Washington Tin Plate Co.

In the Matter Of WASHINGTON TIN PLATE COMPANY and AMALGA- MATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL & TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL No. 1600 Case No. C-920.-Decided October 27, 1939 Tin-Plate Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion, talks to and conversations with employees calculated to forestall imminent formation of outside union ; interrogation of employees and anti-union state- ments following formation of outside union-Company-Dominated Union. domination of and interference with the formation and administration ; activ- ities on company time and property ; supervisory and managerial acts on behalf of; preference for as a means of resisting outside union ; ratification of super- visory acts unnecessary ; testimony and stipulation that employees would tes- tify that they voluntarily joined company union without coercion or interference held immaterial ; disestablished , as agency for collective bar- gaining. Mr. John H. Dorsey, for the Board. Mr. John C. Bane, Jr., Mr. Stewart H. French, Jr., and Reed, Smith, Shaw and McClay, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the respondent. Mr. Wray C. Zelt, Jr., of Washington, Pa., for Watipco. Mrs. Evelyn Neilson Cooper, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1600, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated August 1, 1938, against Washington Tin Plate Company, Washing- ton, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged and was engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint, accom- 16 N. L. R. B., No. 64. 600 WASHINGTON TIN PLATE COMPANY 601. panied by a notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that (1) on or about April 15, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent urged, persuaded, and coerced its employees into becom- ing members of a labor organization known as Watipco Mutual Benefit Association, herein called Watipco; (2) while so operating, the respondent dominated and interfered with, and is dominating and interfering with, the formation and administration of Watipco, and has contributed financial and other support to it; (3) by threats, speeches, conversation with individual employees, and by various other ways, the respondent has attempted to discourage and has dis- couraged the membership of its employees in their affiliation with the Union and the free choice of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; and (4) by virtue of the foregoing acts and each of them, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent duly filed an answer to the complaint, in substance admitting the Board's jurisdiction and certain allega- tions of fact as to its business, but denying the commission of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 11 and 12, 1938, at Pittsburgh and at Washington, Pennsylvania, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondent and the Board were represented by counsel and partici: pated in the hearing. The Union did not appear. 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 open- ing of the hearing, Watipco appemired by counsel and presented a petition to intervene, which was disallowed. At the close of the Board's case and at the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruling on said mo- tions was reserved by the Trial Examiner who denied them in his Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled on several other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On September 6, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. He accordingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist from engaging 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the unfair labor practices found, and, affirmatively, that it with- draw recognition from and disestablish Watipco. Copies of the Intermediate Report were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. On September 24, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, requesting oral argument before the Board and permission to submit a brief upon the issues raised by its exceptions. On September 23, 1938, Watipco filed exceptions to the record and to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was had before the Board at Washington, D. C., on August 17, 1939. The respondent was repre- sented by counsel. Although served with notice, neither the Union nor Watipco appeared. Thereafter, pursuant to permission granted by the Board, the respondent filed a brief. The Board has con- sidered the respondent's and Watipco's exceptions to the Intermedi- ate Report and the brief submitted. In so far as the respondent's and Watipco's exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, con- clusions, and order hereinafter set forth, the Board finds them to be without merit. 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 Pennsylvania corporation with its office and place of business in Washington, Pennsylvania. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of tin plate and black plate. Steel and pig tin together constitute almost 100 per cent of the total tonnage of raw materials used by the respondent. Approximately 50 per cent of the steel, which comprises almost 98 per cent of the total tonnage of raw materials, and 100 per cent of the pig tin, are purchased and shipped to the respondent from outside the State of Pennsylvania. More than half of the respondent's total product is shipped in interstate commerce. Sales are made largely through manufacturers' agents located outside the State. During the year 1937-1938, the total sales amounted to over $1,000,000. About. 500 persons are employed at the respondent's mill in production work. The respondent has admitted, and we find, that it is engaged in .interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1600, affiliated with the Steel Workers 1 The facts in this section are derived from a stipulation entered into by counsel for the respondent and counsel for the Board. WASHINGTON TIN. PLATE COMPANY 603 -Organizing Committee, is a labor organization, admitting to its'inem- bership all production and maintenance employees of the respondent. The Steel Workers Organizing Committee is affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. O. The Watipco Mutual Benefit Association is an unaffiliated labor organizatioli admitting to membership the respondent's mill employees. