The Atlas Underwear Co.

In the Matter of THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O. Case No. C-1358.Decided December 15, 1939 Underwear Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: circulation of anti-union statements ; surveillance of union membership and ac- tivities, ordered to cease and desist such practices-Company-Dominated Union: organization coinciding with existing union's attempts to negotiate contract ; organization arising from nucleus of anti-union employees shaped in meetings with employer's labor-relations counsellor ; analogy of labor-relation' s counsellor's actions in another employer's plant ; organization created by former professional strikebreaker employed in job giving free run of plant shortly before dismissal of discredited labor spy; great speed in organizing and extreme ease in nego- tiating with employer ; nature of national organization ; ordered disestablished. Mr. Lester M. Levin and Mr. R. D. Malarney, for the Board. Mr. Paul Y. Davis, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the respondent. Mr. Joseph Forer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed by the Textile Work- ers Organizing Committee (C. I.0.), now known as the Textile Work- ers Union of America,, and herein called the T. W. U.,2 the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana),3 issued its complaint dated May 31,1939, against The Atlas Underwear Company, Piqua, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respond- ent had 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. Copies of the complaint and notices of hearing were duly served upon ' At the hearing the complaint was amended to substitute the union's present name. 2 The organization involved will be herein called the T. W. U. even when reference is to the Textile Workers Organizing Committee or the United Textile Workers, its predecessors. 3 The original charge was filed in the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio ), but on December 15, 1938, the proceeding was transferred to the Eleventh Region by direction of the Board. 18 N. L. R. B., No. 52. 338 THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY 339 the respondent, the T. W. U., and Federated Industrial Union, a labor organization, herein called the F. I. U. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in sub- stance that the respondent at its Piqua plant formed, dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of the F. I. U.; that thereby, by surveillance of the T. W. U., by con- duct discouraging membership in the T. W. U., and by other acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed an answer denying the unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Piqua, Ohio, on June 19 to 27, 1939, before Whitley P. McCoy, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. No appearance was made on behalf of the T. W. U. or the F. I. U. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. After the hearing the respondent and the Board's counsel filed briefs, and the respondent a reply brief. On September 11, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, wherein he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action of remedial nature. The respondent filed exceptions to the conduct of the hearing and the Intermediate Report. The Board has considered the exceptions and in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and orders set forth below, 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 4 The Atlas Underwear Company, an Ohio corporation with its principal Ohio office and plant in Piqua, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of underwear, pajamas, sport shirts, and * The facts set forth in this section were stipulated to by the respondent and counsel for the Board. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD knitted shorts. Its raw materials consist of cottons, silks, rayons, worsted yarns, and pearl buttons. During the respondent's 1937 fiscal year the total cost of these materials amounted to approximately $300,000, while its output of finished products represented a worth of approximately $700,000. All the raw materials were shipped to the Piqua plant from places outside the State of Ohio, and 90 per cent of the finished products were shipped to points outside the State. The respondent operates a sales office in New York City and employs three salesmen who solicit business throughout the United States. The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce for the purposes of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, Local No. 187, formerly known as Textile Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 187, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, herein called the C. I. 0., admitting to its membership all production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding clerical, supervisory, and office employees. Prior to September 1937, it was a local of United Textile Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Federated Industrial Union, Local No. 210, is a labor organiza- tion admitting to its membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of labor relations In 1934 a local of United Textile Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, was