The Solvay Process Co.

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA and OIL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 424, AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION' Cases Nos. C-108 and R-983-Decided March W, 1940 Chemical Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint. and Coercion: anti- union statements-Conipany-Darniamated Union: domination of'and interference with formation and administration; activities of supervisory employees; activ- ities on company time and property ; support ; disestablished, as agency for collective bargaining-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees in plant except clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory employees, gate- men, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees-Repr esenta- tives: proof of choice: cards and petitions designating Union as bargaining agent; testimony of union officers and organizers-Collective Bargaunng' meeting with union representatives, but with no bona fide intent to reach an agreement- Investigation of Representatives: petition for, dismissed, in view of order to employer to bargain. Mr. Samuel Lang, for the Board. Mr. Charles V. Porter, of Baton .Rouge, La., and Hunton, Williams, Anderson, Gay & Moore, by Mr. T. Justin Moore and Mr. Edmund M. Preston, of Richmond, Va., for the respondent. Mr. Arthur J. Mandell and Mr. Chris Dixie, of Houston. Texas, and Mr. J. L. Coulter, of Ft. Worth, Texas, for the Union. Breazeale & Sachse, by Mr. H. Payne Breazeale, Mr. Victor A. Sachse, and Mr. Percy J. Landry, Jr., of Baton Rouge, La., for the Council. Miss Anne E. Freeling, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 3, 1938, Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for thq Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), herein called the Regional Director, a charge alleging that The Solvay Process Company, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the i Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations 21 N L. R. B., No. 90. 882 THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 883 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, and a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of the respondent and request- ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On June 4, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On August 19, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to' Article II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered that the two cases be consolidated for the purposes of hearing and that one record of the hearing be made. On August 20, 1938, the Union filed an amended charge alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)', (2), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and an amended petition for investigation and certification of representatives. Upon the amended charge, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint, dated August 27, 1938, alleging that the respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2 Notices , of the hearing upon the complaint and upon the amended petition, together with copies of the notice of consolidation, the complaint, the amended charge, and the amended petition, were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. The, complaint alleged in substance that, the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of Solvay Em- ployees Council, herein called the Council, a labor organization of its employees, and contributed financial and other support to it; that on or about March 22 and April 2, 1938, and at all times thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union, which was then, and continued to be, the representative of a majority of the respondent's employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining; and that thereby, and by threatening to shut down the plant if the Union pressed a claim for recognition, by advising and inducing its 2 The complaint also alleged that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act This allegation was obviously due to a typographical error, and was deleted at the heal in;; upon motion of counsel for the Boaid 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees to refrain from joining the Union or to give up their mem- bership in it, by threatening them with loss of employment if they did not join the Council, and by other acts and conduct, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed an answer to the complaint, admitting certain allegations of fact as to its business, but denying the allegations as to unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing in the complaint and representation cases was held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from Sep- tember 15 through October 7, 1938, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the opening of the hear- ing, the Council presented a written motion to intervene. The Trial Examiner reserved his ruling thereon, and thereafter, in the course of the hearing, granted the Council leave to intervene in the representa- tion case only. The Board, the respondent, and the Union appeared by counsel and participated in the hearing in the complaint and rep- resentation cases. The Council appeared by counsel and participated in the hearing in the representation case. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.3 At the Close of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be amended to conform to the proof adduced at the hearing. The Trial Examiner granted this motion. At the close of the hearing, the re- spondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence to, sustain the allegations thereof. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon this motion. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Ex- aminer made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. We have reviewed all such rulings and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. Such rulings are hereby affirmed. On December 7, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1), (2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, withdraw recognition from and disestablish Solvay Employees Council, bargain collectively with the Union, and take certain other affirmative action to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor practices. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner denied the motion made by counsel for the respondent at the hearing to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. 3 Participation by the Council was limited to issues arising in the repiesentat : on case THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY '885 The respondent and the Council duly filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and requested an opportunity to file briefs and argue orally before the Board. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on December 14, 1939, for the purpose of oral argument. The respond- ent, the Union, and the Council were represented by counsel and par- ticipated in the argument. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the briefs and arguments in support of such exceptions, and, save as the exceptions are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the cases, the Board makes the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, The Solvay Process Company, is a New York corporation. It is a subsidiary of Allied Chemical & Dye Company, and sells its products through Solvay Sales Company, both New York corporations. The respondent owns or operates plants in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Hopewell, Virginia; Syracuse, New York; Detroit, Michigan; and Amherstberg, Ontario, Canada. The respondent is engaged at its Baton Rouge plant, which is the only plant herein involved, in the business of manufacturing, refin- ing, and processing chemicals and chemical products. The respond- ent obtains from States other than Louisiana a substantial portion of the raw materials used at the Baton Rouge plant, including coke, am- monia, and acids, and machinery and other equipment, and ships to its other plants, or sells to customers located outside Louisiana, be- tween 60 and 70 per cent of the products manufactured or processed at its Baton Rouge plant. In the year 1937, the respondent sent out of its Baton Rouge plant products manufactured or processed by it of an aggregate value of more than $1,000,000. The plant employs approximately 250 persons. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.4 It admits to membership employees of the respondent. Solvay Employees Council is an unaffiliated labor organization which limits its membership to employees of the respondent. Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations 283032-41-vol 21-57 886' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination of and interference with the formation and adminis- tration of the Council; interference , restraint, and coercion Prior to March 11, 1938, when the Union began to organize the respondent's employees , no labor organization existed at the Baton Rouge plant. Bates, the plant superintendent, nevertheless called Hargroder, chief electrician , into his office during January or Feb- ruary of that year and told the latter : - that he [Bates] understood that the CIO was coming and that they would attempt to organize the plant . . . [that] if I [Har- groder] understood or heard of any activities in the plant, to let him [Bates] know . . . that I [Hargroder] was to remain abso- lutely neutral in what happened. Hargroder replied that he would let Bates know. On March 13, 1938, 2 days after the beginning of the Union's activities, an employee told Nill, assistant plant superintendent, that the men were being organized by outsiders . Nill reported the matter to Bates, who asked him if he knew of any reason for dissatisfaction among the men which might have prompted this activity . Nill told him he did not know of any, but promised to make inquiries about it. A few of the supervisory employees learned of the Union's organ- izing activity soon after it began from conversations which they overheard among the employees . They reported such activity to other supervisory employees, and it thus became generally known throughout the plant within a few days. On March 17 Hurt, ma- chine-shop foreman, and Hargroder , chief electrician , who share an office, discussed the Union 's activity with their immediate superior, Trott, the master mechanic. He referred them to Bates. According to Hurt, they told Bates that the C. I. O. was organizing, but that some of the employees preferred a different type of organization. According to Hargroder , however, he had not yet heard anything about an independent organization, and they told Bates only that the C. I. O. was organizing the men. Bates called Nill into his office during this conference, and asked Hurt and Hargroder to repeat to Nill what they had just told Bates. Nill testified that as he re- called their conversation , Hurt and Hargroder "said that several of the shop men had approached them and asked them to find out if it would be all right to form an organization to combat the CIO." We find that the subject of the formation of an inside labor organ- ization to compete with the Union was broached on this occasion. The witnesses are agreed that Bates instructed them that the men THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 887 had a perfect right to organize, and that they, as part of the man- agement, must not interfere and must remain neutral. Similar in- structions were also given to the other supervisory employees, and were, in fact, repeated to each of them several times. Shortly after this conference in Bates' office, an employee named Crawford and one or two other employees told Hurt and Hargroder that some of the men would like to form a council type of organ- ization. Hurt told them they had his permission to do so. He also told them that he "didn't think a hell of a lot of the CIO and particularly didn't like the man at the head of it . . . John L. Lewis." Fadely, a clerical employee who works in the receiving room in an adjoining building, came into the office. Crawford had asked him to assist in forming a labor organization. Fadely dictated a petition which Hargroder wrote out in longhand, and which pro- vided that the signers thereof would meet at a future date to organize the respondent's employees into a "Solvay Employees Council" for the purpose of discussing with plant officials from time to time the general welfare and grievances of the employees. Either Fadely or Crawford asked Hargroder to take the petition to the management and find out whether the management would approve it or would object to a second organization trying to sign up its employees. Har- groder took the petition to Bates. Bates asked Hargroder whether the petition was his idea or the men's idea. Hargrocler told him it was the men's idea. Bates then told him again that the men had a perfect right to organize, and that the management must not inter- fere and must remain neutral. Hargroder handed the petition to Bates, who read it and gave it to Nill to read. Hargrocler returned to his office and told Crawford what Bates had said. At Crawford's request, Hargroder, who sometimes typed personal things for the men, typed copies of the petition, and later in the day typed addi- tional copies. Crawford started into the shop to obtain signatures to the petition. Hurt told him he could not do that, but gave him permission to use the office. Crawford sat at the desk in the office and the men came in, one or two at a time, to sign the petition. Both Hurt and Hirgroder sent men to the office for this purpose. Their efforts met with great success. Hurt testified that he thought he saw the entire force of 12 or 14 men in the machine shop go into the