Lee Rubber and Tire Corp.

In the Matter of LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORPORATION, REPUBLIC RUB- BER DIVISION and UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 102, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. C-1331.Decided December 1, 1939 Rubber Products Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coer- cion: hire of employee to make reports on union activities ; surveillance by supervisory officials of union meetings ; statements by supervisory employees calculated to discourage membership in union-Company-Dominated Union: charges of, dismissed-Discrimination: charges of, dismissed. Mr. Edward Schneider, for the Board. Mr. Norman A. Emery and Mr. Harry S. Manchester, of Youngs- town, Ohio, for the respondent. Mr. Albert F. Gabusha, of Youngstown, Ohio, and Mr. Stanley Denlinger, of Akron, Ohio, for the United. Mr. Walter 0. R. Johnson, of Youngstown, Ohio, for the Inde- pendent. Mr. Sumner Marcus, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Rubber Workers of America, Local 102, herein called the United, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Re- gional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint dated May 4, 1939, against Lee Rubber and Tire Corpora- tion, Republic Rubber Division, Youngstown, Ohio, 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 notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, upon- the United, and upon Independent Association of Republic Rubber Employees, herein called the Independent. 18 N. L. R. B., No. 13. 100 LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 101 With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent had (1) interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their right of self-organization by sur- veillance over the union activities and union meetings of its employees and by making various statements designed to discourage membership in the United; (2) dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent and contributed financial and other support to it; and (3) discriminatorily discharged two of its employees, Lloyd Landahl and Thomas Hallman. On May 10, 1939, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint, denying that its operations affected interstate commerce and denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the complaint was held in Youngs- town, Ohio, from May 22 through 26, 1939, and from May 31 through June 8, 1939, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, the United, and the Independent, which intervened in the proceeding, were repre- sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing counsel for the Board made a motion, in which the United joined, that the complaint be'dismissed in so far as it related to.the discharge of Landahl and of Hallman. The Trial Examiner granted this motion. At the close of the Board's case, and again at the close of the hearing, the respondent moved to dis- miss the complaint and each of its various allegations, and the Inde- pendent moved to dismiss the allegation that it was company dom- inated. The, Trial Examiner denied these motions. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made numerous other rul- ings on 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 July 17, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re- port, copies of which were duly served on all parties, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended, inter alia, that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices; that it withdraw recognition from the Independent as a collective bargaining representative of its employees; and that it take certain other action to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor practices. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter, the respondent and the Independent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and briefs in support thereof . Pursuant to notice, oral argument was had before the Board in Washington, D. C., on November 9, 1939. The respondent, the Independent, and the United were represented by counsel at this hearing and presented their arguments. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and has considered the briefs filed in support of them, and save for those exceptions which are inconsistent with the findings , conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth, herewith sustains them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board . makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Lee Rubber and Tire Corporation , Republic Rub- ber Division, a New 'York corporation having its principal office and place of business at Conshohocken , Pennsylvania, and plants at Con- shohocken, Pennsylvania, and Youngstown, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of pneumatic and solid rubber tires and miscellaneous rubber goods . The present case is concerned only with the respondent's plant located in Youngstown, Ohio, which is known as the Republic Rubber Division of the respondent. The aggregate cost of raw materials , consisting of crude rubber, reclaimed rubber , fabrics, hose cords, coal, and compounding and miscellaneous materials, purchased by the respondent for use in its business during the year 1938 amounted to $919,273, of which 89 per cent were purchased and received from outside the State of Ohio. During this same year, the total value of the respondent's finished products amounted to $3,086,223 . Seventy-eight per cent of these finished products were shipped outside the State of Ohio. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Rubber Workers of America, Local 102, is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations which admits to membership all production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. Independent Association of Republic Rubber Employees is a labor organization affiliated with the Independent Association of America which admits to membership all of the respondent 's employees, ex- cept company officials and such hourly or weekly paid employees as have the authority to employ or discharge. LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 103 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The first occasion upon which the respondent's employees sought to organize themselves for the purpose of collective bargaining was in 1934, when some of them became members of Federal Labor Union No. 19,123 of the American Federation of Labor. The first president of this organization was Arthur Campbell, one of the respondent's employees. At approximately the same time as this organization came into being, the respondent bought the services of National Corporation Service, Inc., which furnished reports to the respondent on union activities and other matters. Arthur Campbell furnished to National Corporation Service, Inc., reports on union activities and other matters at the plant. In December 1934, the respondent ceased to purchase services from National Corporation Service, Inc., but from December 1934 until about May 1936, Arthur Campbell furnished reports on union activities and other matters directly to the respondent and received payment for so doing from the respond- ent. Sometime in 1935, Campbell ceased to be president of. said Local 19,123. However, he continued to be a member of this organi- zation and of an organization which succeeded it at the plant, Local 29 of United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, until his employment by the respondent was terminated in November 1936. At the hearing the respondent conceded the truth of the above recitals, but objected to the admission of evidence concerning them, on the ground that these facts were immaterial because they related to events occurring prior to the organization of the United and of the Independent. We find that throughout the period from July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act, to November 1936, the respondent hired and retained Arthur Campbell as a labor spy for the purpose of making reports to it on the union activities of its employees,' and that during said period Campbell made such reports to the respondent. In February 1937, the United Rubber Workers of America, affili- ated with the Committee for Industrial Organization,) began to organize the respondent's employees, and on March 16, 1937, granted to the respondent's employees who were members of the United a charter as Local 102. The United met with the respondent on April 20, 21, and 23, 1937, for the purpose of negotiating an agreement, 1 A description of the respondent's espionage activities through National Corporation Service, Inc., is to be found in the report of the Hearings on S. Res . 266, before a Sub- committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, 75th Cong., Part 25, Exhibit 44,222 (Bd. Exh. 20), and Part 1 , pages 359 and 362 (Bd. Exh. 21). 2 Now Congress of Industrial Organizations. 2S3029-41-vol. 18-8 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and on April 23, 1937, entered into an unsigned memorandum agree- ment for members of the United concerning the procedure for sub- mitting grievances to the management. This agreement was posted on the respondent's bulletin boards from April 24 to 27, 1937. There- after, and continuing until the time of the hearing, the respondent and the United met on numerous occasions for the purpose of dis- cussing grievances. The respondent engaged in many acts of intimidation, restraint, and coercion with respect to its employees from approximately the time the United began to organize the respondent's employees and continuing almost up to the date of the hearing. On March 14, 1937, just prior to the time when the United was to begin one of its meetings, two of the respondent's supervisory officials, Employ- ment Manager George Hodgson, and General Foreman Fred Shanks, who were in an automobile, drove slowly by the hall where the meeting was to be held, picking up speed after they passed it. About 15 minutes later, they returned from the opposite direction,. and repeated this procedure. That evening the president of the United, D. F. Doran, who had seen Hodgson and Shanks in front of the. hall where the meeting was held, telephoned Shanks and asked him what he had found out that afternoon. Shanks asked who was speaking, and Doran, without specifically stating, indicated to Shanks that he was Herbert Croysdale, the respondent's vice president in charge of the plant. Shanks, believing that it was Croysdale, apologized to Doran for not having recognized him, and said, "You mean the union meeting this afternoon." When Doran said that he did, Shanks stated that "The only ones that were there were Duncan Miller from my department 3 and I don't know what George found out." The respondent did.not offer Hodgson or Shanks as witnesses, although Hodgson was present throughout the hearing, and although there was no showing that Shanks was unavailable. Nor did the respondent offer evidence of any kind to refute the testimony of two Board witnesses,' Doran and Clark, regarding the afore-mentioned events. Furthermore, although the respondent excepted to many portions of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, it did not except to the finding that Hodgson and Shanks drove past the meet- ing place of the United in order to keep the meeting under sur- veillance. Accordingly, we find that on March 14, 1937, the re- spondent, through two of its officials, Hodgson and Shanks, engaged in surveillance of a union meeting of its employees. The record also discloses, and we find, that on May 1 and May 7, 1937, upon at least three occasions the respondent, through other of its supervisory officials, engaged in further surveillance over the 3 Duncan Miller was one of the employees in Shanks' department. LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 105 meetings of its employees who were members of the United. Al- though there is some conflict. in the evidence, we are satisfied in the light of the entire record, that on the afore-mentioned dates Foreman William Taylor drove slowly past the front of the hall where the United held its meetings several times for the purpose of finding out who was attending the meeting and what was occurring