The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED .ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LODGE No. 1647, THROUGH THE STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR IN- DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION Case No. C-928-Decided November 13, 1939 Hardware Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: attempt to discourage self-organization ; anti-union letter by manager distrib- uted to employees ; preference for individual dealings with employees expressed ; affiliation with labor organization declared to lead to friction, jeopardizing employment, to be unnecessary, and to be likely to result in lower wage; labor organization characterized as motivated solely by desire for dues ; one-sided statement as to self-organization and collective bargaining ; anti-union state- ments by foremen ; warning that organization would result in removal of plant ; declaration that organizer would sell out members-Company-Dominated Union : charges of, not sii'stained-Discrimuination : charges of, not sustained. Mr. Robert B. Rissman, for the Board. Edwards & Block, by Mr. Sidney H. Block, of Waukegan, Ill., for the respondent. Mr. John J. Brownlee, of Chicago, Ill., for the Lodge. Mr. Gerald C: Snyder, of Waukegan, Ill., for the Hardware Workers. Mr. Victor A. Pascal, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges filed by Lodge 1647, Amalga- mated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, herein called the Lodge, through the Steel Workers Organizing Com- mittee, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Leonard C. Bajork, Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued a complaint, dated June 13, 1938, against 17 N. L. R. B., No. 63. 666 THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 667 The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company,' North Chicago, Illi- nois, a Connecticut corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) 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 Lodge. With respect tc the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent dominated and interfered with and contributed support to Builders' Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois,2 a labor organization of its employees, herein called the Hardware Workers; discriminated in regard to the hire, tenure, and conditions of employment of Emil Haley, George Hauth, Anna. Latina, and Matt Mattilla because they had joined and assisted the Lodge, and had engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; and by the afore-mentioned acts, by questioning its em- ployees concerning their labor-union affiliation, by advising its employees to refrain from joining or remaining members of the Lodge, and by other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On June 20, 1938, the respondent filed an answer which admitted the allegations of the complaint with respect to the nature of its business, denied that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices, and averred that the procedural provisions of the Act, and the Rules and Regulations, issued by the Board pursuant thereto, were unconstitutional. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on June 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1938, at Waukegan, Illinois, before David F. Smith, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the commence- ment of the hearing on June 23, 1938, the Hardware Workers applied for leave to intervene and file an answer. The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner and an answer was filed by the Hardware Workers denying the charges of the complaint so far as they per- tained to it. The Board, the respondent, and the Hardware Workers were represented at the hearing by counsel, and the Lodge by its agent. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded all parties. At the close of the Board's affirmative case, counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the allegations of the com- Referred to in the complaint as Sager Lock Works Division of Yale & Towne Manufac- turing Company. (See footnote 3, infra.) 2 Referred to in the complaint as Builder 's Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois. 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plaint with respect to Haley, Hauth and Mattilla, and, at the close of the hearing, moved to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence. The Trial Examiner granted the motions. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on 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 27, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which 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 (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and that it take certain other affirmative action to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor practices found. The Trial Examiner further found that the evidence ad- duced was insufficient to support the allegation of the complaint that the respondent. had discriminated against Anna Latina, and accord- ingly recommended that the allegations of the complaint be dismissed in so far as they alleged that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (3) of the Act. On October 17, 1938, the Hardware Workers filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the respondent filed exceptions together with a brief in support of its exceptions. Al- though accorded an opportunity for oral argument before the Board, none of the parties made a request therefor. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and has considered the brief filed by the respondent. For the reasons set forth below we sustain the exceptions to the finding of the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, but find all of the other exceptions to be without merit except in so far as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT This proceeding is concerned with the North Chicago, Illinois, plant of The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, a Connecticut corporation, at which the respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of door and window hardware, commonly known as builders' THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 669 finishing hardware.3 During the year ending April 29, 1938, ap- proximately 85 per cent of the 2,204,559 pounds of products shipped from the North Chicago plant, were delivered to points outside the State of Illinois; approximately 27 per cent in weight of the raw materials and supplies purchased by, the North Chicago plant were shipped from, points. outside the State of Illinois; and approxi- mately 53 per cent in value of said raw materials and supplies were shipped from points outside the State of Illinois. The respondent distributes the products of the North Chicago plant through whole- salers and retailers located in cities throughout the United States. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Lodge 1647, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Work- ers of North America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Steel Workers Organizing Committee and the Committee for Industrial Organization.4 It admits to membership production and maintenance employees at the North Chicago plant. The Builders' Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois, is an incorporated labor organization, which also admits to membership, production and maintenance employees at the North Chicago plant. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference , restraint, and coercion Following an organizational campaign among the employees at the respondent's North Chicago plant , which began in the early part of 1937, the Lodge elected officers about April 23, 1937, and on April 29, 1937, received a charter. Thereafter it issued circulars, held weekly meetings , and its members solicited fellow employees in the plant before and after working hours and during the mid-day lunch period. Although the Lodge did not seek to meet with H. L., Mur- phy, manager of the North Chicago plant , until November 1937 Murphy was aware of its efforts to enroll employees at least as early as June 10 , 1937, and about that date sent to each employee a letter. signed by him and setting forth the respondent 's labor policy. Murphy testified that he mailed the letter because "many of our employees had asked me a great many times for a statement regard- ing the company 's employee policy, and its attitude toward the s The North Chicago plant consists of the merged plants of the Sager Lock Company, North Chicago, Illinois, and the Barrows Lock Company, Lockport, Illinois, which the re- spondent acquired in 1925 and merged in about 1933. The products of the North Chicago plant are sold under the trade-names of "Sager" and "Barrows ," and the North Chicago plant is known as their Sager Lock Division and the Barrows Lock Division of the respondent. 4 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations. 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees and unions," and for the further reason that "at about that time, and for some little time prior thereto, there had been it very widespread epidemic of sit-down strikes, illegal seizure and occupation, and destruction of private property, and, in conjunction therewith, many unlawful acts of violence," and he felt "that it was incumbent upon me to warn our employees against the, illegal and gangster type of operations that had been conducted in a great many plants throughout the country." With respect to the second reason advanced by him for sending the letter, Murphy further testified : In other words, any organization that violates the law in order to gain its own ends, regardless of what the law may be, I am opposed to them, and I think the employees should know that. Any organization that is a lawfully conducted organization, and confines its activities to lawful practices, -is, certainly--per- fectly all right, and we are for any such organization. Murphy was unable to give the name of a single one of the allegedly "many" employees who had asked him for a statement of the com- pany's policy. Nor was a single employee called as a witness by the respondent to' corroborate Murphy's testimony on this point.. Moreover, the letter itself clearly indicates, and we find, that it did not have its source in any employee concern over the respondent's labor policy, but rather that the letter was sent because of the respondent's concern with the labor affiliations of its employees. Fur- ther, the letter itself reveals the second reason advanced for sending the letter is unfounded. The letter of June 10, 1937, contains no reference to any "epidemic of sit-down strikes, illegal seizure and occupation, and, destruction of private property." Indeed, though comprising three pages of single-spaced printed matter, it does not even remotely suggest that the respondent wished thereby to inform its employees that it was "opposed . . . any (labor) organization that violates the law, in order to gain its own ends," but was "for . . . any (labor) organ- ization that it . . . lawfully conducted" and that such a labor organization "is certainly perfectly all right." On the contrary, the letter is entirely devoted to a statement against employee affiliation with the Lodge and for reasons other than those advanced by Murphy in his testimony. . Murphy's letter began with the statement, "Many of you have been urged to join a union for the purpose of collective bargaining with your Company." Inasmuch as no labor organization other than the Lodge had sought to enroll employees at the North Chicago plant, it is clear that Murphy intended that the employees should under- stand that it was the Lodge to which he referred as "a union," and THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 671 subsequently as "outsiders." Nor can there be any doubt that the employees so understood the references. After adverting to solicitation by "a union," Murphy continued, "You may legally do so [i. e. join -a union] or not, as you wish .. . it is unlawful for anyone to use coercion or intimidation either to .get you to join or'not to join a union." This initial declaration, how- ,ever, is hardly consonant with, ' and any effect thereof is completely -dissipated by, the anti-union statements which follow. Murphy in his letter admonished the employees as follows : If we all work together, efficiently, fairly, and with a mutual understanding of each other's problems, we all prosper. If through misunderstandings our general efficiency is lowered and our business lost to more efficient competitors, we all will surely pass out of the picture.' One thing for you to-consider very care- fully, therefore, is whether the influence of outsiders would make for a better understanding between` us; or cause misunderstand- ings and lowered efficiency which might result in the loss of our business,' and, consequently; our jobs.5 ; . "The reference to "outsiders" obviously informed the recipients of -the letter that Murphy regarded the Lodge as -an intruder. From that characterization of the Lodge, from the subsequent reference -to an "outside bargainer unfamiliar with our problems," and from -the entire tenor of the letter which clearly indicated a preference for individual dealings between the respondent and its employees, the letter made plain that'the respondent regarded affiliation with- the Lodge as likely to lead to "misunderstandings" and consequent loss of employment. The respondent's counsel to its employees "to -consider very carefully" affiliation with-the Lodge was tantamount to a warning that the issue was one of self-organization versus jobs. Murphy's letter did not stop with this caution but went on to declare -that there was no possibility of advantages to be gained by em- ployees, even if they concluded that "misunderstandings" would not follow upon the exercise of their right of self-organization. They were told : The money with which we buy materials, pay wages, pay taxes and pay the many other costs incidental to the conduct of our business, does not come from some magic treasure chest but from the sale of our products. Our sales department is exceptionally good, but, of course, cannot sell our products at prices higher than responsible competitors are able to offer on similar goods of like quality; so, as the amount of money we 5 Except as otherwise noted , italics appear in the original of the portions of Murphy's Qetter quoted herein. 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD can get from the sale of our goods is limited to prevailing market prices, over which we have no control, we -are in turn. limited to the amount of money we can pay for the items enter- ing into the cost of our products, including labor costs. In the long run, therefore, the amount of wages that can be paid depends upon the relationship of selling prices -to costs, re- gardless of what anyone may tell you to the contrary or regard- less of what union affiliations you may have or not have-and no amount of smooth talk or black magic can make it other- wise.° There is nothing mysterious about that, and nothing can be done about it.7 This was not only a counsel of futility, but, to employees an un- mistakable declaration of the respondent's hostility toward their self-organization. Unionization, Murphy went on to say, was not only futile, but unnecessary because the respondent, in,the -absence of collective bargaining, had paid and would continue to pay its employees as highly as it possibly could. Employees were reminded of recent accomplishments under "our program of improving work- ing conditions and increasing manufacturing and selling efficiency to the degree that is absolutely necessary if we are to keep pace with the competitive parade." 8 "In addition to these betterments," the letter continued, "our average hourly wages have been and are now as high as any of our competitors, and higher than most." 9 "When and if conditions make it possible to do so," Murphy continued, "still higher wages will be paid-and without the asking." 10 Murphy, moreover, did not rest the case against unionization with this statement that it was not necessary, but proceeded to warn the 8 Compare the statement of Mr . Chief Justice Taft in American Steel Foundries v. Tri- City Trades Council, 257 U. S. 184 , at 209 that "They ( labor unions ) were organized out of the necessities of the situation . A single employee was helpless in dealing with an em- ployer . . . The strike became a lawful instrument in a lawful economic struggle or coin- petition between employers and employees as to the share or division between them of the joint product of capital and labor." 7 The statement that "nothing can be done about it " not only is contrary to experience ( cf. footnote 6, supra ), but is in the teeth of the finding of Congress (in Section 1 of the Act), that "The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions , by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry by preventing the stabili- zation of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries." 8 At another point in his letter Murphy reminded the employees that financial losses had resulted in the closing of the respondent 's Lockport, Illinois, plant (see footnote 3. supra), and warned that financial losses had threatened the same result with respect to the North Chicago plant. 8 The letter also states that "This year we are inaugurating a plan of vacations with pay for all who have been in our employ for one year or longer , and we hope to continue this arrangement on a permanent annual basis." The record does not disclose whether the vacation plan was ever previously announced. 