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination and interference with Watipco and other interference, restraint, and coercion Unionization of the respondent's mill first began in August 1936 with the advent of an organizer for the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C. The record does not dis- close the details of these early organizational efforts. In April 1937, a $5 daily minimum wage rate for labor was announced by the United States Steel Corporation and other employees in the steel industry. The prospect of having to meet this wage scale 2 occa- sioned anxiety on the part of the respondent because of its current financial condition.' Kraft, the respondent's president, discussed this development with McDonough, the general plant manager, and advised him that "he would have to be careful of his cost of opera- tions." About the same time there was some sentiment among the respondent's employees for a wage increase in conformity with the announced $5 minimum rate. There were also concomitant gains in C. I. O. membership among the employees. On Friday; April 23,' Rush, an employee who was organizing for the C. I. O. and who subsequently became president of the Union, was summoned to the office of Zimmerman, his foreman. He was there questioned by McDonough as to why he had organized the employees before consulting the management, and was told to have his committee meet with McDonough the following morning. On the same day, McDonough addressed a meeting of some 80 employees during work- ing hours. He spoke of the respondent's financial condition and requested that they formulate and advise him of their demands. In McDonough's presence, Miles, a C. I. O. member and subsequently treasurer of the Union, arranged a C. I. 0.4 meeting for Sunday, 2 Kraft testified that it had always been the respondent's policy to pay the competitive wage scale. 3 Kraft also testified that a few months prior to the announced increase In labor costs there had been a reduction in the sale price of tin plate accompanied by an increase in the price of steel. 4 It Is not clear from the record whether there was any mention of the C. I. 0. on this occasion . In its brief, however, the respondent has construed the evidence thus : "a .meeting of the C. I. 0. was arranged and announced by Miles," and "at the meeting 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD April 25, to be followed by a conference between the committee and 'McDonough on Monday, the 26th. These arrangements were an- nounced to the assembled group by Miles, whereupon McDonough said, "You can make your decision and let me know what you want to 'do with this." 5 Miles attended this meeting at the behest. of Miller, his foreman. On Saturday morning, April 24, Ellis, the assistant general plant manager, requested Miles to see McDonough. McDonough inquired, "Just what do you boys want," and Miles responded, "40-hours a week, $5 a day, and seniority rights." Shortly thereafter Miles was asked by Ellis to return to McDonough's office, at which time McDonough requested that the forthcoming Sunday meeting of the C. I. O. be postponed. After leaving McDonough's office, Miles testified without contradiction, and we find, that Ellis said to him : ."Joe, if you can go along with us, we will make it worth your while." On Saturday morning during working hours, McDonough also ad- -dressed a meeting of the 19 or 20 gins employed at the mill, which had been called by Miller, their foreman. , After having been intro- duced by Ellis, according to Miss Bukowski's uncontroverted testi- mony, he stated that he had been "treating his people fair" and asked the girls "to consider the things that we have been hearing about people talking to us about other organizations." On Saturday after- noon, at a time when some of the employees were still working, a meeting of more than 100 men was convened on the respondent's premises-0 It was addressed first by Porter, one of the Watipco organizers, who alluded to the beneficent treatment the employees had received from the respondent during the depression and, dis- paragingly, to his prior union experience; then by McDonough who adverted to business conditions, saying that the respondent was "not making any money" and that he did not know "how things would ,turn out." He called attention to the plant across the tracks which had been shut down, adding "we don't want that to happen to this plant." He asserted that it would be hard for the respondent to pay the $5-minimum rate but said, "Boys, if it is only a matter of.a few cents . . ., let's keep peace in the family and we can give you a raise." After McDonough's departure, Porter again addressed the attended by Miles, the C. I. O. group was asked by Mr . McDonough to state their demands." Moreover, Rush testified : Q. * * * what did Mr. Miles say at the meeting? A. He told Mr. McDonough that we were going to have a meeting the next day. Q. * * * who is "we"? A. The C. I. O. * * * According to Rush's testimony , this statement was understood to mean that they were "to have a meeting and decide whether we was going to have the C. I. O. or not." 6 The record does not disclose who called the meeting . In this connection, McDonough testified that some of the "boys" had asked him "to come down and give them an outline of things." There is no evidence to the contrary. WASHINGTON TIN PLATE COMPANY 605 group, saying, "Anybody who wants to sign up with Watipco, come down and sign up." At the same time three other employees circu- lated through the assembly with Watipco slips, soliciting membership. On Sunday morning, April 25, Ellis and Miller called at the respec- tive homes of two employees, Miss Bukowski and Miss Jacobs, both of whom had already joined the C. I. O. Ellis reminded Miss Bukowski of the favors he had conferred "by getting us