in the hall; that for the same purposes Foreman Ralph Nash twice drove slowly past the hall where the union meeting was being held; and that a third supervisory employee, Ray Froom, attempted to peer into the hall where the union held its meeting, for the purpose of discovering what was occurring therein. At about the time the United entered into an unsigned memo- randum agreement with the respondent in April 1937, Vice-Presi- dent Croysdale called President Doran of the United into his office on two occasions within a week and attempted to dissuade Doran from continuing his activities in the United and to persuade him to form an inside organization at the plant. Croysdale told Doran that the members of the United would give Doran grievances and then make him "the goat" by not backing him up. Croysdale sug- gested to Doran that he should accompany Croysdale to a meeting of the Mahoning Valley Foremen's Association, where he could learn "both sides" of the union question, rather than be a "radical" going off "half cocked." He also asked Doran to join the organization and offered to pay his initiation fee. Croysdale further stated that he would help Doran in any way he could to form an independent organization, and more specifically, if Doran and the others formed an independent union he would "see that every son of a bitch in this plant belongs." Croysdale called Doran to the office on other occa- sions in 1937 and made statements of similar import. Sometime in the latter part of 1937, at a stag party which was attended by employees of the respondent, Croysdale asked Walter Zebrak, an employee in the belt department, how the employees in his `department were "taking to" the United. Although Zebrak answered that, as far as he, knew, the men were not very interested, Croysdale went.on to say that he could not see why the employees were not satisfied, since they were being treated satisfactorily. During a grievance conference with the United on May 19, 1938, Croysdale stated that the "Akron bunch . . . are only after your money" and that the respondent's plant was old, and that, if there was any "labor trouble," the respondent was going to move its plant. Croysdale was not offered as a witness by the respondent after testimony regarding these statements was introduced, nor did the respondent adduce testimony to refute the witnesses who testified concerning these statements. The Trial Examiner found that Croys- 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dale made the statements attributed to him by Zebrak and Doran. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding. The record is replete with evidence of statements made by other supervisory officials of the respondent concerning the United which tended to discourage membership in it from the time the United began to organize until shortly prior to the hearing. For example, in April or May 1937, Foreman Hugh Campbell told Kenneth Simp- son, an employee in the belt department who had joined the United several weeks previously, that he had heard that someone by the name of Simpson had joined the United, and asked Simpson if he was satisfied with the way the respondent was treating him. When Simpson said that he was, Campbell asked him why he had joined .the United. Campbell also inquired concerning the names of the organizers of the United, and stated that "the organization. was all right as long as they had the right people running it" Although, at the conclusion of his testimony, Campbell denied categorically having made the above-quoted statement to Simpson, it is clear from his entire testimony, and the findings of the Trial Examiner, who from his observation of the demeanor of the witnesses had an oppor- tunity to form a trustworthy opinion as to their credibility, that Campbell did make the inquiry and statements attributed to him by Simpson for the purpose of discouraging membership in the United, and we so find. In the latter part of April or the first part of May 1938, Louis Bergman, an assistant supervisor in the trimming department, asked one of the employees working under him, Dent Crytzer, whether Crytzer belonged to the C. I. O. When Crytzer said that, he did not, Bergman told him that "some of the boys" were starting an independ- ent organization which was going to get more work for the men, and told Crytzer where and when the next meeting of this organ- ization was to be held, and suggested that it would be a good idea if Crytzer went to see what "it was all about." Bergman denied categorically having had such a conversation with Crytzer. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Bergman made the statements attrib- uted to him by Crytzer. On one occasion during lunch hour around the end of March 1939, two employees in the mat department, Joseph Biro and Leo Dietz, were having a conversation when Harley Ortrnan, the foreman of the mat department and their superior, approached them and, without determining what they were discussing, stated : "No God damn union talk in here. If you want to talk get the hell out of here but no talking in here." Ortman admitted stating to these employees that they could not talk unionism in the plant. When questioned as to the circumstances under which employees were permitted to discuss LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 107 unions in the plant, his answers were vague and contradictory. We find that Ortman directed Biro and Dietz not to talk about the United in order to discourage their membership therein. We find that the respondent by hiring a labor spy,' by keeping under surveillance the union activities of its employees, including their meetings; and by making various statements to its employees which were calculated to discourage membership in the United, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged domination of the Independent In March 1938 several of the respondent's employees, including Walter Homer, Clyde Magee, Charles Baker, and Richard Kutan, began to discuss the possibilities of forming an independent organ- ization of the employees at the respondent's plant. According to the