office to sign the petition. Later in the day, while Hurt and Hargroder were in the office with Crawford, Dove, an employee in the caustic soda section on the 3: 00 to 11: 00 p. m. shift, came in to discuss with them the or- ganization of an independent union. They showed Dove the Council petition and told him that some of the other employees were circulat- ing copies. Crawford asked Dove if he would circulate a petition 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the caustic-soda section. Dove said he would circulate it in that section and anywhere else he had a chance to in order to find out how many men really wanted an independent organization. In the course of the discussion, Hurt told Dove that "if he didn't watch out he would get into something as bad as the C. I. 0." Dove gathered the impression, as he testified, that Hurt wanted "a local independent union more to combat the C. I. O. than to be of any particular help to the employees themselves." In any event, Hurt and Dove engaged in a heated argument, which Dove terminated by picking up two of the petitions that were lying on the desk and leaving the office. He gave one to Kleinpeter, a gateman, and circulated the other in the plant for at least 2 hours. Dove thereafter assumed active leader- ship in the- organization of the Council, while Hurt and Hargroder limited their activity to expressing to the employees their views about labor organizations. On March 18 Dove asked Patz, his shift foreman, for permission to leave early to attend a C. I. O. meeting. Since Dove's machine -was not in operation at the time, lie would ordinarily have been ex- -cused, his pay being reduced proportionately. Patz, however, felt that this request was such an unusual one that he consulted Law, general foreman of the caustic-soda division, who consulted Nill. Nill decided that Dove should be excused. Dove addressed the meet- ing of the Union, and stated that Trott had promised recognition to whichever organization represented a majority, and that the Council represented a majority. He displayed copies of the petition, one which he had circulated and oiie which Crawford had circulated. Following his address, a number of people crossed their names off the petition, and Dove thereupon left the meeting. Dove was paid full time for March 18. Patz testified that at this time he knew nothing about union activity in the plant. Dove, how- ever, had circulated a petition the day before for at least 2 hours. Furthermore, Dove testified that he had discussed C. I. O. activity with Patz on about March 17, and had informed him that "I didn't believe in the C. I. 0., that it wasn't a good organization for us and that I proposed,to combat it the best I could." Dove's activity on behalf of the Council was known at this time by at least two other supervisory employees, Hurt and Hargroder, and by many other employees, and we are convinced from all the evidence that Patz also knew of it. On Sunday, March 20, the Council held its first meeting, at which temporary officers were elected. Dove was elected temporary presi- dent. On March 21 Dove engaged Victor A. Sachse as the Council's attorney. Sachse advised the Council officers not to use the petition since it was merely an agreement to meet and form an independent THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 889 organization. The name "Solvay Employees Council," which ap- peared on the petition, was, however, retained. The record is replete with testimony about anti-C. I. 0. statements alleged to have been made by Hurt and Hargroder, many of which they admit having made. Hurt testified that about a week after the clay on which his office had been used for obtaining signatures to the petition, he had a conversation about unions with an employee named Robinson, of which the following is an excerpt : I I told him what I thought about the C. I. 0. in general . . . tried to point out to him the trouble that the C. I. 0. had caused in other plants and the trouble I had seen from other union activity and strikes, and told him I had never seen any side gain anything in labor trouble-that both sides usually lost. Q. Did you say to Robinson that if the union came in, the company would shut down the plant? A. I did. No sir, I didn't say that the company would but I said the C. I. 0. would shut it down. . . . I told him that if we could take the newspapers for any authority that every plant that the C. I. 0. had moved into was forced to shut down through sitdown strikes and other radical means. Hurt expressed animosity toward the C. I. 0. to a number of em- ployees, including Duff, president of the Union, whose signature Hurt sought to obtain on the Council petition, and whom he asked "to talk it over with the opposition." Hurt continued to make anti- C. I. 0. statements for about a month after March 17, the day he was instrumental in initiating the Council. Hargroder testified that he called an employee named White into his office one evening around March 17 or 18 and "tried to explain to him the merits and demerits of labor organizations." He testified further that: I told Mr. White that if the C. I. 0. came in and organized that the demands on the company would be such as to cause a strike and that the C. I. 0. would definitely shut the plant down, as I saw it. That was my belief, and I still believe it. About a week later Hargroder called White to his office again and reprimanded him for causing a disturbance in the patrol office in the presence of several employees. The disturbance was created when White not only refused to sign a Council membership card handed him by the patrolman, but also tore up the card. Hargroder made no effort to learn which other employees were in the patrol office at the time, and was not concerned about the fact that a patrolman was apparently signing up Council members in the patrol office. He 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD did nothing further about the incident after warning White that "no hard feelings were to come out of our electrical department." Hargroder also testified : "I told Mr. Dezendorf [vice president of the Union] that I didn't think the C. I. O. would come into the plant because the men were generally against it ," and further stated that he told the men in the plant that the C. I. O. was a bad thing, led by radicals. Hurt and Hargroder both claim that after the petition was re- moved from their office, they confined their activities to expressing to the employees their hostility to the C. I. 0., and that, although they mentioned that the men were forming an independent union, they did not urge anyone to join it since they were opposed to any labor organization . Assuming this to be true, it seems clear that with the two organizations competing for membership , statements by Hurt and Hargroder expressing violent opposition to the Union, at the same time mentioning , without opposition , the formation of the inside organization , necessarily had the effect not only of discourag- ing membership in the Union, but also of encouraging membership in the Council , particularly in view of the earlier activity of Hurt and Hargroder in connection with the Council petition . Such a con- clusion finds adequate support in the statements admitted by Hurt and Hargroder , without any discussion of the testimony concerning numerous other statements in opposition to the C. I. O. and in favor of the Council, which was presented by various witnesses , and which impresses us as more credible and trustworthy than do the denials thereof by Hurt and Hargroder. Hurt explained that he disobeyed the instructions given him by his superiors because he felt that he had a right to express his per- sonal opinions to the employees on any subject, including his dislike of labor organizations . Hargroder, on the other hand, testified that "I did not feel that I was disobeying any orders in doing anything that I did." We have discussed in some detail the activities of Hurt and Har- groder, not because they were the only supervisory employees who in- terfered with the formation of a labor organization , but because theirs was the most flagrant interference. Other supervisory employees also expressed opposition to outside organizations, urged employees to join the Council , and in various ways interfered with union activity. A copy of the Council petition was left on the records table in the compressor room of the liquid chlorine building, which employees signed in the presence of Allen, one of the shift foremen. Newton Umphrey, a foreman in the chlorine section , at Hurt's instruction, placed a petition on the desk in the chlorine office. Lowry, general foreman of the chlorine section, testified that D. D. Umphrey, a THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 891 shift foreman who worked under him, had told him "that he cir- culated or carried, I don't remember which, or handed a petition to one of the operators." We have discussed above 'Crawford's activity and assistance in the formation of the Council. Although the respondent denies that Crawford is a supervisory employee, we find in Section III-B-1 below that he is. Moreover, to the extent that Crawford's activities were sanctioned by Hurt and Hargroder, they are attributable to the respondent, regardless of Crawford's supervisory status. At a conference on March 22 between a union committee and Bates, Kinstley, international representative and organizer of the Union, told Bates of the interference by Hurt and Hargroder with union activity. Bates called Hurt and Hargroder to his office the following day, did not question them about the truth or falsity of Kinstley's statements, but simply told them there were complaints that they were interfering with union activity, and again instructed them that they must not interfere. Bates did nothing at this time to inform the employees that they were free to organize despite such interference because, he testified, he "didn't believe, in particular, that Mr. Kinstley knew what he was talking about." At a conference at the Board's Regional Office in New Orleans on April 29, the Regional Director read to Bates affidavits signed by three of the respondent's employees alleging that Hurt and Hargroder had been active on behalf of the Council and in opposi- tion to the Union. Following this conference, Bates called Hurt and Hargroder to his office and told them of the charges that had been made against them. Hargroder denied, but Hurt admitted, violating Bates' instructions. Bates thereupon prepared a notice, which he discussed with Nill, and then posted on the bulletin board on May 10. The notice reads in part as follows The Management ... has recently been advised of statements said to have been made by some of its employees claiming that certain supervisory employees had encouraged or discouraged other employees with respect to, labor organization activities. While the correctness of such statements has been questioned, any such action would be contrary to the Management's policy .and instructions. The Management, as heretofore, will not in any way interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed and granted them under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act . . . On March 24, 1938, Dove wrote Bates a, letter to the effect that although the Council was still operating under a temporary commit- 892 DECISIONS OF NAT1ONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tee, and would not elect permanent officers until May, it-represented a majority of the employees and claimed the right to bargain for them.' Bates arranged a conference with the Council , which was held on March 28. At this conference, the Council was represented by Sachse, Dove, and a number of other employees. Sachse explained to Bates who he was and what the Council was, and gave Bates two copies of the Council 's bylaws. He told Bates that the organization was still temporary , but that "as soon as they had perfected their perma- nent organization . . . they would come in to bargain with the com- pany." Dove left with Bates for his consideration the written de- mands that the Council was going to present when its organization had been completed . These demands included provisions for wage increases, equal distribution of overtime work, and vacations for all employees. The Council held elections for permanent officers on May 16, 17, and 18. Printed election notices were distributed in the plant. On June 6 Bates again met with the Council representatives , who told him that permanent officers had been elected, and that they insisted upon being recognized as bargaining agent. Bates promised to give them an answer in about a week. The next morning Bates consulted the Regional Director , who refused to advise him in the matter. After thinking the problem over carefully , Bates testified, he came to the conclusion that he had to do something since the Council was so ilisist- ent upon collective bargaining. Accordingly , Bates met with the Council representatives on June 8 and told them that he would recog- nize the Council temporarily as bargaining agent for its members only, provided that the Council furnish proof that it represented a majority of the employees , that it furnish an affidavit showing that its repre- sentatives and officers were bona fide, and that , after this had been done, Bates be permitted to offer to the Union an opportunity to prove its claims. Bates explained further that although he would recognize the Council , if at all, as representative of its members only, the results of their negotiations would apply to all the employees in the plant. Bates met with the Council representatives again on June 10. They presented the Council membership cards and affidavits certifying the results of the elections. Nill checked the cards against