10 Italics supplied. THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 673 employees that had they sought to bargain collectively they would have received less. Thus, Murphy declared With this record of the recent past in mind I think you will agree that, considering all things, including the conditions of the times.just passed.through, .the. Company, with your coopera- tion, has done a vy fair and decent job of doing for you collectively (sic) what no outside collective bargainer, un- familiar with our internal problems, could possibly have achieved. Murphy's letter was an entirely one-sided statement with respect to the desirability of self-organization and collective bargaining. Nowhere in his letter was there the slightest suggestion that either served any desirable purpose in labor relations, or might be of benefit to employees. Murphy, moreover, did not leave the employees to speculate why, upon this view of the situation, self-organization and collective bargaining had ever been proposed. Instead he declared that the proponents acted not out of interest in the employees but in order to enrich themselves. As stated by Murphy, I cannot conceive of any outside, heretofore disinterested (sic), parties having the same sincere interest in your present and future welfare as your employer, who is always with you in good times and bad, who must rise and fall with you, who prospers and suffers with you 11 Your employer surely has an interest in you and a feeling for you far deeper than the mere prospect of the collection of future clues. While Murphy's letter employed no threats of discrimination, other warnings and statements hardly less potent as a means of obstructing unionization,, were repeatedly made therein, and the unqualified hostility of the respondent to the Lodge was thereby communicated to each employee in the form of a personal message from the respondent's general manager. The distribution of such a letter was plainly an attempt to prevent the self-organization of the respondent's employees and their affiliation with and continued membership in the Lodge, and, therefore, constituted an interference with their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Moreover, the effect of such a letter is not to be determined by a poll of individual employees, but by an evaluation of the natural consequences of such statements made not by one equal to another, but by an employer to those dependent upon it for their continued employment and live- 11 Such a statement expresses an employer attitude that goes even beyond "the specious theory that such [i . e., labor] organizations have no more legitimate concern in the organi- zation of employees than have the employees themselves ." Report of the Committee on Labor of the I-louse of Representatives on the National Labor Relations Board Bill, 74 Cong., 1st Sess. , H. Rep. No. 1147 , at p. 16. 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lihood. We have no doubt, and we find, that the necessary, as well as the intended, effect of the letter was to restrain and coerce the' respondent's employees from affiliating with or continuing- their- membership in the Lodge, and otherwise to seek to exercise the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. According to James E. Powers, an employee in the lock depart- ment and president of the Lodge, Bert Fellows, foreman of the lock department, began to talk to him and other employees at their work on the subject of unions shortly after the Lodge was chartered. Powers testified that on one occasion Fellows had asked one of the employees 12 whether he "belonged to the C. I. O."; 13 that at another time Fellows had declared to him and to several other employees, "You guys are nuts for joining the organization. They will close the plant down, and move to Connecticut, this dumpy place will be closed and moved to Connecticut"; 14 that at about the time the C. I. 0.15 leas conducting a strike at the plant of the Chicago Hardware Foundry Company, across the street from the respondent's North Chicago plant, Fellows had said "that if these fellows were called out on strike, the business agent would sneak around the back door and collect some money for it, and then these poor fellows would be left- in the cold." George Hauth, an employee in the polishing department and recording secretary of the Lodge, testified that his foreman, Robert Benke, had said with reference to Meyer Adelman, a C. I. O. organizer, "I don't know why he should come here and take' the money from us people, and try to tell us what to do," and that- "he didn't see why we should spend our money and give it to some outsiders to come from nowhere." Fellows and Benke denied these statements attributed to them. The Trial Examiner upon the basis of the demeanor of the witnesses did not credit the denials, but found that Powers and Hauth were truthful in their testimony . Moreover, in several respects, the,-state- ments attributed to the foremen have their counterpart in state- ments, less crude in their formulation, made by Murphy in his letter of June 10, 1937. Furthermore, Powers testified that at a meeting between representatives of the Lodge and Murphy in December 1937, 12 We have repeatedly held that an employer 's questioning employees about their union affiliation contravenes the Act. See Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corpora- tion and United Office and Professional Workers of America, No. 24, 14 N. L. R. B. 1045, and cases cited in footnote 24 therein. 13 It is clear from the record that the Lodge was frequently referred to as the C . I. 0., as were other labor organizations affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. 14 The respondent's largest plant is located at Stamford, Connecticut, and is chiefly en- gaged in the manufacture of builders ' hardware. In May 1937 , approximately 3,000 per- sons were employed at the Stamford plant as compared with approximately 325 employed at the North Chicago plant. 