into work" and ad- monished her to consider her mother before doing anything, suggest- ing, however, that she attend the C. I. O. meeting scheduled for that afternoon. Ellis inquired of Miss Jacobs whether she had joined the C. I. O. and then told her also to go to the meeting, advising her to think for herself. At the afternoon C. I. O. meeting the Union was organized. The following day, Monday the 26th, McDonough refused to see Miles and his committee "under the C. I. O. banner." In this connec- tion, Ellis, who acted as liaison between Miles and .McDonough, said to Miles, "Joe, you know the union is not going to hold you or any other union man his job because you know everybody makes mistakes and we can fire him for it." A few days later, on May 4 and 5, other meetings of the girls were called by Miller during working hours. Ellis and McDonough both spoke. McDonough offered the girls a raise and asked them to think about "staying with him and not getting mixed up with any other organization, . . . [not] associated with the company." 7 During this period, Watipco was organized. Babington, an em- ployee who was an organizer for and president of Watipco, circulated through the mill during working hours soliciting Watipco member- ship and calling meetings, conducted meetings, and otherwise carried on Watipco organizational work in the mills In this he frequently had miss Bukowski's testimony to this effect was not denied categorically. The respondent claims that Babington 's method was practiced also by the Union's leaders . It alludes to Rush 's admission that he had talked to some of the employees about the C. I. O. and had distributed union application cards at the plant . It is clear from the record , however, that such activities did not , like Babington's activities , assume the proportions of an organizational campaign , but were merely such occasional activities a5 could be conducted in spite of the management 's hostility . This is evidenced by Rush's following testimony: Q. . . . was any of that [organizing ] work done in the plant? . . . A. Q. A. Q. Yes. By whom? Byme... What work o you do in the plant? . . . A. I take blue cards, the application cards to work with me and left them in my pocket in my coat. If anyone wanted them I told them where they could get them. Q. . suppose I came up to you then and said, "Mr . Rush , I would like to have one of these application cards, " what would you say? A. "It is in the shop in my coat." . . . Q. Was your coat hanging on a rack or hook where anybody could get to It? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you give out many of these cards at the plant? A. Yes, sir. 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the acquiescence, the permission, and even the assistance of the re- spondent's managerial and supervisory employees : On one occasion during the Watipco campaign Miller consented to Babington's speak- ing to the girls concerning a Watipco meeting; following the union or- ganizational meeting on April 25, Miller and Zimmerman both asked Miss Bukowski, and Miller asked Miss Jacobs, to attend a Watipco meeting in the plant;' Foreman Weaver interrogated numerous em- ployees concerning union membership cursing those who had joined, among them one Bellotti, a union member, to whom lie said, "I gave you a job, and you join the C. I. 0.," and one Abraham Jacobs, a non-union employee, whom he "told to join with us" and sent to do so; Foremen Roberts and Mounts likewise interrogated employees ; Roberts once asked one Johnston, a union member, "What was the matter with sticking with the company" and after Johnston replied that he "couldn't get anything that way," said, "You have a job haven't you?"; Ellis summoned three union members, among them one Elias, to his office for the purpose of asking them to attend a Watipco meeting; during the conversation Ellis warned that the mill might have to be closed and stated, "Wouldn't you fellows rather deal direct with the company than you would through a coal miner," referring to the S. W. O. C. organizer; and later Elias was accosted by Zimmerman who stated, "I thought you promised Mr. Ellis that you would not go to the C. I. O. meeting," adding, "the trouble with you fellows is you can't stand prosperity." Moreover, the respondent's foremen allowed other employees to solicit Watipco membership in the plant during working hours while contemporaneously invoking against union mem- bers a plant rule prohibiting talking during working hours. Zimmerman denied the afore-mentioned conversation with Elias. Weaver admitted having become angered with the men on occasions but denied making the above statement to Bellotti. He was not questioned concerning the mentioned colloquy with Abraham Jacobs, although he did testify that he had done nothing to induce or encour- age any of the employees to join or not to join either labor organiza- tion. Roberts and Mounts both admitted having conversed with employees about unions but only when drawn into such conversations Q. Then how would you get them back, in the plant or where? A. Not always, no. Q. Not always? A. Most of them brought them to me at my house. Q. I mean what you did at the plant, he would sign his name on it and give it back to you? A. I don't think there is many of them signed them in the plant . There isn't very many people carry a pen. ° These requests to attend the Watipco meetings were not accompanied by the obvious warnings against commitment which had been given in connection with the C. I. O. meeting of March 25 on the occasion of Ellis' and Miller's visit to the homes of Miss Bukowski and Miss Jacobs. WASHINGTON TIN PLATE COMPANY 607 by the employees themselves, and, like Weaver, denied that they had encouraged or discouraged membership in either organization. Roberts, moreover, denied that he had made the above remarks to Johnston. Neither Ellis nor Miller was called to testify. In the light of the entire record, however, we cannot credit these denials. The -respondent seeks to discount the testimony concerning the activities of Weaver and Mounts on the ground that some