National Battery Co.

In the Matter of NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 529 OF INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA' Case No. C-1386.-Decided February 5, 1940 Battery Manufacturing Industry-Settlement : stipulation providing for Board's adoption of Trial Examiner 's findings of fact in Intermediate Report and for compliance with the Act-Order: entered on stipulation-Discrim.. ination: charges of, dismissed. Mr. Daniel J. Leary and Mr. Winthrop A. Johns, for the Board. Mr. Francis D. Butler and Mr. Irving Clark, of Doherty, Rumble, Butler, Sullivan cfi Mitchell, of St. Paul, Minn., and Mr. Claude R. Bachman, of St. Paul, Minn., for the respondent. Mr. Harry C. Clark, Mr. L. W. Krings, Mr. Clif. Langsdale, and Mr. Gibson Langsdale, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Union. Miss Edna Loeb, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri), issued its complaint,' dated April 21, 1939, against National Battery Company, Kansas City, Missouri, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and the National Battery Workers Association, herein called the Association. The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and contrihuted',financial and other support to, the Association; •(2) that 20 N. L. R. B., No. 16. 166 RATIONAL BAT-Th"RY COMPANY 167 on or about April 26, 1937, and January 13, 1938, the respondent discharged Andrew A. Brown and Ralph D. Chambers , respectively, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them because they joined and assisted the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in the Union ; (3) that . in June 1938 and in January, February, and March, 1939, and at all times thereafter , the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union although the majority of the respondent's employees within the appropriate bargaining unit hat authorized the Union to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining ; and (4) that by all the above acts and conduct, and by espionage , force, and violence, the commissioning of special armed police officers among its employees , coercive and intimidatory state- ments, and other acts and conduct, the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section . 7 of the Act. On May 1, 1939, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted cer- tain allegations of the complaint but denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Kansas City , Missouri, from May 1 to 5 and 8 to 12, 1939, inclusive , before Thomas S. Wil- son, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board . The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and par- ticipated in the hearing. At the hearing the respondent submitted a brief to the Trial Examiner. On October 9, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Association. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found , that the respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, by dominating and interfering with the formation and admin- istration of, and contributing financial and other support to, the Association; by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of the majority of the respondent's em- ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit; and by committing other acts proscribed by Section 8 (1) of the-Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in these unfair labor practices, and, affirmatively, disestablish the Association and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union. He further found that the respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices by dis- charging Brown and Chambeis , within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and' recommended that the allegations of the complaint with respect thereto be dismissed. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter, on October 26 and November 6, 1939, the respondent filed exceptions and amended exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and on November 13, 1939, filed a brief in support of the said excep- tions. On November 6, 1939, the Union requested permission to file a brief and to have a hearing before the Board for the purpose of oral argument. On November 21, 1939, the Union advised the Board that it did not intend to file exceptions to the Intermediate Report and that it desired to file a brief and have oral argument in support of the In- termediate Report only in the event that the pending negotiations for settlement of the case were unsuccessful. On December 6,1939, Cham- bers, one of the discharged employees named in the complaint, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report in his own behalf. Thereafter, on December 8, 1939, the respondent executed a proposed stipulation providing for settlement of the case. On December 13, 1939, Chambers filed with the Board written objections to the stipula- tion. On January 22, 1940, counsel for the Board executed the said stipulation. On January 24, 1940, the Board issued an Order ap- proving the stipulation and making it a part of the record in the case. The stipulation provides as follows : Charges having been filed with the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for the Seventeenth Region, by Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, alleging that the National Battery Company (hereinafter re- ferred to as the Company) has been and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, a complaint thereon having been issued and served by the Board, hearings thereon having been held before a duly designated Trial Examiner of the Board, and he having issued and served his Intermediate Report, dated October 9, 1939, and it being the desire of the parties hereto to settle the matters that have arisen, It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto : 1. That the Company will withdraw its exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and the Findings of Fact made by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report may be adopted by the Board as its Findings of Fact. 2. That the Board, upon the basis of this stipulation, the Inter- mediate Report, and the entire record in the case, may make find- ings of fact and enter the following order : ORDER Upon the basis of this stipulation and the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 169 tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that respondent, National Battery Company, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Auto- mobile Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other lawful mutual aid or protection; (b) Discouraging membership in Local Union No. 529 of Inter- national Union, United Automobile Workers of America, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (c) Dominating or interfering with the formation or adminis- tration of any labor organization, and from contributing financial or other support to any labor organization; and (d) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, as the representative of its production and maintenance employees at its plant in Greater Kansas City. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America as the exclusive representative of its production and m ain- tenance employees at its plant in Greater Kansas City, in respect to rates of pay, wages,, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Kansas City, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, notices to its employees, stating (1) that respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; and (2) that respondent will, upon request, bargain with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, as the 'exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees, at its plant in Greater Kansas City, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment; and (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further ordered that the complaint shall be and hereby is dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent has engaged 170 DECISIONS OF - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 6. That the Company will in good faith comply with the terms of the above order. 7. It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement is con- tained within the terms of this stipulation and that there is no verbal agreement of any kind which varies, alters or adds to this stipulation. 8. It is understood and agreed that this stipulation is subject to the approval of the Board and shall become effective immedi- ately upon the granting of such approval. The Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner is attached to this Decision as Appendix A. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the Board hereby adopts as its findings of fact the findings of fact made by the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report. The Board hereby incorporates into and makes a part of this Decision the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "Findings of Fact." ORDER Upon the basis of this stipulation and the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond- ent, National, Battery Company, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other lawful mutual aid or protection; (b) Discouraging membership in Local Union No. 529 of Interna- tional Union, United Automobile Workers of America, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment : (c) Dominating or interfering with the formation or administra- tion of any labor organization, and from contributing financial or other support to any labor organization; and (d) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, as the representative of its production and maintenance employees at its plant in Greater Kansas City. NATIONAL BATTERY COATPANY 171 . 2. Take the- following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance em- ployees at its plant in Greater Kansas City, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Kansas City, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days, notices to its employees, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; and (2) that the re- spondent will, upon request, bargain with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees, at its plant in Greater Kansas City, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions 'of employment; and (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.. IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the'complaint shall be and hereby is dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 .(3) of the Act. APPENDIX A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SEVENTEENTH REGION In the .Matter of NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 529 OF INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-1386 INTERMEDIATE REPORT Upon charges duly made and acting pursuant to proper authority, the National Labor Relations Board, by Paul Broderick, its Acting Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, issued its complaint against National Battery Company, the respondent herein. The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent. 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The complaint herein alleged in substance (1) that on or about June 29 and 30, 1938, and January 4, February 5, March 15, 1939. and on other dates respondent had refused to recognize the union as the representative of the respondent's employees, had refused to bar- gain collectively, with the union in good faith in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ- ment, and had refused to sign a written contract with the -union in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act; (2) that respondent had domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization among its employees known as the National Bat- tery Workers' Association and had contributed financial and other support thereto; (3) that on April 26, 1937, respondent discharged and refused to reemploy Andrew A. Brown, and on January 13, 1938, respondent discharged and refused to reemploy Ralph- D. Chambers in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act; and (4) that by various acts respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. At the hearing respondent filed motions for a continuance of the hearing and to make the complaint more definite and certain which motions were` denied. At the same timed respondent filed its answer which after admitting the allegations of the complaint regarding the interstate character of respondent's business, denied knowledge that the union represented a majority of the employees within the appro- priate unit and asking that an election be held. The answer admitted the respondent's refusal to recognize the union as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees, its refusal to recognize the request of the union to bargain collectively and its refusal to sign a written contract with the union but denied the commission of any unfair labor prac- tice within the purview of Section 8 (5). The answer further denied the commission of any unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), or (3) and affirmatively alleged the reasons for the discharges mentioned in the complaint. The undersigned, as duly designated Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, conducted a hearing from May 1 to May 12, 1939, inclusive, at Kansas City, Missouri, at which place all parties were afforded an opportunity to participate in the hear- ing, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses and introduce other evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board asked and received permission to take the deposition of T. M. Sides at San Francisco, California. The parties were advised by the undersigned that they would be given an opportunity for oral argument before the Board upon request to the Board made within 10 days from the receipt of the Intermediate Report. The parties were further ad- vised that they might file briefs with the undersigned within a week N!AT'IONAL BATTERY COMPANY 173 after the deposition of T. M. Sides was taken. No oral argument was made. A brief was submitted by counsel for respondent and has been duly considered by the undersigned. At the close of the hearing respondent moved that no order be made in connection with its reinstatement of Ralph D. Chambers and that all issue in con- nection therewith be abated until the determination of a civil suit brought by Ralph D. Chambers against the company. The examiner took said motion under advisement and at this time denies same. Upon the record thus made and from his observation of the wit- nesses, the undersigned makes, in addition to the above, the follow- ing specific findings of fact : FINDINGS OF FACT I. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 1. The National Battery Company is, and has been since October 28, 1928, a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at St. Paul, Minnesota. 