first established for the em- ployees of respondent's 'Piqua plant. At the time organizing was being attempted, the respondent called a meeting of all employees in the plant during working hours. A. L. Flesh, president of the respondent, opened the meeting, and addresses were also made by Harvey E. Sims, secretary-treasurer of the corporation and plant superintendent, and Clarence Miller, chief engineer. Flesh asked, "If you want a union in this plant, why not have a company union instead of paying dues to an outside union?" Miller said, "This has been a happy family and why should we have to have a union in this mill?" He added that "he never believed in any union and would not be a party" to one. Some weeks later, each employee received in his pay envelope a statement dated September 20, 1934, and entitled "A Letter to All Atlas Employees." The letter forcibly stated the respondent's ob- THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY 341 jections to an "outside union" and pointed to various dire conse- quences which might ensue from the employees' joining such an organization. The actions described, occurring as they did before passage of the Act, are *consequential for present purposes only in so far as they demonstrate a hostility against "outside unions" and a prejudice in favor of a "company union." 5 That the attitude so shown in 1934 has since persisted will appear hereafter. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The 1936 strike After the 1934 episodes already related, the T. W. U. made little progress and, in the words of one of its members, "kind of died down." In the spring of 1936, however, it was revived with the arrival of William Kasson, an A. F. of L. organizer. Kasson pre- sented a draft of a proposed contract to the respondent, and as a result of the respondent's alleged failure to reply, the T. W. U. called a strike which began on October 16, 1936. On that day, the respondent circulated among its employees copies of a statement, with an enclosure of a projected newspaper advertisement, addressed "To Our Employees." The statement proper read in part : "Don't let anyone intimidate you or force you to sign papers. (You don't have to sign a union application to get a square deal from us.)" The enclosure quoted a notice posted by the respondent threatening closing of the plant and stated that the T. W. U. had failed to organize a majority of the workers. "Frustrated by these satisfied employees," it continued. "threats and intimidation were resorted to." "We are unwilling," it further stated, "to continue an investment on a business governed not by a sane, conservative management but by mob rule." It is apparent that these circulars served, though with some indi- rection, to picture the T. W. U. to the employees as a lawless mob employing threats and intimidation and to discourage membership in the T. W. U. We find therefore that the respondent resorted to statements and conduct which discouraged membership in the T. W. U. and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights. guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 5 See Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al. and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. It. B. 1, 7, enf'd, N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 261, rev'g in part 91 P. (2d) 178 (C. C. A. 3). 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Espionage Shortly before August 1, 1935, the respondent employed the Cor- poration Services Co., Inc., a private detective agency. After a break from January to August, 1936, the agency's services were resumed till near the beginning of 1937. The only Bureau operative whose identity the record reveals was a Jane Davis, who entered the respondent's plant ostensibly as a production worker. Jane Davis soon became the subject of T. W. i7. complaints as being a trouble- maker and "fink," and was removed on December 22, 1936. The respondent's president, A. L. Flesh, testified that the services of the Bureau were utilized because of petty thefts in the plant. This explanation, while entitled to credence, is incomplete. Thus Flesh also testified that the operative's reports dealt with conditions in the mill generally as well as with thefts particularly. That these conditions included T. W. U. activity and membership appears from the fact that the very first bill of the Bureau, paid by the respondent, included an item of one dollar "to necessary Union dues." In addi- tion, Jane Davis attended at least one T. W. U. meeting, and the operatives' reports were destroyed as soon as read. We find that the respondent utilized the Corporation Service Co., Inc., for the purposes, among others, of espionage to ascertain and interfere with attempts at self-organization on the part of its em- ployees, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. Domination of the F. 1. U.; further interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Activities of John D. Strain The strike which began on October 16, 1936, was settled after 6 weeks by an exchange of letters between, on the one hand, Joseph White, a vice president of the United Textile Workers, and, on the other, A. L. Flesh and John D. Strain. Strain