of the witnesses who so testified were Italians, that they had great difficulty understanding the language of counsel, and that they did not com- prehend the issues involved. The record does not warrant so cursory a discrediting of their testimony, since, as to factual events, it was manifestly credible. McDonough contradicted the charges of super- visory favoritism toward Watipco members. However, he described the policy with regard to talking thus : "Now when a man persists in getting off and talking with some other fellow . . . that you are suspicious o f,10 and he talks too long and neglects his work and it comes to my attention, I will tell that foreman to caution him." This statement together with Babington's testimony that McDonough had prohibited him from conducting Watipco business in the plant only after Watipco had been organized negates McDonough's disavowal of the management's preferential treatment of Watipco. Three or four days following the formation of Watipco on May 1, a Watipco wage agreement was presented to the respondent. It described Watipco as the majority representative of the respondent's employees and embodied the wage increases previously offered by McDonough. This agreement was executed on May 12, 1937, without change, by Kraft and McDonough on behalf of the respondent and by Babington on behalf of the employees. By its terms it was to run for 1 year beginning April 16, 1937. On June 11, 1937, the re= spondent entered into a collective contract with the S. W. O. C. on behalf of the Union's members, which was to be effective until February 28, 1938. Pursuant to the latter contract, the respondent posted notices throughout the mill reciting its recognition of the employees' right -to, collective bargaining free from interference. McDonough testified that these notices were simply declaratory of the respondent's established policy. The evidence hereinbefore discussed establishes, however, that in practice a contrary policy was pursued. Watipco's contract was not renewed due to the pendency of this proceeding. The Union's contract, however, was extended on Febru- ary 25, 1938, until such time as the parties, after notice by either party of a desire to negotiate changes, failed within 20 days to agree to written modification of the contract. 10 Italics supplied. 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD B. Conclusions 11 When the organizational drive of the C. I. O. gained momentum in April 1937, the respondent sought to forestall the anticipated formation of the Union. Thus McDonough asked Rush on April 23 why he had not consulted the management before organizing the employees. This direct indication of the respondent's resentment against the contemplated action was followed by a series of talks by McDonough during working hours with groups of employees. The respondent urges that neither the C. I. O. nor Watipco was men- tioned during. these talks and that they were confined to discussions of the respondent's current business condition, the respondent's com- petitive situation, and prospects for the immediate future. We can- not agree that the substance of McDonough's talks was so limited. It is true that he did not mention the C. I. O. by name, but at a time when the employees were actively considering self-organization as a means of obtaining an increase in their wages, the significance and purpose of McDonough's personal appeals to them in terms of their mutual immediate economic interests were neither construed by the employees nor intended by McDonough to be unrelated to the current self-organization movement. On the contrary, McDonough's refer- ence to the closed neighboring plant, his remarks about "staying with him," and his offers of wage increases despite the respondent's alleged inability to afford such increases conveyed to the employees the fact that his appeals were directed to a cessation of their organizational activity. Moreover, McDonough's reproval of Rush on April 23 and Ellis' admonitions to Miles, to Miss Bukowski, and to Miss Jacobs were sufficient to eliminate any doubt among the employees of the respondent's antipathy toward the Union. When the respondent had so manifested its opposition to union- ization, . Watipco came into existence. The circumstances under which this occurred made plain to the employees the respondent's preference for Watipco and its intention to further that organization as a means of resisting the Union. This preference and support was established by the above-mentioned managerial and supervisory assistance to Watipco in soliciting membership and in condoning Watipco organizational activity during working hours and by the respondent's continuing hostility toward the Union as expressed through Foremen Weaver, Roberts, Mounts, and Zimmerman. The respondent argues that some of the anti-union remarks attributed to these foremen had been elicited by the employees themselves and that in any event such remarks had not actually discouraged mem- bership in the Union. We consider these contentions untenable. The supervisory interrogation of employees and comments about union membership carried an implicit and frequently an express WAS:E1INGTON TIN PLATE COMPANY 609 threat that the respondent's economic power would be used to the disadvantage of union members. We have so repeatedly held as to require no recitation here that such statements by supervisory em- ployees exceed the bounds of ordinary and casual conversation and contravene the Act. But the respondent further argues that it was in no way responsible for, and had not ratified the actions of, its supervisory employees. We find that the respondent is chargeable. with the acts of its supervisory agents and that, having clothed such agents with authority to act on its behalf in its relations with its employees, no formal ratification was necessary to render such acts, binding upon the respondents" The respondent further contends that its non-partisanship was established by McDonough's testimony as to its policy, by the fact that Rush, like Babington, had enjoyed the opportunity of con- ducting "normal" organizing