2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, production, assem- bly, and sale of lead and acid batteries for automobiles, trucks, busses, and farm-light batteries. Respondent owns and operates factories at St. Paul, Minnesota; Chicago Heights, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; North Bergen, New Jersey; Depew, New York; Dallas, Texas, Atlanta, Georgia; and Kansas City, Missouri. It also owns and maintains branch offices at Chicago, Illinois; New York, New York; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and Denver, Colorado. Materials used by respondent in manufacturing various types of batteries at its Kansas City plant are lead, acid, containers, separators, covers, and sealing compounds. During the fiscal period, May 1, 1938, to January 1, 1939, raw materials of the value of $725,407.29 were purchased and transported to the Kansas City plant of respondent. Of this total, $309,180.50 worth of materials was purchased and transported from the State of Missouri, and the balance of $416,226.79 was purchased and transported from, through, and into States of the United States other than the State of Mis- souri, including the States of Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Michigan, Indiana, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent of the finished products of the Kansas City plant were sold in the State of Missouri and sixty and three-tenths per cent was sold in other states of the United States than the State of Missouri. During the fiscal period, May 1, 1938 to January 1, 1939, the total sales from the Kansas City plant amounted to $983,276.96. The Kansas City plant of respondent is serviced by 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Missouri-Pacific Railroad and also by a large number of truckline companies. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 3. Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, hereinafter called the Union, formerly affili- ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and at the time of the hearing an unaffiliated organization, is a labor organization admitting to its membership all production and maintenance em- ployees of respondent, excluding clerical and supervisory employees. 4. National Battery Workers' Association was an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to its membership all production and main- tenance employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Events prior to July 1935 5. In 1933 the United Automobile Workers of America began organizing the employees of the automobile industry in Kansas City. At first there was one local to which employees of all automobile factories could belong. As sufficient numbers of men from an in- dividual plant joined said local, new local charters were granted to the employees of that factory. During 1934 and 1935 the employees of respondent began to join this main local. As soon as the company realized that some of its employees were joining the union and were advocating a union, respondent began to combat that effort. 6. In 1934, H. King, general sales manager, and C. G. Reetz, assist- ant general manager, spoke to the employees of ' the Kansas City plant in the locker room during working hours at a meeting especi- ally called by A. A. Brown, respondent's Kansas City factory man- ager, for that purpose. Brown and the foremen were present. King andii Reetz advocated the formation of an Employees Council or a Factory Council in order to discuss grievances and other matters with the management. The plan suggested by these officials was put into effect by the employees, who elected their representatives to the Employees Council at that time and place and in the presence of Brown and the foremen. Thereafter, the St. Paul office urged Brown to make the Council appear as a real functioning body in the eyes of all the men. The Council continued in existence until the strike of'June 12, 1935. 7. During 1934 and early 1935, respondent employed the Pinker- ton Detective Agency to supply it with undercover agents to report daily upon labor union agitation. Ringleaders in this organizational campaign were soon discovered. The company then began its efforts NATIONAL BATTERY 'COMPANY 175 to rid itself of the ringleaders in this unionization campaign. In June 1935 respondent laid off four men in their campaign against the union. These lay-offs precipitated a strike among certain of the men on or about June 12, 1935. The strike was not settled until some 6 weeks later. 8. These paragraphs are included here solely as background of the controversy alleged in the complaint. B. The National Battery Workers' Association 9. In August 1935, while 20 or 30 employees were still out on strike, G. P. Castner, vice president in charge of operations, in- structed Brown to call a meeting of the employees so that he could address them. The employees, the foremen, and Brown attended this meeting which was held in the yard of the factory. Castner explained that the men could secure better representation with the management by electing their own grievance committee rather than selecting an outside representative. He stated that there was no need for any outside representation. He arranged that the men who had remained at work during the strike should elect four rep- resentatives to this grievance committee, while the men on strike should be represented by three representatives. Respondent at- tempted to induce all its employees into this organization, which became known as the National Battery Workers' Association. Re- spondent indicated to the men that they should join the Association by promises and by threats. It supplied the Association with the names and addresses of all new employees, together with prepaid post cards so that the Association could contact these men and sign them as members of the Association. Respondent urged Brown to give the Association the appearance of a bona fide collective bargain- ing agent. It instructed Brown to keep his production at such a level that he would have as many new employees at work in Febru- ary 1936 when new councilmen would be elected as possible for the reason that respondent considered new employees to be more favor- able to the Council than the old employees. Respondent met with a committee of the National Battery Workers' Association from its formation at least until April 1937. The record is silent on any recent activity of the Association. 10. Respondent, by its officers and agents, during August 1935 formed and sponsored National Battery Workers Association as a labor organization of its employees. The National Battery Work- ers Association was a labor organization within the meaning of the National . Labor Relations Act. Respondent dominated,, and inter- fered with the administration of a labor organization of its em- 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees by the activities hereinabove set forth and contributed financial,and other support to said organization. 