employment records and decided that the Council represented a majority of the employees. Bates agreed , subject to the conditions enumerated at their prior conference , to recognize the Council as bargaining agent for its members only . The Council left with Bates for his considera- tion a proposed schedule of wage increases. After the Council committee left, Bates and Nill sent for Duff, presi- dent of the Union, told him of the terms upon which they had agreed 5 At that time the Council had been designated as bargaining agent by about 60 out of about 250 employees. THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 893 to recognize the Council, and offered him an opportunity to disprove the Council's claims. Duff stated that the Union did not recognize the Council as having any legal status.' He offered no proof at this time of the Union's membership. On June 13 Bates met again with the Council representatives. After considerable discussion, they finally reached a compromise on the mat- ter of wage increases. Bates also granted vacations with pay at this time, although he claims he did so voluntarily and not at the request of the Council. Thus, in summation, it appears that after the Union began to organize the employees, and Bates was notified thereof, he issued instructions to all the supervisory employees that they must not interfere with the union activity of the employees. Such instruc- tions, furthermore, were repeated to each supervisory employee several times during the period of union organization, despite the alleged belief of the plant officials that such instructions were being observed. As a matter of fact, as we have seen above, the instruc- tions were violated by several supervisory employees, particularly by Hurt and Hargroder, who assisted in the preparation of the Council petition, told Crawford to use their office in obtaining signatures to the petition, sent employees to the office to sign the petition, and repeatedly expressed to the employees violent opposition to the Union. These acts alone vitiate the Council as a freely chosen representative of the respondent's employees. We think it clear that by abandoning the petition which had been circulated with the illegal assistance of supervisory employees, while continuing to use the name therein appearing, the Council could not dissipate the effects of the respondent's interference in employee self-organization. In all the circumstances, including the continuing expression by Hurt and Hargroder of their hostility toward the Union, the employees must necessarily have regarded the Council as the object of the respondent's favor. The respondent itself took no effective steps to prevent or to dispel such an impression. The extent to which Bates' instructions to refrain from interference were disregarded by supervisory employees compels the conclusion that they were not seriously intended. Bates must have had some inkling of such interference by Hurt and Har- groder, particularly when the latter showed him the petition, written in his handwriting and on Company paper, so soon after their first conference about union activity. Furthermore, on March 22 and on April 2, Bates had actual notice of such interference. Yet, even after such notice, he took no steps to inform the non-supervisory employees that they were free to form or join any labor organization they desired. 6 The Union had filed its charge and petition on April 3, 1938. 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD His explanation that he did not post a notice prior to May 10 because he did not believe Kinstley is hardly justification for his failure to do so. Repeating his alleged instructions to Hurt and Hargroder, the only heed Bates took of Kinstley's assertions, was wholly inadequate to absolve the respondent from responsibility for the wrongful acts of its supervisory employees.? Nor was the notice as finally posted adequate in view of the time which had elapsed, and in view of the expressions in the notice of doubt as to the truth of the allegations of interference by supervisory employees when Bates had reason to know full well that such interference had occurred. The reports about union activity made by supervisory employees to their respective superiors as well as to Bates; the openness with which Council organizers carried on their activities in the presence and with the knowledge of their superiors; the active role in the formation of the inside union played by supervisory employees; the assistance flowing from the numerous statements made to employees by supervisors expressing antagonism to any outside labor organiza- tion ; the encouragement given to the Council organizers by the respondent's unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with the Union, as found below; the payment to Dove of wages for time spent in an effort to disrupt a union meeting; and the various other circum- stances discussed in this section, show unmistakably that the respond- ent has interfered with the right of its employees to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing. We find that the respondent, by its supervisory employees, domi- nated and -interfered with the formation and administration of the Council, and contributed support to it. We further find that thereby, by warning and threatening its employees that successful unioniza- tion would cause the plant to be shut down and the employees to lose their jobs, and by other acts and conduct, the respondent inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The refusal to bargain collectively 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that the employees of the respondent at its Baton Rouge plant," exclusive of clerical and supervisory em- 7 See Swift t Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 87, wherein the court stated : Furthermore, with respect to the acts of the supervisory foremen, the doctilne of respondent superior applies, and petitioner is responsible for the actions of its supervisory foremen, even though it had no actual participation therein. The respondent operates a stone quarry at Winnfield, Louisiana, about 150 miles from Baton Rouge. None of the parties contend that the quarry employees should be. included in the same unit as those at the Baton Rouge plant, and we shall not include them. THE SOLVAT PROCESS COMPANY 895 ployees, watchmen, first-aid men, safety men, brine-well employees, and laboratory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. At the hearing the Union also sought the exclusion of mill, water, and wharf employees. The respondent contended ° that the unit should include all the employees' except those whom it admitted to be supervisors, clerical employees who worked in the main office, and 16,temporary employees.10 These tem- porary employees were engaged in various capacities, most of them in connection with construction. The Union agreed that 21, of these 