. R. B. 55. See also, Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc. and Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No . 21177 and No . 2188 affiliated with the .,nerican Fed- ,eration of Labor, 12 N. L . R. B. 568 (agreement between the respondent and the union that the union would not press charges with respect to unfair labor practices engaged in )rior to the date of the agreement , the Regional Director present and acquiescing) ; and Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill <G Smelter Workers, Local No. 26, 11 N. L. R. B. 885 ( compromise offer made by the Regional Director and accepted by the respondent). 1o Matter of Picker X-Ray Corporation, Waite Manufacturing Division, Inc. and Interna- tional Association of Machinists, 12 N. L. R. B. 1884. 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the respondent's conduct in determining whether the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices with regard to, the Associa- tion?I The respondent is not shown to have engaged in further unfair labor practices subsequent to the consent. election. The com- plaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and contributed support to it, will be dismissed. While the Board's agents recognized the Association as a labor organization capable of representing the respondent's employees, this recognition did not relieve the respondent of the charges that it had violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A above, occurring in connection with the operations described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Although the respondent posted a notice of neutrality 12 on February 28, 1938, this notice was restricted to removing the ill effect on the election, then impending, of certain coercive statements which had been made during the week preceding the election by one of the respondent's supervisory employees. The notice did not address itself to those matters which occurred considerably prior to the notice, and on "Matter of Hope Webbing Company, supra. .12 This notice read as follows : NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF WICKWIRE BROTHERS IT HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION THAT CERTAIN SUPERVISORY OFFICALS [ SIC] OF THID COMPANY HAVE MADE REMARKS WHICH TEND TO THREATEN OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN CON- NECTION WITH THE ELECTION WHICH IS TO BE HELD THURSDAY (MARCH 3RD). THE COMPANY IS ANXIOUS TO ASSURE EVERYONE THAT THIS SORT OF THING CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO VOTE AS THEY SEE FIT AND NO SUPERVISORY OFFICALS [SIC] HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO INTERFER [SIC]. ANY REMARKS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE CONTRARY TO SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN OUR SUPERVISORY OFFICALS [SIC]. IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMPANY THAT EVERY EMPLOYEE VOTE AS HE SEES FIT. THERE WILL BE NO DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION-NO MATTER HOW IT RESULTS. DATLD FEB. 28, 1838. WICKWIRE BROTHERS. 0 WICI WIRE BROTHERS 327 which we have based our finding that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act. Therefore, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and to post appropriate notices. 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. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1985, and Employees Association of Wickwire Brothers are labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , within the mean- ing of Section :8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the 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 respondent, Wickwire Brothers , and its officers , agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or. coercing its employees in the exercise of the 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 purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Cortland , New York, and maintain such notices for a period of sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in para- graph 1 of this Order; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. 247383-40-vol. 16-22 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. MR. WDI. M. LEISERSON, dissenting : In view of the consent-election agreement, the consent election, and the notice of neutrality which the respondent posted at the request of the Board's agents and which was considered a sufficient remedy, I feel that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.