11. By the activities hereinabove set forth, respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. Coercion, restraint, and interference 12. Vice-president Castner described the activities of respondent during the strike of June 12, 1935, and during its settlement in the following paragraphs contained in the General Factory Letter over his name under date of August 24, 1935: These men (the strikers) have gone back with the under- standing that if they want to they can still continue their mem- bership in their Union, and it is possible that at least a few of them will endeavor to try to carry on their organizing. We have let it be known to all of the men in the plant in no uncer- tain terms that this would not be considered a favorable oper- ating condition for the Company, and that under conditions that are not favorable there are many things that we might hesitate in doing for the employees or for the factory in general. We told them that we could reduce our sales efforts in that territory, both on branded, Private Brand and equipment business; that we could refrain from helping out the employment in the sum- mer by building up warehouse stocks of batteries; and that in general, if they had a good cooperative disposition towards the Company and an independent association with the Grievance Committee, that there was nothing that could be gained in belonging to an outside organization. In fact, if the time ever came that we did have to deal with an outside organization we would fight every request of any kind, whereas if they were cooperating with us we would pass out whatever we could from time to time. As to whether or not this situation will be entirely ironed out and they will drop their outside affiliation, a whole lot depends on the manner in which this independent association and Griev- ance Committee functions. I might also add that we dealt with this crowd in no uncertain terms at the finish, so that at least for the-moment they were pretty well beaten down as to prestige and credibility, particu- larly for their foolishness in following two or three wild leaders and keeping them out of work so long. 13. In June 1935, respondent employed more spies from the Pink- erton Agency. These men were put to work throughout the factory NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 177 on orders from the St. Paul officials. They worked alongside of the men considered to be the more union-minded employees . Tout Ogan was one of the spies supplied by Pinkerton. He became a member of the union. Respondent employed some five spies from the Pink- erton Agency. Respondent also employed the A. A. Abner Com- pany (&-/or Industrial Investigators and Engineers, Inc.) to supply a spy to work on the outside among the employees and the union men. The cost of this service was $10 per day. The respondent further paid W. J. Horn, an old employee , to appear to go out on strike with the men, to work among the strikers and to report their plans and doings daily to the company by letter.' The company also furnished him with a telephone for emergency reports. All these spies reported daily in writing any and all labor matters they had been able to discover as well as upon other events occurring inside and outside the plant. 14. Respondent 's answer and brief acknowledge the use of espion- age during the strike and throughout 1936 and maintain that re- spondent ceased the use of all espionage at the time of the change in management in 1936. There is no evidence showing the use of labor spies after the first part of the year 1937. 15. Following the settlement of the strike in August 1935 respond- ent continued its active efforts to rid itself of employees considered by it to be union-minded. Correspondence in the record from St. Paul officers to Brown of Kansas City conclusively show that re- spondent endeavored to discourage unionization by laying off and discharging the employees leading the movement towards unioniza- tion. Plans were carefully laid so that the lay-offs and discharges would appear to have been made for causes 'other than union ac- tivities . Sam Kerr and Tom Laycock were among the men con- sidered by the management to be most unsympathetic to the re- spondent's anti-union policy. Kerr was laid off February 2, 1937. On April 17 he was offered reiiistatemeiit"if he would agree not to try to organize the employees. Upon his refusal to accept such a con- ditional reinstatement , respondent failed to recall him to work until May 12, 1937. Laycock was one of the men respondent feared most and whose removal from the Kansas City plant was desired. He was transferred in February 1936 to Spokane, Washington. Re- spondent introduced evidence that this transfer was at Laycock's re- quest but the correspondence of St. Paul conclusively shows that re- spondent was determined to remove his influence from the Kansas City factory, in one way or another. There cannot be any doubt but that Laycock's transfer was another step in respondent's active anti-union campaign. .178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 16. At Christmas time 1935, respondent sent a Christmas letter to some of its Kansas City employees , which contained the following sentence, which read in the light of the June strike is highly significant : It may surprise you to learn that a bonus could now be paid equal to the $20,000 distributed one year ago were it not for the unusual expense incurred because of some unfortunate mis- understandings with a relatively few small groups in and outside of our organization. 17. Respondent's campaign described above met with little success as on April 28, 1937, its employees applied for and secured a local charter from the United Automobile Workers of America. This local became known as Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America. One charter member of this local was respondent's spy, W. J. Horn. The ultimate success or lack thereof of respondent's campaign can have no bearing on the question as to whether or not respondent's activities amounted to unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. 18. By the activities hereinabove described, respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 19. By said activities, respondent has attempted to discourage mem- bership in a labor organization known as Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America. D. The refusal to bargain (1) The appropriate unit 20. The parties agreed, and the evidence showed, that all the pro- duction and maintenance employees of respondent, excluding super- visory officials and the clerical force, constituted an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. During the years 1937 to 1938 any and all negotiations in behalf of the employees were con- ducted by respondent on the basis of a unit constituted as above. 21. The production and maintenance employees, excluding the supervisory and clerical employees employed by respondent, consti- tute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. (2) Majority representation 22. At the hearing the union produced its original records includ- ing the sinned application and antllorization cards and its financial NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 179 records. Comparison of these records with respondent's employment records show that on June 29 and 30, 1938, of the 79 men employed in the above appropriate unit, 70 were fully paid-up members in good standing of said union. The membership in and the payment of dues to the union is sufficient proof of the election of said union by the employees as their collective bargaining agent in the matter of .wages, hours, and working conditions. 23. Despite the allegation in respondent's answer that respondent was without knowledge that the union had been. selected as the bar- gaining agent for the employees, McKay, vice president and general manager of respondent, testified during the hearing that, while he was not sure that the union represented the majority of the men in 1937, he believed that it did in 1938 and 1939. Robertson, the factory manager, and the united bargaining committee assured McKay as early as 1937 that the union represented the majority of the em- ployees. On June 29, 1938, and February 5, 1939, McKay stated that he was bargaining with the union bargaining committee as a com- mittee representing a majority of the men but that he refused to bargain with them as the representative of the union. McKay testi- fied that he had never requested the union to prove its right to bar- gain for the employees. On February 5, 1939, he refused the offer of the union to prove its majority in any manner he might desire stating that he had no doubt that they represented a majority of the employees. 