Sprague Specialties Co.

In the Matter of SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY and UNITED ELEC- TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 249 Case No: C-1040-Decided February 19, 1940 Electrical Supplies Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and 'Coercion.: formation of, domination, support, of two successive inside labor or- 'ganizations '; statements of superintendent favoring inside unions ; posting of notice condemning activities of "outside" union-Compan?/-Dominated Union: charges of, against third successive inside union , not sustained. Mr. Benjamin E. Gordon, for the Board. Mr. William J. Nolan, of Boston, Mass., and Mr. Ralph A. Lind, of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. Robert C. Davis, of Pittsfield, Mass., for Local 249. Mr. James A.'Bowes, of Pittsfield, Mass., for I. C. W. 2. Mr. Stanley D. Metzger, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 249, herein called Local 249, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Mass- achusetts), issued its complaint dated September 1, 1938, against Sprague Specialties Company, North Adams, Massachusetts, herein called the- respondent,. alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) 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 notice of hearing thereon were duly served on the respondent and Local 249. The complaint alleged in substance (1) that on or about April 1, 1937, and at various times thereafter, the respondent prevented its employees from exercising their rights to join a labor organization of their own free choice; (2) that on or about March 23, 1938, and at various times thereafter, the respondent dominated and interfered 20 N. L. R. B., No. 60. 585 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the formation and administration of Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 2, herein called I. C. W. 2, and contributed fi- nancial and other support to it, by informing its employees that it favored a labor organization limited in membership to the respond- ent's employees, by assisting I. C. W. 2 in being formed, by supporting. it in its administration, and by other acts; and (3) that by these and other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained,-and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. . In its answer, dated September 9, 1938, the respondent denied the allegations of the complaint with respect to the unfair labor prac-' tices. On September 16, 1938, I. C. W. 2 filed a motion for leave to intervene in the proceeding, and an answer to the complaint denying, the allegations with respect to I. C. W. 2 contained therein. Pursuant to notice,, a hearing was held in North Adams, Massachu- setts, on September 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21, 1938, before Thomas S.. Wilson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the outset of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted I. C. W. 2's motion for intervention. The Board, the respondent, and I. C. W. 2 were represented by counsel, and Local 249 by a duly designated represen- tative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner 'Made various rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. He reserved ruling on the re- spondent's motion to dismiss the complaint. In his Intermediate Report he denied the motion. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 11, 1938, the respondent' filed a brief before the Trial- Examiner, which was duly considered by him. On November 8, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, in which he found that the respond- ent had engaged in unfair labor practices substantially as alleged in the complaint. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices and that it withdraw recognition from and disestablish I. C. W. 2 as the collective bargain ing representative of its employees. On November 19, and Decem ber 15, 1938, respectively, I. C. W. 2 and the respondent filed their ' On September 6, 1938, the respondent moved for postponement of the hearing date,- On September 8, 1938, the Regional Director denied the motion .. On September . 14, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of postponement of the hearing, previously scheduled for September 15, until September 19, 1938. On September 16, 1938, all parties agreed, that the hearing should begin on September 16, 1938. SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 587 , exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On January 26, 1939, the respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions. Pursuant to request therefor by the respondent and notice to all parties, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on January 11, 1940, for the purpose of oral argument. The respond- ent was represented by counsel and participated in the argument.. Neither Local 249 nor I. C. W. 2 appeared. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report filed by the respondent and: I. C. W. 2, and the respondent's brief and oral argument in support" thereof, and, save for those exceptions which are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth, herewith sustains them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Sprague Specialties Company is a Massachusetts corporation hav- ing its main office and plant in North Adams, Massachusetts, where it manufactures all types of fixed electrical condensers. Approxi mately 75 per cent of all the raw materials used by the respondent, consisting of chemicals, papers, acids, waxes, and foil, is procured from sources outside the State of Massachusetts. Approximately 75 per cent of the entire production of the respondent is shipped to desti nations outside the State of Massachusetts; approximately 5 per cent of the production is shipped to foreign countries. In 1937 the gross business of the respondent was in excess of $1,000,000. Approximately 500 persons are employed by the' respondent. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 249, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Indus- trial Organizations, admitting to its membership employees of the respondent. Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 2 is an unaffiliated labor- organization admitting to its membership hourly paid employees of the respondent. Sprague Company Union was an unaffiliated labor organization ad- mitting to its membership employees of the respondent. Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 1 was an unaffiliated labor organization admitting- to its membership employes of the re- spondent. .588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that on or about April 1, 1937, and at various times thereafter, the respondent prevented its employees from exercis- ing their rights to join a labor organization of their own free choice, and that on or about March 23, 1938, and at various times thereafter, the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and ad- ministration of L C. W: 2, and' contributed financial and "othen:sup- port to it, and that by these and other acts the respondent committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. In the first week of March 1937, a wage dispute led to a 2-day :strike of the employees of the respondent working in the can shop. Carleton Shugg, the respondent's vice president and factory manager, who was in charge of labor relations, settled the strike by calling the .strikers and nonstrikers together, and proposing a representation plan to settle grievances. Elections of shop representatives and offi- cials of the plan, the "Sprague Company Union," herein called S. C. U., were held the following week at Shugg's direction. S. C. U.'s constitution and bylaws were dittoed on the respondent's paper and machine; its application cards were furnished by the respondent. •S. C. U. meetings were held in the plant during working hours, .and its officials were paid for time spent at such meetings. Shugg ad- mitted dominating the formation of S. C. U., testifying, ". . . I think I definitely took the leadership in the direction of the formation of the Sprague Company Union." Shugg also admitted that his action constituted an interference with the rights of the employees as guar- anteed by the Act. Shortly after the formation of S. C. U., Gerard Steinberg, an em- ployee, warned Shugg that Shugg's activity in the formation of S. C. U. would pave the way for the entrance into the respondent's plant of a "bona fide" labor organization. Shugg replied that it was "his worry." Steinberg stated that someone was "coming in with .a bona fide labor organization" and asked Shugg if he should _"go .along with them." Shugg replied that the employees could join any union •they desired, but added, to Steinberg, "that is a fine way to :show your appreciation of what I have done for you." About the last week of March 1937 Walter Kenefick, a representa- tive of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W., after preparatory conferences with Steinberg, addressed a meeting of approximately 125 of the respondent's em- ployees and explained the purposes of I. B. E. W. Kenefick did not solicit membership°for I: B. E. W.' at' that:Ineeting; but , announced that a meeting would be held in the "near future," by which time he SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 589 would have arranged for the grant of a local charter for the respond- ent's employees. Between the first and second meetings called by Kenefick, the respondent posted a notice on the plant bulletin board announcing that S. C. U. and the respondent had agreed to a vacation plan for employees on the basis of length of service, and a time and a half-wage rate for holiday and week-end work. . Shugg testified that he knew about the activity of the I. B. E. W. "soon after" the forma- tion of S. C. U. At the second I. B: E. W. meeting, held sometime in April 1937, Kenefick asked if any of the approximately 125 em- ployees of the respondent present were "ready to sign up." Only one person indicated his willingness to do so. Various other employees- refused to join I. B. E. W., stating that the respondent, through S. C. U., was granting them all that was necessary; that they did not see the need of having an outside organization come in when they could get as much and more from the "present relationship," mention- ing the agreement recently posted by the respondent. In April 1937, after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the Act, Shugg and Charles Dean, president of S. C. U., conferred regarding "cutting loose" S. C. U. from what S11ugg termed "its very evident company support." Shugg suggested to Dean that S. C. U. change its name and meeting place. S. C. U. went out of existence in the first week of May 1937, and Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 1,,- herein called I. C. W. 1, sprang up immediately thereafter. With a few exceptions, shop representatives remained the same under I. C. W. 1 as under S. C. U. I. C. W. I's constitution and bylaws were dittoed on the respondent's stationery with the respondent's equip- ment. Dean was elected vice president of I. C. W. 1. Membership in I. C. W. 1 was solicited among the employees on the respondent's time and property, and the full complement of the respondent's em- ployees became members. I. C. W. 1 was recognized by the respond- ent as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, but. it never attempted to secure a contract. About November 1, 1937, Steinberg, then a member of I. C. W. 1's grievance committee, asked Shugg for a conference regarding the lay- ing off of certain I. C. W. 1 members in the can shop, and the conse- quent jibing they received from non-members of I. C. W. 