16 employees should be excluded from the unit as of March 22 and April 2, one 12 because he was a clerical employee, and the other 13 because he was a supervisory employee. The Union contended, how- ever, that the remaining 14 temporary employees, all of whom are listed on the March 22 pay roll, should be included in the unit. Most of them had been employed for several months at the time of the alleged refusals to bargain. Although some of them were laid off shortly thereafter, the respondent calls them back from time to time for various kinds of jobs for which they are qualified. The record indicates that at least 5 14 of them have been called back since they were laid off. In view of the length of time they were employed at the time of the alleged refusals to.bargain, and-in view of the likeli- hood of their being called back to work by the respondent, these' employees will be included in the appropriate unit as of March,22 and April 2. We shall discuss briefly below the duties of those employees who the Union contends should be excluded from the appropriate unit, but who the respondent contends should be included : Four clerks 15 who work in the plant rather than in the main office, and whom the respondent seeks to include on that ground, keep records, check incoming materials, charge out against inventory the materials issued to operators on the presentation of store tickets, and do other work of a similar nature. Their duties are principally clerical and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit. Robert B. Crawford, who is listed on the respondent's pay roll as machinist leader, appears to be an assistant to Hurt, machine-shop ° The Council's claim as to the appropriate unit Is almost identical with that of the respondent. Since , however, we have found the Council to be company dominated, we regard its contention as to the appropriate unit as irrelevant. 10 George E. Anderson , Heibert L. Bradford , Jesse R Brashear, Richard H . Brubaker, Oscar L. Collier, Clyde K. Counts , Jack Craig, John H. Hearron , Lester J. Jones , Merlin I Jones, Earl W. Kettinger , John F Levett, Levi D. Mercer, Marcus Moore, Dewey J. Perault , Kernie 0 Sibley. 11 Levi D. Mercer, Oscar L. Collier. Ii Levi D Mercer. 12 Oscar L Collier. 14 George E. Anderson , Jesse R. Brashear , Oscar L. Collier , Levi D Mercer , Kernie 0. Sibley. 15 Edward J. Daigle, Henry O. Fadely, Klein J. Molaison , Robert S Morris. 896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD foreman, and substituted for Hurt for about 2 months in 1936 when the latter was ill. When an order comes into the machine shop, Hurt discusses it with Crawford, who then transmits Hurt's orders to the men who are to do the work. If it is a blueprint job, Hurt turns it over to Crawford to handle the detail work, get the materials for it, and assign the work. Crawford spends part of his time operating a lathe, and runs a machine when an operator is absent. He is paid more than the operators, and is on salary, although the respondent claims that the salary arrangement was entered into in order to com- pensate Crawford for overtime work performed by him, and not be- cause he is a supervisor. In any event, we find that Crawford's duties are largely supervisory, and we shall therefore exclude him from the appropriate unit. Bruce C. Deitz, who is listed on the respondent's pay roll as field- maintenance and cleaning leader, has three men working under him. He and his gang are part of the maintenance force assigned to work in the soda-ash department. He gives orders to the men under him and also does some manual work. At one time during construction he was appointed a temporary piping foreman. James A. Duff and Frederic W. Dezendorf, who are listed as millwright leader and pipe- fitter leader, and who also have helpers to whom they give orders, are president and vice president respectively of the Union. They are on the hourly pay roll, however, whereas Deitz is on salary, although the respondent claims that is because of his overtime work. The Union claims, furthermore, that whereas Duff and Dezendorf spend practi- cally all their time in manual labor, working right along with their helpers, Deitz for the most part merely gives orders to the men working under him and performs manual labor only on rare occasions when his men require his assistance. We shall exclude Deitz from the unit as a supervisory employee. Twelve head operators,' who perform some manual labor, but who also have supervisory duties, convey orders from the foremen to the operators, are responsible for routine work being properly performed, and relieve the foremen when they are absent from the plant. They attend safety meetings held from time to time to dis- cuss methods of preventing accidents, at which the superintendent, the foremen, and the paymaster are also present. They are paid more than the operators, are familiar with all the machines in their respective departments, perform repairs when requested to do so by an operator, and have the run of the entire building where they work. Three of them are on the salary pay roll' Since it appears 1g Cecil L. Burton, Charles F. Cheshire, Albert J. Cook , Garvin L Courtney, George E. Crotty, Jr., Lysle P. Elliott, Charles A Hitzman , Alvin R . Kelly, Thomas L. McGrew, Bennie C. Payne, Lonnie Sibley , John B Tucker. THE SOLWAY PROCESS COMPANY 897 that their duties are to a large extent supervisory, we shall exclude all the head operators from the unit. Eight laboratory employees'17 six of whom Work in the labora- tory located in the nla.in office building, and two of whom work in the laboratory located in the chlorine building, are all engaged in taking samples of the products and analyzing them. Production controls are changed or maintained according to their daily reports. They are described as operating chemists rather than as research chemists, and the plant could not operate 24 hours without them. They work different hours than do the operators and spend most of their time in the laboratory. Some of them are professional men who have had highly specialized training, while others have been trained only in the respondent's laboratory to perform certain routine tests. Since their work is of a technical nature requiring a higher degree of skill and training than is required of the production workers, we shall exclude laboratory workers from the unit. Four gatemen " Watch the men coning into the plant, intercept strangers, and check trucks entering or leaving the plant. The gate- men on the night shift, in addition, get material from the storeroom which is needed by the operators, act as first-aid men, gather up the time cards of the men and the distribution cards made out by the foremen, check then, and mark on the time cards the total number of hours worked. The respondent has employed no watchmen, classi- fied as such, since about February 1938. The gatemen act as watch- men, and