is industrial relations counsellor for the National Underwear Institute, an association of underwear manufacturers of which the respondent is a member, and is also manager of the Industrial Association of Utica, an association of manufacturers in the Mohawk Valley area. In October 1936, and at intervals thereafter, the respondent employed Strain as its labor relations counsellor. Soon after settlement of the 1936 strike, Strain commenced a series of meetings with a group of the respondent's employees who enter- tained considerable hostility to the T. W. U., and who later became an important element in the F. I. U. Included were John Sanders, THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY 343 a man who in June 1938 spied on a T. W. U. meeting from a con- veniently located building owned by the respondent, who helped organize the F. I. U., and who testified that he attributed to the T. W. U. his demotion from a. foremanship; Francis Valentine, who later became financial secretary of the F. I. U. and solicited members for that organization; Hines Walburn, who subsequently became one of the leaders in organizing the F. I. U.; Elva Lewis, later recording secretary of the F. I. U., Jeannette Zirkle, and Dolores Hardenbrook, all of whom had circulated a back-to-work petition during the 1936 strike. Bernard Fronda, another employee, attended two of the meetings on invitation, but after making a remark favorable to the T. W. U. was not summoned to the meetings which were thereafter called. The meetings were ostensibly held in order to discuss with Strain any grievances of non-union members. They can hardly have been designed for that purpose, however, considering that attendance was by invitation ; that an. invited employee was dropped merely because he made-a pro-union remark; and that of the two meetings described in the record apparently only one person attended the second who had not been at the first. Nor were discussions limited to grievances. One person inquired why the company could not form a union, to which Strain replied that such an action would be illegal. Strain also recommended to the group to try in a kind way to win the T. W. U. members back into their "original position before they joined the Union." We find that the respondent, by means of Strain's participation in the meetings described, discouraged membership of its employees in the T. W. U., and thereby interfered with its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. But the respondent's actions in connection with these meetings assume also a larger significance, in that they represent the first step in the formation of the F. I. U. Strain's role is illuminated not only by the circumstance that the persons attending the meetings later became prominent in the F. I. U., but also by his activities in con- nection with the formation of an F. I. U. local among the employees of the Oneita Knitting Mills, Utica, New York. According to Strain's own testimony, Devereau, the president of the Oneita Knitting Mills, asked him in April 1938 if he knew about the F. I. U. Strain said that he would inquire about it. He did so, advised Devereau that its president was Herbert Schiffhauer, and supplied other information. Strain also told Bennie Gelfuso, one of the Oneita workers, how to get in touch with Schiffhauer. Subse- quently, Schiffhauer came to the stenographer's office outside of Strain's own office to meet Gelfuso, who was taking him to a meeting. 283029-41-vol. 18-23 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Strain first met Schiffhauer on this occasion. "Peculiarly," to quote the testimony of Strain, the F. I. U. made its appearance in the Oneita Mills at the very time when negotiations for a C. 1. 0. con- tract were in progress, and Bennie Gelfuso was its president. An analogy between Strain's activities in. Piqua and his Oneita relations is pointed by the circumstance that, as will be seen, the F. I. U. in Piqua also first arose at a time when contract negotiations were under way with a C. I. O. union. It is significant too that none of the Piqua employees who became F. I. U. members seem, from the testimony, to have so much as heard of the F. I. U. before June 1938, the month in which the T. W. U. attempted to negotiate a contract. A letter from Strain to Flesh, dated March 4, 1938, convinces us that one of Strain's duties as the respondent's labor relations coun- sellor was advising on methods of defeating the T. W. U., and estab- lishes that before appearance of the F. I. U. at Piqua, Strain and Flesh had already considered substituting another labor organiza- tion for the T. W. U. The letter reads in part : "I do not know how C. I. O. stands at this moment in Richmond,6 but it is something that you should know de finitely and not by guess or supposition, for you may have a way out without substituting the A. F. of L." 2. Activities of William R. Wright; formation of the F. I. U. In October 1936, shortly before the strike, rumors of violence led the respondent to import guards furnished by the Corporation Serv- ice Bureau. One of these guards was William R. Wright, who was assigned to Flesh's home. Before coming to Piqua, Wright had had an extensive career as a strikebreaker