1. Shugg refused, stating that "if you people are going to start telling us how to do things around here I can't have anything to do with a meeting like that." Later in the day Shugg, apparently having softened somewhat in his attitude, called Steinberg and Cassidy, president of I. C. W. 1, to his office, and asked them to tell him about the can- shop situation. Steinberg asked Shugg if their conference was to be considered a meeting on grievances. Shugg replied negatively, say- 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing "When we get ready to .. have a knockdown and drag out fight, let us make it on something bigger than the can shop situation." Shugg then asked Cassidy how it was that a motion of,, that type had been carried by the membership. Cassidy explained that 'he was not present at the meeting which adopted the motion to present the grievance, that Dean had conducted the meeting. Shugg suggested that he would handle the difficulty by calling in the can-shop em- ployees, find out what was the trouble, and if necessary "transfer the agitators or the people who were starting the trouble, from one de- partment to another, get them out of there and. keep them from causing any trouble." On January 13, 1938, at a special meeting of I. C. W. 1, Shugg an- nounced 2 that, owing to poor business and the difficult competitive situation, a 10-per cent wage cut would go into effect. Following this announcement, Steinberg criticized I. C.- W. 1 for permitting itself to get into a position where it was unprepared to meet any statement of fact made by the respondent, and suggested that a committee of I. C. W. 1 members be appointed whose sole duty would be to study conditions in the condenser industry. Shortly thereafter, -Steinberg and Dean met with Shugg. Shugg asked Steinberg if Steinberg noticed any change in Shugg's attitude toward him. Stein- berg replied that he did, that he supposed it was because of his remarks at the meeting "the other night." Shugg assented. Stein- -berg then stated that he did not mean to imply that Shugg was a liar, but simply thought "the people at the shop should act a little more on their own and not take the word all the time of the general manager." In February 1938, shortly after Steinberg expressed dissatisfaction with I. C. W. 1, Tom Dwyer, a representative of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, herein called the U. E. R. M. W. A., visited North Adams. Dwyer discussed the aims of U. E. R. M. W. A. with a group of I. C. W. 1 executive board mem- bers at Steinberg's home, and invited them to New York to secure additional information. In the first week in March 1938, a group -of employees visited New York, met the executive board of U. E. R. W. W. A. Local 1206, visited condenser factories where U. E. R. X. W. A. had contracts, and invited James Carey, International President of U. E. R. M. W. A., to speak in North Adams. Oil March 18, 1938, Carey spoke to approximately 400 persons in North Adams, a majority of whom were employees of the respondent. The following day, March 19, the executive board of I. C. W. 1 announced a meeting of I. C. W. 1 for the evening of March 22 for the purpose a The record does not show who called the meeting or how Shugg happened to be present. SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 591 of voting on whether or not I. C. W. 1 should affiliate with U. E. R. M. W. A. The meeting was advertised in the newspaper, by word of mouth, and by a notice posted just outside the plant. On March 22, at noon, Shugg called Dean "and his gang" to his office, and in- formed them that present conditions were no different from those on January 13, when he had announced the wage cut, that the re- spondent's sales representatives had gone into the field with instruc- tions as to costs and prices, and that there was no possibility of changing the costs and prices. Shugg stated that the methods being used by the people who were at that time engaged in "organizational activities" were not to his liking, and that he felt they "were doing harm to the bulk of the workers." Shugg admitted at the hearing that he was referring to the activities of the executive board of I. C. W. 1 in conjunction with the U. E. R-. M. W. A. and, in particu- lar, to the affiliation meeting which was to be held that evening. On the evening of March 22, approximately 125 of I. C. W. 1's ap- proximately 700 members 3 met to decide the affiliation question. Landry, as well as several other employees, objected to voting on whether I. C. W. 1 should affiliate with U. E. R. M. W. A. at that time, because of the small attendance. His objection was overruled. Members who were paid-up in dues were permitted to vote. The result of the balloting was 51 to 46 in favor of affiliation with U. E. R. M. W. A. After the ballots were counted, Adolph Stearn, a U. E. R. M: W. A. organizer, entered the hall and solicited member- -ship. Landry announced that he was going to continue as an "inde- -pendent" and would not join the U. E. R. M. W. A. He walked out of the meeting with "quite a, few" of his "followers." In the early morning of March 23, dissatisfaction with the affilia- tion vote of the night prior was rife among some of the respondent's employees. As a result Landry twice asked Shugg to confer with the, group, and the second time was granted his request, a meeting being arranged for noon of the same day. Shortly before noon Shugg posted a notice on the plant bulletin board repeating in sub- stance what he had told Dean and his associates on March 22, namely, that the "methods used by the leadership in this move do a distinct =injustice to the big body of workers. I also believe that most em- ployees will realize this themselves at some later date." Approxi- mately 15 employees led by Landry, met with Shugg at noon. They asked Shugg whether the respondent was contemplating another wage cut, whether the respondent was worried about sabotage from Philco workers, whether it was true that no other union except the C. I. O. could get- a charter from the State of Massachusetts, and whether the respondent would deal with a group other than the C. I. O. -3 About 500 were then actually working in the plant. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shugg replied that the respondent was not contemplating another wage cut, that it was not worried about the Philco situation, that so far as he knew, the name of the organization had nothing to do with obtaining a Massachusetts charter, and that the respondent would deal with "any union which had a majority." Following this meeting at 4 p. m. on March 23, representatives of the newly formed Local 249 of U. E. R. M. W. A. met with Shugg and protested the posting of the notice referred to above, claiming that it was an interference with the rights of the employees, and requested its removal. Dwyer admitted that Shugg was within his "legal rights" in posting the notice, but added that it would not do what Shugg "hoped it would." However, Dean, president of the newly formed Local 249 of U. E. R. M. W. A., testified that he did not consider the notice an invitation to the formation of a new inside union. Shugg refused to remove the notice, explaining that he had posted it to stop the "bickering" which had been going on, and further, requested Local 249 to refrain from organizing on the respondent's time and property. As Local 249's representatives left the meeting they saw posted in the plant a notice addressed "to all Sprague employees interested in organizational problems" announcing a meeting for that evening, March 23. Stearn and Steinberg requested John Washburn, personnel manager of the respondent, to remove the notice, stated that its presence was inconsistent with the instructions Shugg had just given them. Washburn refused to remove it, stating, that I. C. W. 1 had always been permitted to post notices. On March 24 and 26, Local 249 again requested the removal of the notice Shugg had posted on March 23, but the notice remained on the bulletin board about a. week. On the evening of March 23 Landry and his followers held a meet- ing attended by approximately 175 of the respondent's employees, in- cluding 6 minor supervisory employees, at which Independent Con- denser Workers Union No. 2 was formed. On March 29 I. C. W: 2 representatives requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's employees. Shugg told them what he had told Local 249 earlier, that he would recognize any union that could prove that it represented a majority of the employees. On March 29, also, Shugg put into effect a ban on all notices in the plant of an "organization character." On March 23 Robert Teeple, division superintendent in charge of 250 employees, expressed to James Shea, Local 249 member, in the plant, his preference for an "inside" organization over an "outside" union. The same evening Teeple expressed the same sentiments to Pringle, an employee, in a nearby cafe. About a week later, Teeple told Charles Dean in the plant that inside unions were preferable. SPR AGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 593 Teeple admitted speaking about unions to these employees, but denied having expressed the preference for inside unions attributed to him. The Trial Examiner found that Teeple made the statements, disbe- lieving Teeple's denials. The record amply supports the Trial Ex- aminer's finding, and we affirm it. The record also discloses that minor supervisory employees solicited membership in I. C. W. 2 on the respondent's time and property subsequent. to March 23. This solicitation, however, was in direct contravention of Shugg's instruc- tions to foremen to "keep their noses clean" of any union activities. Furthermore, minor supervisory employees were eligible to member- ship in, and were members, of Local 249 as well as I. C. W. 2. On March 30 Local 249 filed charges with the Regional Director alleging that the respondent had violated Section 8 (2) of the Act by assisting in the formation of I. C. W. 2. On April 6 I. C. W. 2 again requested recognition by Shugg, but Shugg informed I. C. W. 2 that it would have to offer proof of a majority representation, and must have dues and a constitution and bylaws to show its stability as a labor organization. I. C. W. 2 adopted a constitution closely fol- lowing I. C. W. 1's constitution, adding, however, a provision stating "Voting to affiliate with any other union is barred from this Organiza- tion." On April 13, after a conference with Dallas, a Field Examiner for the Board, Shugg posted a notice containing Section 7 of the Act and a request for abstention from organizing on the respondent's time and property on the part of all employees. On April 26, 1938, I. C. W. 2, after repeated informal, verbal re- quests for recognition, sent a letter, requesting such recognition, to Shugg, accompanied by I. C. W. 2 membership application cards which were signed by the respondent's employees and which designated I. C. W. 2 as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining. Washburn compared the signatures on the cards with pay- roll records and, other data and informed Shugg that I. C. W. 2 rep- resented a majority. On April 27 Shugg posted a notice which stated that the respondent recognized I. C. W. 2 as the representative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. Subsequent to recognition, I. C. W. 2 requested a restoration of wages to the level existing prior to the 10-per cent wage cut; when this was refused, it requested a 5-per cent increase in wages. Shugg coun- tered with a Wage Adjustment Plan which provided for profit-shar- ing when business conditions warranted. On June 4 I. C. W. 2 mem- bers voted' to accept the