15 See footnote 13, supra. THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 675 Fellows' statement was brought to Murphy's attention, and a request made for a letter stating that foremen would cease "discouraging the union members," and that Murphy declined to give such a letter. Murphy did not testify with reference to the incident, although called is a witness. Nor did the respondent offer any testimony with respect thereto, though the record discloses that one of its employees made a stenographic record of the meeting. We find that Fellows and Benke made the statements attributed to them : by Powers and Benke. We find that by said statements the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged interference with, and domination of the formation and administration of Builders' Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois, and support thereto 1. Chronological statement On November 17 and 18, 1937, Powers and several other employees, visited Murphy's office as a committee representing the Lodge in order to arrange for a meeting with Murphy, to be attended by a representative of the Committee for Industrial Organization, as well as the committee of the Lodge, for the purposes of asking recognition and commencing collective bargaining. The committee ,was received by George Macklin, the assistant manager of the North Chicago plant, who advised them that Murphy was absent and stated that he would communicate with them on Murphy's return. On the after- noon of November 18, Powers was informed that Murphy would see the committee the next morning. At the meeting on November 19 the parties agreed to November 30 as the date on which the request of the Lodge for recognition would be presented. For some time prior to November 1937, a group of the employees at the North Chicago plant, who customarily gathered in the boiler house before the start of the day's work, had discussed what in their opinion were the reasons for preferring an unaffiliated union to the Lodge. Among the group was Kermit Bridgeford, who was employed as an electrician. The conversations in the boiler house, however, never went beyond general discussion until a visit of the Lodge committee to Murphy's office came to Bridgeford's notice on November 18. The same evening Bridgeford prepared three copies of a petition for the formation of an independent union, and the next morning put his work aside in order to circulate the copies of the petition in various depart- ments of the plant. He was assisted by several of his companions in the boiler house discussions who circulated copies in, their departments and then returned the petitions to him. 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By eleven o'clock, Bridgeford had circulated the petition in six departments of the plant and his associates had circulated them in several other departments. It is clear that the employees were solic- ited at their work to sign the petition, and that such solicitation came to the attention of the foremen in some of the departments, and in at least one department was carried on with the express permission of the foremen. It further appears, however, that Bridgeford's activities were reported by a draftsman to V. C. Smith, the assistant superin- tendent of the Chicago plant; that Smith in turn reported the matter to Murphy who instructed him to find Bridgeford and destroy the petitions.;. and that in the presence of the employees in that department Smith, tooJl. the petitions from. Bridgeford,16 -tore them up, and rep- rimanded Bridgeford for engaging in such activities during his work- ing hours. It also appears that as a result of the incident Murphy held a meeting of all foremen the same afternoon, It which he stated that union activity would not be permitted in the plant during work- ing hours, and that since there appeared to be two rival labor groups in the plant, the foremen would be required to be neutral in their con- duct with respect to them, and should neither say nor do anything which might indicate that they favored. either. organization. November 19 was a Friday and the North Chicago, plant did not operate during the next two days. On the following Monday the boiler-house group discussed the events of the preceding Friday. It was the sentiment of the group that the response to the solicitation for signatures to the petition indicated that an independent organization could be successfully launched. Bridgeford, however, declined to take any leading part in such a project because he felt that he had already put his job in jeopardy. One of the group, Jay Brooks, employed in the rolling. and machinery department, volunteered to head an organi- zational committee, but declared that he would do so only after he consulted an attorney. Later in the morning Brooks advised his fore- man that he wished to go to Waukegan on business, was given permis- sion to ring out his time card, and received no compensation for the time he was away from the plant. He visited the office of Gerald C. Snyder, an attorney in Waukegan, who, Brooks had heard, had han- dled labor matters. After conferring with Snyder it was arranged that Snyder would prepare a certificate of incorporation for a labor organization, have membership cards printed, and would meet the same evening with Brooks and a committee of employees. Brooks re- turned to the plant, and during the lunch hour met with the boiler- house group, reported his morning's activities, and appointed a com- mittee of seven employees. The same evening the committee met at Snyder's office. The certificate of incorporation, designating the or- 16 At the time, Bridgeford had all copies of the petition. THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 677 ganization as the Builders' Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois, 'was signed and Snyder was authorized to file it, temporary officers were elected, and membership cards were distributed to those present. The next morning the committee began to solicit members. On November 26 the committee visited Macklin, stated that they repre- sented a majority of the employees and requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees at the North Chicago plant. Macklin advised the committee that Murphy was the only representative of the respondent authorized to deal with such a request, .:and that