work in the plant during working hours, by the fact that Porter had been permitted to take advantage of the employee meeting on April 24 to solicit Watipco membership only as Miles had been allowed at the employee meeting on April 23. to announce a C. I. 0. meeting, and by the additional fact that it had executed a bargaining contract with each of the rival organi- zations. As previously stated, the record as a whole does not sub- stantiate McDonough's testimony concerning the respondent's policy of impartiality. Moreover, contrary to the respondent's interpretation of the evidence, the record establishes, as we have found, both a quantitative and qualitative difference in the priv- ileges extended to Watipco and the Union. Finally, the respondent's accord of recognition to both labor organizations does not alter the fact of its past acts of interference, domination, and support of Watipco, hereinabove found, nor does it remedy the effect of those acts. During the hearing the Board's attorney stipulated that 233 em- ployees would testify to the effect that they were members of Watip- co, that they had chosen between Watipco and the C. I. 0. of their own free will, that they had not been coerced or encouraged to join, or not to join, either Watipco or the Union by anyone in the manage- ment, and that to their knowledge no other employees were coerced, or encouraged to join or not to join either organization. A number of witnesses testified to the same effect. We accord full weight to the stipulation. But in view of our above findings concerning the respondent's acts, this evidence of the effect or lack of effect of such "See Matter of American Oil Company, Inc. (Curtis Bay Plant ) and' Oil Workers. International Union, Local No . 111, 14 N. L. R. B. 990. See also Titan Metal Manu- facturing Co. V. National Labor Relations Board. 106 F. (2d) 254; National Labor Rela- tions Board v. Botany Worsted Mills, Inc. 106 F. (2d) 263. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD acts upon individual employees or particular groups of employees is not conclusive on the issue of whether or not the respondent in fact has interfered with, dominated, or contributed support to Watipco.12 Moreover, by virtue of the respondent's support of Watipco, it has not been a free representative of the respondent's employees and this testimony does not tend to show that it is capable of becoming such a free representative." We find that the respondent, acting through its managerial and supervisory employees, by speeches and conversations with individual employees calculated to forestall the organization of the Union; by interrogating employees about union membership ; by threatening them in that connection ; by making disparaging anti-union state- ments; by favoring Watipco members as against union members; by allowing Watipco meetings to be held on company property and the Watipco organizational campaign to be conducted on company time as contrasted with its opposition' to similar organizational activity by the Union; and by soliciting members for Watipco, has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of Watipco and has contributed support to it; and has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act 14 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent as set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed 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 com-. merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has dominated.:and- uiter,£ered with the formation and administration of Watipco and has con- tributed support to it, we shall order it to cease and desist from these unfair labor practices. We find that Watipco is incapable of serv- ing the respondent's employees as their bona fide representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that its continued exist- 12 See Matter of Lady Ester Lingerie Corp. and International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Org., 10 N. L. R. B. 518; Matter of Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company (D A B Division ) and Steel Workers Organizing Committee , 11 N. L. R. B. 79. u See Matter of West Kentucky Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 23, 10 N. L. R. B. 88. 14 See Titan Metal Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra; National Labor Relations Board v. Botany Worsted Mills, Inc., supra. WASHINGTON TIN PLATE COMPANY 611 ence would thwart the purposes of the Act. Therefore, we shall affirmatively require the respondent to withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish Watipco. Having also found that the respondent has engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, we will order it to cease and desist from engaging in such practices. In order more effectively to effectuate the policies of the Act, we will order the respondent immediately to post notices in conspicuous places in each department in its plant stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en- tire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1600, and Watipco Mutual Benefit Asso- ciation 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 Watipco Mutual Benefit Association, and by contributing support to it, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Washington Tin Plate Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Watipco Mutual Benefit Association, or the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, or 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 the right to self-organization, to form, 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Watipco Mutual Benefit As- sociation as 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 other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said Association as such representative; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in each department in its plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecu- tive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a) and (b) and will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) of this Order; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.