Plan. The Plan, together with a 10-per cent wage increase for night work, went into effect on June 5. About the middle of June 1938 Steinberg requested Shugg's permis- sion to post a notice announcing a picnic, sponsored by Dean, Local 249 president. Shugg refused on the ground that it was a notice of an "organizational character," falling under the ban on such notices 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD referred to above. Shortly thereafter, Shugg lifted the ban. On July. 9, I. C. W. 2 posted a picnic notice without Shugg's. permission. A company truck transported two company tables to this picnic. In September 1938 the respondent sponsored a benefit dance for Charles Dean, president of Local 249, to aid him after a fire had destroyed his home. The above chronicle shows clearly that the respondent formed S. C. U., supported it throughout its existence by extending to it the use of the respondent's facilities, and knowing of the organizing. efforts of the I. B. E. W., granted its self-created labor organization benefits with the intention and the effect of forestalling the organiza- tional drive of the I. B. E. W. After the constitutionality of the Act was upheld, the respondent sought to "cut loose" its creation from "its very evident company support." In so doing, the respondent insti- gated the formation of I. C. W. 1, which followed S. C. U. imine-. diately in time, and substantially in character. Shop representatives. under I. C. W. 1 remained substantially the same as in S. C. U. I. C. W. 1 was likewise supported throughout its existence, by,. the .use' of the respondent's facilities and time both for administrative and organizational purposes. Although I. C. W. 1 received recognition as the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees, it never sought to negotiate an agreement. That I. C. W. 1 was the respondent's puppet appears beyond doubt from the treatment it received when, it summoned the courage to present a grievance in November 1937. Its impotence was clearly demonstrated when the respondent-without any attempt at negotiation imposed a wage cut in January 1938. The respondent's formation of S. C. U., its acts in support thereof, the transformation of S. C. U. into I. C. W. 1, and its subsequent support to and domination of I. C. W. 1, deprived the employees of their- right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and to bargain. collectively through representatives of, their own choosing.' We find that the respondent, by the acts recounted above, interfered with, . restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent's statement on- March 22 to Dean "and his gang," and the notice posted by it on March 23, condemning their "recent. organizational activities" in conjunction with U. E. R. M. W. A. as exhibited in the proposed, and subsequently accomplished, affiliation meeting of March 23, was an interference with the rights of its em- ployees. The respondent claims that it took the above action to curb the "bickering" then current among ifs employees. , However; the 4 See National Labor Relations Board v . H. F. _ Flctcher Co., 108 F. (2d) 459, 1939 (C. C. A. 1), enf'g Matter' of H. F. Fletcher, Co: and Granite Cutters' International Aseoota-: tion of America, 5 N. L. R. B. 729. . SPRAGUE SPECIALTILS COMPANY 595 "bickering" seems to have been accelerated rather than diminished following the posting of the notice, and Local 249 twice urged its removal. Since the respondent kept the notice posted about a week, and since its removal would have aided in the accomplishment of the respondent's asserted aim, we do not credit the reason offered by the respondent for the posting of the notice. Furthermore, regardless of motives, an employer's participation in an organizational controversy is fraught with danger. "The basic policy of the Act is `hands off' so far as he is concerned."' Teeple's statements favoring "inside" over "outside" organizations also interfered with the rights of the employees. The respondent is charged with these statements of an important supervisory employee. We find that the respondent, by disapproving the "methods of the leadership" of Local 249 and seeking thereby to discourage it from holding its organization meeting on March 22, by posting a notice to the same effect on March 23, and by the statements made by Teeple, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We do not find, however, that the respondent has dominated, aided in the formation of,, or supported I. C. W. 2, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. The entire record discloses a genuine desire on the part of a group of employees, on' and about March 23, 1938, for an independent organization, which they formed as I. C. W. 2. Under the circumstances of this case, we believe that the potency of this desire transcended its possible conditioning by the history of com- pany-dominated unions in the respondent's plants While the .re- spondent did post a notice which we have found to be an interference with the rights of its employees, we do not believe that this notice affected in any considerable fashion the desire of the employees to form I. C. W. 2, such desire having been expressed by them before the notice was posted. Furthermore, the.president-of Local,249, Dean, testified that he did not consider the notice to be an invitation to form an inside union. Apart from, and subsequent to, the notice, the re- spondent, almost without exception, scrupulously avoided interfering with the union activities of its employees. In addition, I. C. W. 2 appears to have secured real gains for the employees. For the reasons stated, therefore, we shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it-alleges that the respondent has committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 6 International Association of Machinists v. National Labor Relations Board, 110 F. (2d) 29 (C. A. D. C.), enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L. R. B. 621. Cf. Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company and Telephone Operators Union, Local 175-A, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 12 N. L. R. B. 375. .50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce- and the free flow of commerce. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 249, and Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 2 are labor organizations, within the-meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Sprague Company Union and Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 1 were labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the. above. findings of. fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the. National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Sprague Specialties Company, North Adams, Massachu setts, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:. 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-. ing, or coercing its employees in. the exercise. of their rights to self organization, to form, join, or assist United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 249, 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, as guaranteed. in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 597 (a) Immediately ' post notices in conspicuous places throughout its North Adams, Massachusetts, plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty -(60) consecutive days, stating that the_ respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraph 1 of this Order; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND rr Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting in part : I agree with the majority that S. C. U. and I. C. W. 1 were formed, dominated, and supported by the respondent, and that the respond- ent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. I dissent from the holding of the majority that the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, with respect to I. C. W. 2. I believe that the respondent should be 'ordered to withdraw all recognition from I. C. W. 2 and to completely disestablish it as the collective bargain- ing agelicy of its employees. In March 1937, ther respondent indicated its desire for an "inside" union by establishing and supporting S. C. U. At about the same time it expressed its opposition to "outside" unions by granting bene- fits to its self-created labor organization, S. C. U., with the inten- tion and effect of forestalling the organizational drive of the I. B. E. W. After the constitutionality of the Act was affirmed, the re- spondent abandoned S. C.' U. and instigated the formation. of another "inside" organization, I. C. W. 1, which it subsequently dominated and supported. In March 1938, when I. C. W. 1 asserted its inde- pendence and voted to affiliate with an "outside" union, U. E. R. M. W. A., the respondent once more indicated its opposition to "out- side" unions by posting a notice condemning the "recent organiza- tional activities" of I. C. W. 1 in voting to affiliate with U. E. R. M. W. A. Only after this notice was posted was I. C. W. 2 formed by certain of the members of I. C. W. 1. The majority opinion concludes that the formation of I. C. W. -2 resulted from the desire of the employees to form an independent organization and that the "potency of this desire transcended its possible conditioning by the history of company-dominated unions in the respondent's plant." J cannot agree with this conclusion. The 283031-41-vol. 20-39 598 DECISIONS" OF . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD outstanding facts disclosed by the record-:wit :,,re"spect, to the. respond- ent's relations to its employees are that the respondent actively de- sired to maintain an "inside" employee labor organization at its. plant ' and that it was . openly opposed to the establishment of an "outside" union. There is ample basis to conclude, in view of these facts and in view of the outgrowth of I. C. W. 2 from I. C._ W. 1, that I. C. W. 2 could. not appear otherwise than company sponsored in the eyes of the employees. If any doubt existed= it must certainly have been dispelled by the respondent's action in posting the notice attacking the shift in affiliation to U. E. R. M. W. A. and by. the subsequent statements of Superintendent Teeple favoring "inside" over "outside" organizations. In view of the respondent's activities in connection with S. C. U. and I. C. W. 1, the conditions at its plant were such that, at the time I. C. W. 2 was formed, little action on the part of the respondent was necessary to cause the reemergence of an "inside" union. The respondent, by posting the -notice of March 23 and by the- statements of Superintendent Teeple, provided the needed impetus. I think it plain that the respondent's activities have not only inter fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in-the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7- of the Act, but have also so seriously impaired any free exercise of choice on the part of the employees as to constitute an "interference with the formation" of. a labor organization which the Act was designed to prevent. I would, therefore, in order to secure to the employees the rights guaranteed by the Act, order the respondent to withdraw recognition from I. C. W. 2 and completely disestablish it as a collective bar- gaining agency.' . 7I would order the respondent to take the same remedial action in this case even if I did not find that it had violated Section S (2) of the Act, since the case clearly falls within the reasoning of my dissenting opinion ' in Matter 'of Wisconsin' Telephone Company and Telephone Operators Union, Local 175-A, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et at., 12 N. L. R. B. 375.