24. At all times on and since June 29, 1938, and February 5, 1939, Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, has been by virtue of Section 9 (a) of said Act the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respondent in respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. (3) The refusal to bargain 24. 'Following respondent's pleading that it was without knowledge that the majority of the employees had designated the union as their representative for collective bargaining, the answer in this case con- tains the following paragraph : It (respondent) admits that on or about June 29 and 30, 1938, and at all times since said date it did not recognize the union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit and admits that in January, February, and March 1939 it did not and that it' does not now recognize the request of the union that it bargain collectively in respect of rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment with the union as the exclusive representative of all the employees of the unit 180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD described in Paragraph 7 above, and that it has refused to sign a written agreement with the union and has refused and does now refuse to bargain collectively as set forth above with the union. The evidence adduced at the hearing sustains these admissions. 25. In June 1937, the bargaining committee of the union, submitted a proposed contract to Robertson, successor of Andrew A. Brown as plant manager at Kansas City, and asked for a conference regarding said proposed contract. This contract covered recognition of the union, hours, wages, and other conditions of employment. The con- ferences were held June 9 and 10, 1937. McKay came from St. Paul to represent the respondent. He refused to recognize the union as the representative of the employees and refused to sign a contract with the union. These refusals were based on the fact that McKay con- sidered that the C. I. 0. was responsible for the numerous strikes, sit downs, etc., which he read about in the newspapers: While.refusing to bargain with the committee as a union committee, he did negotiate with them as representatives of the employees. The minds of the parties met on many of the terms of an agreement. McKay, however, refused to consider a signed written bilateral contract saying that he would not sign a contract with any labor organization. Following the conferences respondent posted. a statement of company .policies containing the matters upon which agreement had been reached but stating that the company was putting such policies into effect. The statement as posted did not mention the committee in any manner. This procedure was substantially agreed upon by the union. 26. In June 1938, the Union again presented respondent with a proposed contract and requested a conference for the purpose of nego- tiating a contract for the following year. Three conferences were held on June 29 and 30, 1938. McKay again represented the respondent. The union bargaining committee and Jack Swift, an, International officer, represented the union. McKay stated that he would not sign a contract with the union because, if he did, it would be published in all the newspapers and they would then organize all respondent's plants which respondent could not stand. He again refused to recognize the union because he did not want to. He stated that he was negotiating with the committee as a committee representing the majority of the employees and not as a union committee. He agreed that Jack Swift could assist the men in the presentation of grievances with the manage- ment but that Swift would only be acting in his capacity as an in- dividual and not- as an International officer. The conference broke up on the last day when the union walked out after McKay absolutely refused to deal with the committee as a union committee. 27. Following these conferences another statement of company policy was posted upon the company bulletin of the plant. The union A NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 181 objected so strenuously to this statement of policy that respondent removed it from the bulletin board, replacing it with the 1937 state- ment of company policy. 28. On September 28, 1938, the union attempted to negotiate with Robertson but refused to continue when Robertson stated that he was meeting with the committee the same way as McKay did, that is, as representing a majority of the employees in the plant. 29. On February 5, 1939, another conference was held between McKay and the union bargaining committee. The union again had its proposed contract at the meeting. When asked if he were meet- ing them as the bargaining committee of the union, McKay stated that he was meeting with them as representatives of the majority of the employees at Kansas City. When asked if he doubted that the union represented a majority of the employees, McKay replied that there was no doubt that they represented a majority of the Inen. After McKay refused to meet the committee as a union committee, members thereof started to walk out but McKay called them back to talk with him declaring the meeting to be unofficial. 30. Respondent contended in its brief that the evidence showed that respondent had bargained in good faith. It is clear that bi- weekly meetings have been held with the management since October 1937 in which individual wage matters have been adjusted, griev- ances taken care of, and certain discharges and lay-offs discussed. Respondent has maintained steadfastly in these meetings that it was dealing only with the representatives of the majority of the em- ployees and not with the union which represented the employees. Hence, the very first principle of collective bargaining has been neg- lected in that there has never been any recognition of the second party to the negotiations. Respondent has steadfastly refused to embody the terms of any agreements reached in a signed written bilateral contract. Ordinary business practice requires that agree- ments reached between two parties should be embodied in a perma- nent binding form so as to prevent unnecessary uncertainty and dis- putes as to the terms of such agreements. 31. Respondent's answer requests that "it be established in an appropriate manner whether the union has been and is now desig- nated and selected by a majority of the employees" as their collective bargaining agent, and alleges that a secret election is the appropriate method of such determination. This request is untenable when con- sidered in connection with respondent's position that it has already bargained in good faith. It is also untenable when considered in connection with McKay's and Robertson's knowledge as far back as 1937 that the union did represent a majority of the men. It is further untenable in light of the proof adduced by the union at this 283031-41-vol. 20-13 182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing. Such a request would have been wholly justified at an earlier time but at that time respondent not only did not request such proof but denied the necessity for it when such proof was offered. 32. Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automo- bile Workers of America attempted on June 29 and 30, 1938, and February 5, 1939, to bargain collectively with respondent as the ex- clusive representative of respondent's production and maintenance employees, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 33. Respondent did on June 29 and 30, 1938, and February 5, 1939, refuse to bargain collectively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America as the exclusive representative of respondent's production and maintenance employees, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. E. Alleged discriminatory discharge of Ralph D. Chambers 34. Ralph D. Chambers began working for respondent as a truck driver at $87.50 per month in August 1932., In June 1934, he was transferred to the repair department and in August 1934 was given instructions about farm-light batteries. He acted as either the sole employee or as foreman of that department until the strike of June 1935. During the strike period, he drove non -striking employees to and from work through the picket line . Respondent secured for him a permit to carry firearms . Several times during the strike , he deliv- ered pay envelopes to Mrs. W. J. Horn for her husband 's services performed among the strikers . At the end of the strike period, Chambers was given $100 bonus and his salary was raised to $160 per month as assistant foreman. After the strike, he acted as foreman either of the farm light department or of the casting department. At the time of his discharge on January 13, 1938, he was earning $38 per week salary plus whatever Bedaux bonuses he may have received. 35. Chambers attended the meeting in downtown Kansas City on April 29, 1937, of the employees of the Kansas City factory, at which meeting he joined the U. A. W. A. and became a charter member of Local Union No. 529, International Union, United Automobile Work- ers of America. 36. On June 13, McKay told Chambers that he heard that Chambers was mixed up in this union and stated that as he was a member of the management with a right to hire and fire , he could not belong to the union. McKay also told the union group that the foremen had A NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 183 the right to hire and fire and, therefore, should not be allowed to be members of the union. , Several days later at a union meeting, the officers of the union told Chambers that he could no longer remain a member. Chambers was given an honorable withdrawal card there- from.. 37. On June 28, 1937, Robertson, successor of Andrew A. Brown, as Kansas City factory manager, notified Chambers that he was the foreman in charge of the whole farm light department, including the shipping of farm-light batteries. Chambers protested that he did not want Art Rohland, who was then doing the shipping of farm-light batteries, as Rohland was unable to earn bonuses under the Bedaux system and because he was smoking in the plant. The next morning Chambers discovered Rohiand smoking in the plant contrary to the company rules and, after a few words with Rohland over the incident, informed him that he was fired. Rohland replied that he had a drag and could not be fired. The men then went to Robertson where Cham- bers informed Robertson that he had discharged Rohland. Robertson replied that he could not discharge Rohland. Chambers stated that he would not work in the same department with Rohland whereupon Robertson informed Chambers that he was through. However, after a conference between Robertson, Chambers, and the union committee, Robertson agreed to put Chambers back as foreman and to substitute Ralph Michael as the department's shipping clerk in Rohland's place. This change was satisfactory to all parties concerned. 38. Chambers complained to Robertson about statements which Ben Johnson was making about him. Robertson threatened to discharge both men unless they could settle their personal difficulties between themselves. Chambers also had had a personal altercation with Tom Laycock. 39. During his foremanship, Chambers had trouble with other fore- men in the plant about materials, which he was supposed to receive from other departments. Chambers and Art Lane, the standards ex- pert in the plant, came to words over the costs in the farm light depart- ment. Art Lane stated that he was unable to set a standard for that department without more cooperation from Chambers. At that time, Robertson told Chambers that unless he would cooperate that he would be forced to ask Chambers to resign. The inventories prepared by Chambers did not agree with the perpetual inventory kept by John Huber. There was some trouble over this matter. Chambers also had difficulty with the burning torch which was provided him in the farm light department. Part of this trouble was due to the types of torches provided him. While Chambers was foreman of the casting department, Robertson complained several times about the excessive lead losses in that department. 1 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 40. In the first week of January 1938, working hours at the plant were reduced from 54 hours to a 40-hour week. On Friday; Robertson informed Chambers that he would have to take care of the shipping of farm light batteries on Saturday, January 8, when Michael was off due to having worked his 40 hours during the previous 5 days. That Friday evening Michael explained the operation to Chambers and showed him where he had several sets of National batteries crated for shipment. 41. On Saturday, January 8, three orders for Ward batteries were received. Chambers filled these orders. He used the already crated National batteries. The shipments were then made. 42. On Monday, January 10, 1938, Michael asked Chambers if he had shipped any National batteries. Chambers replied that he had not. After stating that he was afraid that Chambers had shipped the wrong batteries, Michael informed Nelson, the foreman of the :shipping department, that he feared that Chambers had shipped National batteries on Ward orders. Robertson was informed of the possible error and ordered the three shipments stopped in transit and returned to the factory. Robertson spoke to Chambers about the matter but Chambers denied that there was any error. At this time Robertson informed Chambers that if there was any mistake he was through. On January 12, one of the orders shipped the pre- vious Saturday was returned. This shipment had been correctly made. On January 12, another shipment was returned. This order for Ward batteries was made up of National batteries. Upon the return of the incorrect shipment, Robertson informed Chambers on January 13 that he was discharged. 43. Chambers maintained that the shipments had been correct. The Examiner is unable to believe Chambers in this regard. Cham- bers testified that he had used the crated National batteries to fill the Ward orders but that after tagging the crates he had discovered the error and had uncrated the batteries, removed the National vent plugs and substituted therefor Ward vent plugs which was the only difference between the two types of batteries and that the shipments were correctly made. The evidence further discloses that on Mori- day, January 10, 1938, Chambers approached Ralph Michael about talking to Hoobler, respondent's truck driver, regarding changing the vent plugs on the shipments which he might return to the plant. Michael told Hoobler that Chambers wanted to see him. Hoobler replied that Chambers should come to see him in person. On Tues- day, Chambers saw Hoobler and stated that he was in a jam and wanted to know if, Hoobler would change the vent plugs in any shipments which he might return to the factory. Hoobler refused. This evidence, reluctantly drawn from Michael and Hoobler, con- NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 185 vinces the Examiner that Chambers not only made erroneous ship- ments, but also attempted to cover up his mistake. Robertson testi- fied that he heard on Monday that Chambers would attempt to get hold of the shipments as they returned. 