and company guard in labor disputes. In addition to employment with the Corporation Service Bureau, he had worked for the Pinkerton Detective Agency, the Leon Burns Detective Agency, and Associated Industries of Cleveland. He had been in charge of the guards in the Statler Hotel strike, and had likewise plied his trade in, among others, the Black & Decker, National Screw Company, and Addressograph-Multigraph strikes. Wright was at Flesh's home only a short time before he pointed out that Flesh was a "sucker" and a "chump" to be paying the agency when he could just as easily hire Wright directly. Flesh thereafter retained Wright without using the Bureau as an intermediary. After the 1936 strike was settled, Flesh kept Wright in his home, employing him for the performance of manual labor in the garden. Wright, however, soon became bored, and early in December left Piqua for Cleveland. About December 15, 1936, he returned to Piqua and began work in the respondent's plant. The reference is to the respondent's plant in Richmond, Indiana. THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY 345 The respondent's employment of a man with Wright's labor back- ground and inexperience in the textile industry indicates the presence of some motivation other than a mere wish to increase the working staff. A desire to help a man thought to be genuinely desirous to get out of an unsavory occupation might be credited to. Flesh without reservation were it not for these factors : (1) Wright was given the job of "order chaser," which necessitated his following orders in their progress through the mill and thereby gave him full run of the plant and convenient access to all the employees; (2) his employ- ment antedated by only 1 week the displacement of Jane Davis-a revealing coincidence in itself, and also perhaps another application of the philosophy that dealing through an intermediary is a "suck- er's" practice; (3) he introduced the F. I. U. and organized it prac- tically single-handedly from a nucleus shaped in the meetings with Strain-and this at the very time when negotiations for a contract with the T. W. U. were pending; (4) he was active in forming an F. I. U. local at the respondent's Richmond, Indiana, plant; (5) dur- ing the height of the F. I. U. activity Wright. was seen using a com- pany car in the evening of a Saturday when the plant had not operated. Wright introduced the F. I. U. in June 1938, after he first learned of the national organization, according to his testimony, from a clip- ping. In this same month, a contract between the respondent and the C. I. O. union at the Richmond plant was due to expire, and Flesh had already given the required 60 days' notice of non-renewal. On June 13, 1938, a conference was held at Richmond between the management and representatives of both the Richmond and Piqua unions. The union representatives suggested a single contract to cover both plants, but the management objected. This conference adjourned to meet in Piqua on the following day, at which time a conference was held in the Piqua plant. Here, for the first time, Flesh advised the union representatives that a number of the Piqua employees had expressed objections to his negotiating a C. I. O. con- tract covering the Piqua plant. That same night, June 14, a meeting of anti-union employees was held at Wright's home. Strain was seen from Wright's windows while he was on his way from the plant conference to his hotel and was asked to enter. He did so, and on request explained the Act. One witness, Elva Lewis, a member of the F. I. U. and hostile to the T. W. U., testified that Strain stated- that the F. I. U. was an older organization than the _C. I. O. A number of other witnesses, how- ever, testified that no mention of the F. I. U. was made in Strain's presence. The conflicting testimony may be reasonably reconciled by inferring that Strain did in fact at one time discuss the antiquity of the F. I. U., but on another occasion. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In addition to explaining the Act, Strain advised the group at Wright's home to join the T. W. U. in the interests of peace, but in view of the known animosity of the group toward the T. W. U. and Strain's prior suggestions that T. W. U. members be weaned from their union by. kindness, we believe that the suggestion was not se- riously offered or taken. Strain was asked by those present if they could have a union of their own. He replied that they could, but that an unaffiliated organization would run the danger of being desig- nated as company dominated under the Act. Strain stayed at the meeting at Wright's home for a short time only. After his departure, the group decided, more or less tenta- tively, to affiliate with the F. I. U., and authorized Wright to in- vestigate the matter further. Thereafter events moved with amaz- ing rapidity. Several meetings of non-union employees were held at, Hines Walburn's farm, an F. I. U. charter and membership blanks were received about June 16, and by June 20-possibly even by June 17-the F. I. U. had signed up a majority of the respondent's Piqua employees. On June 20, Herbert Schiffhauer, national president of the F. I. U., came to Piqua and attended an