he was out of the city, and would not return until the next • week. It was agreed that Murphy would meet with the committee on November 30. When the representatives of the Lodge met with Murphy on Novem- ber 30, and requested recognition, Murphy advised them that he could make no decision with reference to their request until he had met with the committee of the Builders' Hardware later in the morning. The meeting was then adjourned until four o'clock that afternoon. Dur- ing the morning the committee of the Builders' Hardware met with Murphy, presented their membership cards, and also asked for recogni- tion. Murphy.ath ised them,of the similar request made by the Lodge and there was some^discussion of the possibility of a check of the cards of both organizations against the pay roll to determine whether the conflicting claims of majority could be thus resolved. At the after- noon meeting with the Lodge, Murphy suggested that the two groups meet with each other and determine, if possible, which of them had been designated by the majority of the employees. This proposal the representatives of the Lodge rejected, it being their contention that the Builders' Hardware was not a "legitimate union." At two subsequent meetings ,with Murphy in the early part of December 1937, the Lodge, ,on the same ground, rejected Murphy's suggestion that since the claims ,of the two organizations indicated an overlapping of membership, the issue of majority should be resolved by a proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board. Because of the conflicting claims of the Lodge and the Builders' Hardware the respondent granted recognition to neither. Murphy, however, met thereafter with their respective representatives in connection with grievances which they wished to present on behalf of their members. 2. Conclusion We are of the opinion that the evidence does not bear out the .allegations of the complaint with respect to the Builders' Hardware. Against the background of Murphy's letter of June 10, and the state- ments made about that date by Fellows and Hauth, we should enter- tain little doubt, if no more appeared, that sponsorship of the Build- 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ' ers' Hardware was clearly indicated to employees by the action of foremen in the various departments allowing and in one instance expressly permitting, the circulation of the petition during working hours, particularly since there is evidence that when Hauth several months before had sought to solicit for the Lodge during working hours he had been stopped immediately by his foreman. However, it appears that as soon as the matter was brought to their attention, the higher supervisory employees of the respondent not only pro- ' hibited further circulation of the petitions, but destroyed the peti- tions and reprimanded Bridgeford in the presence of the employees. While under the circumstances a more general notice to all employees of the respondent's neutral position might well have been made, we cannot conclude that such a vigorous and open disavowal of Bridge- ford's actions was not adequate to eliminate the impression of spon- sorship by the respondent, created by the circulations of the petition in the plant, and which appears to be the only evidence of alleged -interference with, domination of, or support of the Builders' Hard- ware by the respondent. We'find that the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act with respect to the Builders' Hardware. We shall, therefore, di's'miss the allegations of the complaint with respect thereto. C.' The alleged discrimination regarding hire cind tenure of employment As we have stated above, the Trial Examiner, in his Intermediate Report, found that the evidence adduced was insufficient to sustain the allegations of the complaint that the respondent discriminated against Anna Latina. We have reviewed the record and we conclude that the finding is correct, though we are of the opinion, as was the Trial Examiner, that the evidence affords the basis for strong sus- picion that Latina was laid off by her foreman, Frank Chudziak, because of her membership in the Lodge and her activities on its behalf. Since the Lodge filed .. no exceptions, we do not deem it necessary to review the evidence in detail. We shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint that the respond- ent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Latina. 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 of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY .679 substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead; to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and also to take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Lodge 1647, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, and Builders' Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois, 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 re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning 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. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act with respect to Builders' Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois. 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Anna Latina. 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 respond- ent, The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, North Chicago, Illinois, 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 en- gage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 247384-40-vol. 1.7--44 ,680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will ,,effectuate the polices of the Act: (a) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its North Chicago, Illinois, plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent -will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid ; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint .with respect to Builders' Hardware Workers of Waukegan, Illinois, and Anna Latina be, and the same hereby are, dismissed.