44. On March 5, 1938, the union approached Robertson regarding Chambers' discharge. At this meeting Robertson stated that he had discharged Chambers because he would not "play ball" with the company and because of these shipments he had missent. Robertson explained that by the term "play ball," he meant cooperation with the company. Chambers contended that Robertson meant by the term "play ball" that Chambers was attending union meetings con-. trary to orders from McKay. Robertson admitted that he had heard that Chambers had attended some union meetings but denied that he had heard that Chambers attended meetings after McKay's orders. While there is some question as to what Robertson meant by his term "play ball," the Examiner is inclined to believe Robertson's explana- tion thereof. 45. At the end of the hearing, respondent requested the Examiner to hold his decision as to Chambers' discharge in abeyance for the reason that there was pending at that time a suit by Chambers against respondent company for damages under a service letter statute, which involved approximately the same issues. As the issues in the two cases are somewhat different and as the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction. over the reinstatement of men dis- charged for union activity, the Examiner feels it his duty to make his findings in this case. 46. The evidence adduced by the Board does not sustain the allega- tions of the complaint that Chambers was discharged because of his union activities or in an effort to discourage the union. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed as to Ralph D. Chambers. F. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Andrew A. Brown 47. Andrew A. Brown began working for respondent in the St. Paul plant in 1922, receiving 36 cents per hour for his work. In 1923, he became a foreman at an hourly rate of 65 cents. Later he was sent to the Los Angeles factory as superintendent where he re- mained until June 1927. At this time he was on a salary of $200 per month. Thereafter, he was transferred to the company's new North Bergen, New Jersey, plant where he remained until January 1928. From North Bergen he was transferred to the Kansas City plant as superintendent. In 1932, he became the plant manager. At the time Hof his discharge on April. 26, 1937, he was earning $300 per month. 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 48. In 1934 and 1935, certain of the employees in the Kansas City factory joined the United Automobile Workers. About this same time, respondent employed the services of the Pinkerton Detective Agency. The services of A. A. Ahner Company were added during the June strike. Daily reports on the activities of the employees and the union were sent to Brown at Kansas City and forwarded by him to the St. Paul office. The St. Paul office was in immediate touch with the developments at Kansas City. The letters from St. Paul in evidence. show that there was a concerted effort on the part of the company to rid itself of the services of men who were union-minded. Acting upon orders from St. Paul, Brown discharged certain men whom the management considered to be the leaders in the movement towards the union. While great care and ingenuity was exercised to find some palpable reason other than union activity for the dis- charge of the men involved, on June 12, 1935, these tactics resulted in a strike at the plant. Twenty or thirty men quit work and picketed the plant. The strike was settled some 6 weeks later through the combined efforts of Brown and the St. Paul officers. The men secured reinstatement. 49. During the strike, acting upon orders from G. P. Castner, vice president of respondent, Brown called the meeting described above at which the National Battery Workers Association was instituted. Again acting upon orders from St. Paul, Brown attempted to give the Association the appearance of a bone fide collective bargaining agent. The Association continued to confer with Brown until his discharge in April 1937. 50. Following the strike, Brown continued to receive daily reports from the labor spies whose services were purchased by his employer either from the A. A. Ahner Company or the Pinkerton Agency or else were secured through the efforts of the supervisory officials of the Kansas City plant from among the employees. The reports were transmitted to the St. Paul office. The evidence conclusively shows that St. Paul officers gave orders for the discharge of certain union- minded employees, which orders were carried out by Brown. 51. In the fall of 1936, respondent installed the Bedaux system at Kansas City. Most of the work on the Bedaux system after its original installation was carried on by Keck and Reardon, the time study men, with help from Brown's assistant, Suavain. These men were all paid on a salary basis. 52. In March 1937, respondent, held a conference of all factory managers at St. Paul. A new organizational set-up for the various plants was announced by the management at this meeting. The new set-up required the elimination of three salaried men from the Kansas City plant. It was decided by Brown and McKay that NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 187 Keck, Reardon, and Suavain should be the men eliminated.. Brown told McKay that he could handle the changes necessary to make the Kansas City plant comply with the new factory outline. Brown and McKay also talked over various factory problems which had 'arisen in Kansas City. McKay told Brown that there could not be a union in the plant and that, if the plant had to operate with union labor, respondent would have to close the factory. Brown stated that he was trying to run the Kansas City plant in the way respondent wanted it run. There is no testimony that there was any talk regarding the possibility of Brown's discharge at this time. 53. On his return to Kansas City, Brown notified the three men that their services would not be required after May 1, 1937. This news soon spread throughout the factory causing considerable dis- cussion among the men. On or about April 10, 1937, a group of employees met at the home of Ben Johnson, an employee, to protest the discharge of these three men. Prior to the meeting, Brown told John Nelson, the inspection foreman, that it would be all right for him to attend the meeting: Brown wrote St. Paul that there were rumors that such a meeting would take place. The meeting drew up and sent to respondent a telegram protesting the discharge of Suavain, Reardon, and Keck. 54. McKay arrived in Kansas City on April 11, 1937, following the protest from the meeting at Ben Johnson's home. McKay and Brown held an all day conference that day lasting from 10:30 a. m. until 5:30 p. m. During this conference, McKay discovered that Brown was considered rescinding the order of discharge. Brown also proposed that certain foremen should be given- a 71/2 per cent increase in salary. A large part of the time was spent discussing the elimination of Keck, Reardon, and Suavain and in a discussion of other problems in the plant. During the meeting, Brown quoted to McKay a remark of Reetz that it might be better to have the factories unionized. McKay thereupon inquired of Brown if he was becoming union-minded. Brown replied that he was not partial one way or another. McKay, also asked Brown if he had stirred up the men to protest the discharge of Keck, Reardon, and Suavain. McKay denied asking Brown if he were becoming union-minded. 