F. I. U. meeting. A form of con- tract was proposed, and Schiffhauer and a committee were directed to submit it to the management. The speed with which the F. I. U. was organized was exceeded only by the celerity of its negotiations with the respondent. Early in the afternoon of June 21, Schiffhauer came to Flesh's office. This was the first time Flesh had ever seen Schiffhauer, but despite his hostility to "outside unions" he-readily acquiesced in the F. I. U. contract. Flesh proposed the contract be changed so that it would refer to the respondent's Piqua plant only. As this proposal repre- sented Schiffhauer's own intention, the draft was so amended. Sec- tion (f) of the first article of the contract draft provided that new employees should join the F. I. U. within a specified number of days. At Flesh's request, the number was omitted pending later considera- tion. Finally, Flesh inserted verbatim a seniority provision which had been tentatively agreed on in the C. I. O. negotiations. Flesh expressed his consent to the contract draft as changed, but stated that he would not sign so long as there was any doubt of his legal right to do so. Schiffhauer left the contract draft with Flesh for retyping, and later in the afternoon reappeared for about 10 minutes with the F. I. U. committee. He explained Flesh's attitude toward signing the contract and indicated the changes which had been made. The committee agreed to the changes. Schiffhauer then signed the con- tract draft, thereby giving Flesh a blank check as to the preferen- THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY 347 tial-shop clause, and left the draft with Flesh for him to sign when he felt able to do so. Flesh also agreed to meet with the F. I. U. committee regularly. On July 20, Flesh told the committee that he was satisfied that the F. I. U. had a majority of the employees and that he would sign the contract as soon as the situation with the Board was cleared up. The contract has never, in fact, been exe- cuted by the respondent. Flesh's readiness to negotiate and to contract with the F. I. U., so much in contrast with the hostility earlier shown by the respondent toward the T. W. U., indicates a bias in favor of the former organiza- tion. This, together' with the procedure whereby Schiffhauer per- mitted Flesh to rewrite the contract to a considerable extent and the process whereby Schiffhauer signed and delivered the contract with an important provision left blank, supports the view that the F. I. U. is the respondent's creature. On June 25, 1938, the respondent resumed negotiations with the T. W. U. Before that date, the T. W. U. representatives had learned of F. I. U. activity, and at the June 25 conference they requested Flesh to deny publicly rumors that the F. I. U. had company sup- port. Flesh refused on the basis that he would not dignify such rumors with a denial. The next day, however, the conferees met at the Board's Regional Office in Cleveland, and Flesh agreed to post a notice prepared by a Board attorney. This notice, a denial of rumors that the management favored or disfavored any labor organ- ization and an explanation that employees had complete freedom of choice in self-organization, was posted. On the night of August 1, 1938, the T. W. U. held a meeting at- tended by more than 200 persons. A strike was voted because of the respondent's alleged support of the F. I. U. On August 2 the T. W. U. picketed the plant. An F. I. U. group congregated outside of Wright's home, near the plant, and was visited by the chief of police and Sims, the respondent's secretary-treasurer and plant superintend- ent. Wright then led the group in a break through the picket line. That night a truce was arranged between the T. W. U. representa- tives and Wright whereby the F. I. U. undertook not to return to work temporarily and the T. W. U. agreed to withdraw its pickets. The next afternoon, however, both the F. I. U. and the T. W. U. groups returned to work as a result of negotiations. 3. The character of the F. I. U. as a national organization In determining whether a labor organization is a bona fide union as contrasted with one which is company conceived and dominated, an inquiry into the character of the national organization with which it is affiliated can be informative, though not necessarily conclusive. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The F. I. U. national constitution has no provision for election of officers or even for their existence, although the record shows that Herbert Schiffhauer, of Buffalo, New York, is the national president. The constitution provides for no payments to the national organiza- tion except that stamps, charters, and dues books are, to be purchased from the national office and new locals are subject to a per capita tax to defray organizing expenses. Locals already organized are liable to assessment in an emergency, but since payment of the assessment by any local is contingent on approval of the local's own committee, it is hardly likely that such assessments can be a source of revenue. Provision is made in the constitution for a National Executive Board, composed of committees from all the locals, but the constitution like- wise enjoins that "locals shall have absolute self rule, without inter- ference from the National Executive Board" and fails to define any function for the body so inhibited. It is clear, in sum, that the F. I. U. as organized at the respondent's plant gained, and can gain, little or nothing from its affiliation with its national organization. 