testimony of these men, their reason for doing so was dissatisfaction with the United, and particularly their fear that if the United con- tinued to represent the employees of the respondent, it would call what they believed to be an unnecessary strike and cause a loss of work to the employees. After talking to the employees mentioned above, as well as to other employees who indicated their interest in an independent organization, Homer discussed the question with Davis, the president of an independent organization at General Fire- proofing Company, also located in Youngstown. Davis gave Homer information concerning his own organization and further agreed to address employees of the respondent who were interested in forming an independent organization. Sometime in April 1938 a meeting of 15 or 20 of the respondent's employees was held in the basement of the Non-Partisan Club, a building owned by a social organization in Youngstown. Davis ad- dressed this group concerning the formation of an independent organ- ization, and a discussion regarding this matter was held after his speech. At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed to hold a second meeting the following week at the same place. At the second meeting, held a week later, there was further discussion concerning the formation of an independent union, and a decision to print application cards to be distributed to the respondent's employees and to fix dues for the organization to be formed at a dollar a year with an initiation fee of 50 cents. ' Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf, Trailer Co., 301 U. S . 49 rev'g. 85 F. (2d) 391 (C. C. A. 6 ), and enf'g. Matter of Fruehauf Trailer Company and United Auto- mobile Workers Federal Labor Union, No . 19375, 1 N. L. R. B. 68. e National Labor Relations Board v. Lund et at. (Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund Company and Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, et al.), 103 F. (2d) 815 (C. C. A. 8). enf'g. Matter of C. A. Lund Company and Novelty Workers Union, Local 1866. 6 N. L. R. B. 423. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After the second meeting at the Non-Partisan Club, Homer secured the services of a Youngstown attorney, Walter Johnson, to represent the organization which was being formed. On May 7, 1938, Johnson addressed a group of the respondent's employees who were interested in the new organization at a meeting held in the American Legion Hall in Youngstown. Thereafter regular monthly meetings of the, new organization were held, at which the organization's business was transacted, and which were occasionally addressed by outside speakers, such as officers of the independent organization at General Fireproofing Company and the president of the Independent Asso- ciation of America. At the meeting of October 22, 1938, a constitu- tion for the organization, which was named the Independent Association of Republic Rubber Employees, was approved by the membership, and permanent officers were elected. Meanwhile, on September 17, 1938, 20 or 25 employees of the respondent met at the office of Attorney Johnson and decided to circulate among the respondent's employees a petition, stating that the signers were in sympathy with the aims and purposes of the Independent and authorizing the officers of the Independent to rep- resent them in all matters affecting rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, and their relationship as employees to the respondent. The record does not disclose how many employees authorized the Inde- pendent to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining with the respondent. In any case, after some negotiations, on December 21, 1938, the respondent entered into an unsigned memo- randum agreement with the Independent, which was posted on the respondent's bulletin board for 2 days. The agreement between the respondent and the Independent is similar to that previously entered into between the respondent and the United, in that it relates chiefly to the procedure for the taking up of grievances, but differs from the latter in that there is no provision for arbitration of grievances which cannot be adjusted otherwise. At a meeting held by the Independent on November 5, 1938, the Independent voted to affiliate with the Independent Association of America, an association of "independent" unions. Although the In- dependent ceased to pay any dues to the Independent Association of America some time prior to the hearing, the affiliation continued until the time of the hearing. The Independent continued to hold regular monthly meetings up to the date of the hearing. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent and had contributed financial and other support to it. He based his finding solely on the fact that employees had participated in the LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 109 formation and administration of the Independent for whose actions he considered the respondent to be responsible. The Trial Examin- er's findings with respect to participation by supervisory employees of the respondent related to three such employees : Herbert Gilmore, Raymond Logan, and Rudy Anderson. Gilmore is in charge of the respondent's printing department, which, including himself, consists of three of the respondent's ap- proximately 650 employees. He prepares the work to be done by himself and the other two employees in the department, and assigns work to these two employees. If the work of the two employees is unsatisfactory, he may recommend their discharge. Gilmore attended the first meeting of the employees interested in forming an independent organization, which was held in April 1938 at the Non-Partisan Club. Gilmore testified that, prior to the hold- ing of this meeting, he had not been informed that there was a move- ment to start an independent organization of the employees at the plant. The explanation which he gave for his presence at this meeting was that he customarily came to the Non-Partisan Club, of which he was a member, two or three times a week for the pur- pose of playing cards ; that he