55. The following day McKay conferred with John Nelson, other foremen, and employees of the plant regarding the protest and the meeting at Ben Johnson's home. He denied that Nelson told him that Brown had instigated the meeting. of April 10 or had given him permission to attend the same. Various faults of Brown were discussed in these conferences. 56. Following his return to St. Paul on April 16, McKay first broached the subject of discharging Brown with other officials at 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD St. Paul. A decision was reached on April 23. On the 26th, McKay returned to Kansas City. He arrived at the plant prior to Brown's arrival. When Brown arrived and started looking at the mail, McKay told him he need not look over the morning mail as he was no longer with the company. Upon being pressed for a reason for the discharge, he told Brown that three large accounts had brought pressure to bear. 57. A few months after his discharge, Brown went to St. Paul to attempt to secure reinstatement. He called on various officials of the company and upon Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Daggett, two large stockholders. According to his own testimony, Brown did not state to any of these persons that he was discharged because of his views regarding labor unions. 58. Under Brown's management, numerous complaints were received regarding the quality of the product and the type of service which different customers were receiving from Kansas City. The company records show that the red lead losses were, heavier at Kansas' City than at other factories. New machines and moulds were installed there- after. Respondent contended that the discharge of Brown was due to the above-mentioned facts as well as the fact that he was unable to conform the factory to the new company set-up and to his inability to handle the employees. None of these reasons are convincing to the undersigned. . 59. The burden of proof falls upon the Board to prove the allega- tions of its complaint that Brown was discharged "for the purpose of discouraging membership in the union." There is a suspicion in the record that McKay discharged Brown because he considered that Brown had incited the men to protest the discharge of Keck, Reardon, and Suavain. Such a suspicion, however, is not.sufficient to maintain. the burden of proof. The undersigned believes and, therefore, finds that the evidence fails to prove that Brown was discharged in order to discourage membership in the union and, therefore, recommends that the complaint as to Andrew A. Brown be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 60. The activities of the respondent, set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of respondent described in Section I herein, 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. NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 189 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned hereby determines and concludes that : 1. Respondent, by dominating and interfering with the labor or- ganization known as National Battery Workers' Association and by contributing financial and other support to it, by refusing to bargain collectively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as set forth in the above findings of fact, has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Respondent, by dominating, and interfering with a labor organi- zation known as National Battery Workers' Association and by con- tributing financial and other support to it, as set forth in the above findings of fact, has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. Respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union , United Automobile Workers of America, as set forth in the above findings of fact, has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. Wherefore, the undersigned recommends that : 1. Respondent cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion, to form , join, or assist Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 2. Respondent cease and desist from (a) discouraging member- ship in Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Auto- mobile Workers of America, or any other labor organization, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or condi- tion of employment ; (b) dominating or interfering with the forma- tion or administration of National Battery Workers' Association, or any other labor organization , and from contributing financial or other support to said National Battery Workers' Association, or any other labor organization ; and (c) refusing to bargain collec- tively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, the representative of the produc- 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion and maintenance employees, as hereinabove more fully set forth. 3. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, respondent take the following affirmative action : (a) Withdraw all 'recognition from National Battery Workers' Association as representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish the National Battery Work- ers' Association as such representative; (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America as the exclusive representative, of the respondent's production and main- tenance employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Kansas City, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, notices to its employees, stating (1) that respond- ent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; (2) that respondent has withdrawn all recognition from the National Battery Workers' Association as the representative of respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and that said Association is completely disestablished as such representative; (3) that respondent will, upon request, bargain with Local Union No. 529 of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, as exclusive representative of respondent's production and maintenance employees, with respect to rates of pay, wages,' hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (d) File with the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region on or before twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the foregoing requirements. It is further recommended that, unless on or before twenty (20) days from the receipt of the Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,, the matter be referred forthwith to the National Labor Relations Board and that said Board issue an order requiring respondent to take the action aforesaid. It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to Ralph D. Chambers and Andrew A. Brown. Request for permission to file briefs with or present oral, argu- ment before the National Labor Relations Board upon issues raised NATIONAL BATTERY COMPANY 191 by any exceptions to this report or on other issues upon which it is desired to file a brief or present oral argument must be made to the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C., within twenty (20) days after the date of the order transferring the case to the Board, as provided in Article II, Section 32 of the Rules and Regu- lations, Series 2, effective July 14, 1939. [S] THOMAS S. WILSON, Thomas S. Wilson, Trial Examiner. Dated October 9, 1939.