4. Conclusions regarding the F. I. U. We are of the opinion that the respondent imposed the F. I. U. upon its employees in order to defeat the T. W. U. The respondent's hostility toward the latter organization is abun- dantly demonstrated by activities occurring both before and after the effective date of the Act, is emphasized by favoritism shown to the F. I. U., and is inferable from the quoted portion of Strain's letter to Flesh written 2 months before the F. I. U. appeared. ' Strain's em- ployment as anti-union strategist is established not only by this letter, but also by his participation in the 1937 meetings of non-union em- ployees which prepared the ground for anti-T. W. U. organization at a time when such organization suited the needs of the respondent. His part in the establishment of the F. I. U. at the Oneita Knitting Mills in a period when a C. I. O. union was seeking a contract so closely parallels the events in the instant case as to suggest that util- ization of the F. I. U. was a technique employed by Strain to defeat genuine labor organizations at critical junctures in labor relations. Wright's anti-union history, the suspicious circumstances of his being employed, coincidentally with the dismissal of a discredited labor spy, in a job requiring him to circulate throughout the mill, and his activity in helping to organize an F. I. U. local in another of the respondent's plants, all strongly indicate that in organizing the F. I. U. he unofficially complemented Strain's official efforts as the respondent's labor relations counsellor. That a year and a half in the respondent's employment elapsed before Wright began his THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY 349 F. I. U. efforts might have induced another conclusion were it not for the coincidence of these efforts and the respondent's contract negoti- ations with the T. W. U. Finally, the F. I. U.'s speed in organizing, the great ease with which it was able to deal with the respondent, and the nature of its national organization, combine to support the indicated conclusion. It should be added that by posting a notice expressing detachment toward the organizing efforts of its employees the respondent could not and did not neutralize the effect of its activity. The notice was posted after the F. I. U. had already been organized, had signed up a majority of the employees, and had had its proposed contract tenta- tively accepted by the respondent. Upon the entire record we find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the F. I. U. and contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 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 re- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has attempted to discourage membership in, and has spied on, the T. W. U., and that it has dom- inated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed support to, the F. I. U., we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall, likewise, order the respondent to withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the F. I. U. as the representative of any of its employees for purposes of collective bargaining. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America, Local No. 187, affiliated with the C. I. 0., and Federated Industrial Union, Local No. 210, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin- istration of Federated Industrial Union, Local No. 210, and contribut- ing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in 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 re- spondent, The Atlas Underwear Company, Piqua, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating and interfering with the administration of Fed- erated Industrial Union, Local No. 210, or with the formation and administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support to Federated Industrial Union, Local No. 210, or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Either directly or indirectly engaging in any manner of espio- nage or surveillance, or engaging the service of any agency or indi- viduals for espionage or surveillance, upon its employees or upon any labor organization of its employees for the purpose of ascertaining the membership or activity of any of its employees in or on behalf of any labor organization; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the 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 Federated Industrial Union, Local No. 210, as the representative of any of its employees at its Piqua plant 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 Fed- erated Industrial Union, Local No. 210, as such representative; THE ATLAS UNDERWEAR COMPANY 351 (b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its Piqua plant, maintaining such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid, and will take the affirmative action required in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.