had gone to the club on the evening on which the first meeting of the employees was held solely in order to play cards; that while there, he met Homer, who told him about the meeting and asked him if. he desired to participate in it. Gil- more agreed to do so. Becoming interested in the organization which was being formed, Gilmore also attended the second meeting held at the Non-Partisan Club, at which he agreed to join the organization and paid his initiation fee and a dollar dues. Gilmore also attended the first meeting of the new organization which was held at the American Legion Hall on May 7, 1938. During a general discussion at this meeting concerning the question whether the payment of dues entitled a member to membership for. an entire year or only until January 1, 1939, Gilmore said "a few words" and stated that it was his opinion that dues were for the period only until January 1, 1939. Although Gilmore testified that he attended no meetings after this, it is apparent from Homer's testimony that Gilmore attended at least one more meeting of the organization, namely, the one held at the American Legion Hall on May 14, 1938. In any case on June 24, 1938, Gilmore submitted to Homer, who was then the temporary president of the organization, a letter stating that "due to certain conditions arising as to my position with Republic Rubber Division, I find it advisable to resign and withdraw my application for mem- bership in your Independent Order of Republic Rubber Employees." Gilmore testified that the reason he left the organization was that in an address to the members of the organization Attorney Johnson 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stated that department managers could not belong to it, and also be- cause Homer asked him to leave the organization. Homer testified .that Gilmore told him, when he was thinking of resigning, that he did not belong in the organization and did not want to inconvenience the other men. Rudy Anderson was employed for approximately 18 years by the respondent prior to the hearing. During the 3 years preceding March 1, 1938, he was a supervisor in the trimming department. On March 1, 1938, he ceased to be a supervisor, and became a produc- tion worker. His new work was confined to the operation of a tumbling machine in a part of the plant separate from the other employees. He is the only employee in the plant engaged in that particular type of work. He receives the same salary at the present time as he did when he was a supervisor. Anderson joined the Independent at the end of May 1938, and was active on its behalf. Logan was employed by the respondent for 5 or 6 years prior to the hearing. Before February 28, 1938, he was engaged in super- visory and inspection work. From February 28 to December 31, 1938, he worked in the channel department on production and inspec- tion. He did no supervisory work during this period. From Janu- ary 1 to May 13, 1939, he was again employed in supervisory and inspection work. From May 13, 1939, to the date of the hearing, he did only production work. Logan was one of the employees of the respondent who was present at the meeting in Johnson's office on September 17, 1938, described above. He took one of the petitions which were handed to the employees that day, and returned it about a month later with eight or nine signatures on it. He solicited these signatures both at work and at employees' homes. In soliciting the signatures, he stated that the United was a "radical organization," and urged employees to authorize the Independent to be their bargaining representative. We find that Gilmore occupies such a position in the respondent's plant as to make the respondent responsible for his acts with refer- ence to the employees' choice of labor organizations. However, we do not find that his activities, under the circumstances here present, warrant a finding that the respondent dominated or interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent. Nor do we find that the respondent can be held responsible for Anderson's and Logan's acts with regard to the Independent, since neither Anderson nor Logan held a supervisory position or otherwise represented the respondent in its dealings with its employees at the time they engaged in the activities in question. LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 111 We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Independent, or contributed support to it. We shall order that the complaint be 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. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial 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. 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. United Rubber Workers of America, Local 102, and Independent Association of Republic Rubber Employees 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 by Section 7 of the Act, the respondent 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, with- in the meaning of Section 8 (2) and (3) 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 re- spondent, Lee Rubber and Tire Corporation, Republic Rubber Divi- sion, Youngstown, Ohio, 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 their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist United Rubber Workers of America, Local 102, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or- 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ganizations or any other labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose 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) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its 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 set forth in paragraph 1; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writ- ing 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 complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the admin- istration of, and contributed support to, Independent Association of Republic Rubber Employees within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lloyd Landahl and Thomas Hallman, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.