we shall therefore exclude them in accordance with our general practice not to include watchmen within a bargaining unit composed essentially of production and maintenance employees if the only bona fide union involved requests their exclusion. Five brine-well employees "" work at the brine wells, which are located about 15 miles from the plant. The brine is pumped through a pipe line to storage tanks in the plant. These tanks must be con- tinuously refilled since proper operation of the plant depends upon a constant flow of brine through the tanks, which hold a quantity sufficient for only a few hours' operation. The brine-well employees operate pumps similar to some of those used at the plant, test the quality of the brine coming from the wells, adjust the water input to the wells, and patrol the section of the line near the pump house. They are under the supervision of the soda-ash department foreman, who is in constant communication with them by telephone. Repairs at the brine wells are performed by mechanics sent from the plant. '7 Wilbur H Brumfield, Harvard I Busse, W Samuel Dyer, August M. Hochenedel, Walter Lemann, Jr, Albert I Poche, Edward E Spranley Frank P Tin k "John W Airidge. Raymond H Bridgeman Charles L Kleinpeter. William D Raiford. 19 Hilton Guidry, Leo F. Lassere, Alvin E Miller, Feidmand J. Pinsonat, Elmoie E. Rayne. 898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union seeks the exclusion of these men because they work at such a distance from the men in the plant, and are very infrequently in contact with them. We shall exclude the brine-well employees from the unit. Four mill, water, and wharf men 20 work at the respondent's wharf, which is about 1,700 feet from the plant. They use the same time clock and locker rooms as -the men at the plant, but work different hours. They operate water, pumps and an air compressor, and regu- late the flow of water to the plant on instructions from the soda-ash foreman. They also keep the wharf clean, and those on the night shift make two tours to inspect for fire hazard the wooden trestle leading to the wharf and the outlying wooden structures which were put up during construction and are now used for storage. They do not patrol any of the operating buildings. The Union wants them excluded because of the distance from the plant of their place of work and because of their patrol duties. We shall exclude them be- cause they work at a distance from the plant, because to some extent they perform the duties of watchmen, and because the only union involved has requested their exclusion. The duties of the porter,"' whose job it is to clean the offices at night, and whose exclusion the Union seeks on the ground that his work brings him in close contact with gatemen and supervisory ,employees rather than with production employees, are of the same nature as those of other porters who are included in the unit, and the fact that his work brings him in contact with gatemen and supervisory employees is not an adequate reason for excluding him. We shall include him in the unit. We find that all the employees of the respondent at its Baton Rouge plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, labora- tory employees, gatemen, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the appropriate unit The respondent introduced in evidence two complete lists of em- ployees taken from its pay-roll records as of March 22 and Septem- ber 9, 1938. The parties stipulated that there were no pay-roll 20 William T Core, Bertram L. Fairchild , Louis Marks , Clinton Stokes. 21 Ceaser Winzy, a colored employee THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 899 changes between March 22 and April 2, 1938. The respondent segregated on these two lists those whom it admitted to be super- visory or clerical employees. When these employees are deducted from the March 22 list, there remain 253 names. We have found that 41 22 of the employees listed on the March 22 pay roll should be excluded from the appropriate unit. Accordingly we find that on March 22 and on April 2, 1938, the respondent had at its Baton Rouge plant 212 employees in the appropriate unit. The Union introduced cards and petitions designating it as col- lective bargaining representative, of which 141 were signed on or before March 22, and 148 on or before April 2. Some of these cards and petitions were undated because the organizers had obtained The signatures so hurriedly that they did not take the time to write the dates. Some dates were later inserted by union officials to whom initiation fees or dues were paid. Witnesses who had observed the signing of the cards and petitions testified as to the genuineness of the signatures and as to the dates of signing. There were a few discrepancies between such testimony and the cards and petitions, but even if all these discrepancies were resolved against the Union, it would require the deduction of only one or two names from the March 22 total, and none at all from the April 2 total. The dis- crepancies are too few and immaterial to affect the credibility of the witnesses who testified about the signing of the cards and petitions. Upon further checking the Union's cards and petitions, we find the signatures of two employees 23 who should be excluded from the appropriate unit. It thus appears that of the 212 employees in the appropriate unit, the Union represented 139 on March 22 and 146 on April 2. The respondent contends that the Union has sought to gerry- mander the appropriate unit in such a manner as to sustain its claim of majority. The evidence disproves this contention, for even if all the contested claims regarding unit are resolved in the respondent's favor, the Union still represented a majority of the eligible employees at the dates of the alleged refusals to bargain. Thus, if we exclude the 14 construction workers who have been 22 Oscar L Collier, Levi D Mercer, Edward J Daigle. Henry 0 Fadely , Klein J Molai- son, Robert S Morris , Robert B. Crawford , Bruce C Deitz , Cecil L Burton , Charles F. Cheshire , Albert J. Cook, Garvin L . Courtney, George E Crotty , Jr, Lysle P. Elliott, Cha-l s A Hitzman, Alvin R Kelly, Thomas L' McGrew, Bennie C Payne, Lonnie Sibley, Tohn B Tucker , Wilbur H Brumfield , Harvard I . Busse, W Samuel Dyer, August M IIorhenedel , Walter I.emann, Jr, Albert I Poche, Edward E Spranley , Frank P Turk, John B Tucker , Wilbur H Brumfield , Harvard I Busse, W Samuel Dyer , August M FIilton Guidry, Leo F Lassere , Alvin E . Miller, Ferdinand J Pinsonat , Elmore E. Rayne, William T Core. Bertram L. Fairchild , Louis Marks, Clinton Stokes 2Fred Raifoid , labor and yard foreman , and Bennie C. Payne, a head operator. 900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD included over the respondent's objection, assuming that they are all union members, and include the 39 employees who have been excluded over the respondent's objection, assuming that none of them is a union member, the Union represented 125 employees on March 22 and 132 on April 2, out of a total of 237 in the unit, a majority on both dates. The Council introduced in evidence its membership cards. It appears from a comparison of these cards with the Union's cards and petitions that a number of the Union's members joined the Coun- cil on or after March 23. In view of our finding, however, that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and admin- istration of the Council, we consider irrelevant any defection in the ranks of the Union which are a result of the respondent's unfair labor practices. We find that on March 22 and April 2, 1938, and at all times there- after, the Union was the duly designated representative of the ma- jority of the employees in the appropriate unit for purposes of col- lective bargaining, and, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining. 3. The refusal to bargain A. R. Kinstley, international representative and organizer of the Union, telephoned Bates on the morning of March 22 and requested a conference, which took place that afternoon. Kinstley was accom- panied by a number of the respondent's employees who were on the union bargaining committee. Kinstley told Bates that the Union represented a majority of the employees, and requested Bates to recognize and bargain with the Union. Bates asked Kinstley how many members the Union had, but Kinstley was unwilling to answer until he found out whether or not the respondent would bargain with the Union. Kinstley asked Bates how many employees there were, but Bates would not answer. Kinstley asked Bates whether he would recognize the Union as exclusive representative if the Union proved it represented a majority, or whether he would recognize the Union as representative of its members only, or in some other limited fashion. Bates answered only that he did not know, and explained to Kinstley that he could not answer these questions definitely because he understood that some of his employees belonged to another organ- ization, namely the Council. Kinstley stated that the Council was a "company union." Bates said Kinstley would have to prove that, and Kinstley related the activities of Hurt and Hargroder. Bates asked Kinstley if the employees had any complaints. Kinstley said they did not, but wanted to bargain for better working conditions. THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 901 Bates turned to the employees who were present and stated that they knew they could come to his office and take up individual grievances at any time. He also told them that he could not understand why his employees would want to belong to a union in view of the rights and privileges they enjoyed without one. He told the committee that he had once belonged to a union himself, and all he ever got out of it was the chance to pay dues and go out on strike. Bates gave as a further reason for his reluctance to recognize the Union his belief that it would not be for the good of either the employees or the community. He said he had been to Detroit recently, and had observed the terrible conditions brought about by the C. I. O.'s numerous strikes. The conference finally ended with a promise by Bates to consider the matter and give the Union an answer in about a week. Kinstley testified that he asked Bates if he would consent to having a disinterested third party check the Union's membership cards against the respondent's employment records, that there was some discussion of who such a third party might be, but that Bates did not indicate whether or not he would agree to this method of deter- mining how many employees the Union represented. Bates denied that Kinstley made any such offer, but the Trial Examiner, who had opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, found Kinstley's testimony more convincing than- Bates' denials, and the general tenor of the entire conference convinces us also that Kinstley's testimony is more credible than that of Bates. Bates testified that he refused to answer Kinstley's questions because he doubted Kinstley's authority to represent the men, particularly since he had recently heard of an individual who organized a group of employees, collected dues, and then 'absconded with the money, and also because he thought it strange that an oil workers' union should be organizing a chemical plant. Kinstley told Bates that he was an official representative of the Union, but presented no written credentials. Bates did not ask for such credentials nor express to Kinstley any doubts about his authority. We regard this argument of Bates as a specious one. The employees had a right to select any- one they desired as their bargaining agent. The presence of several of his employees at the March 22 conference should have consituted some assurance to Bates that the men had authorized Kinstley to represent them. In any event, had Bates been acting in good faith, it is obvious that he would have asked Kinstley for some evidence of his authority. We are convinced that Bates was motivated at the March 22 conference by a desire to forestall the Union in order that the Council might have additional time to organize, and not by any desire to protect his employees from a pseudo-organizer or to give the matter any further study or consideration. 283032-41-vol. 21--58 902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that on March 22, 1938, the respondent refused to bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees in the appro- priate unit, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act, and that thereby, and by the action of Bates in stating to the employees present at the conference that they did not need a union but could bring their individual grievances to him, that he had once belonged to a union and got nothing out of it but an opportunity to pay dues and go on strike, that Detroit was torn by strife as a result of C. I. O. strikes, and in otherwise indicating hostility to the Union, the re- spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Kinstley telephoned Bates on Saturday morning, April 2, and requested another meeting. Bates told Kinstley that Monday would be more convenient for him, but he finally agreed to see him on Satur- day. This conference was almost entirely a repetition of the first one. Kinstley again asked if the respondent would recognize the Union as representative of all the employees, of its members only, or in any other limited fashion. Assistant Superintendent Nill, who was present at this second conference, said, "Why we are meeting with the boys, we would meet with them, as we are meeting with them right now." Kinstley replied, "Yes, you are meeting with them, but not as a unit, not as a union." Bates and Nill asked Kinstley what the grievances of the men were, what they wanted to bargain about, and again Kinstley stated that the men wanted recog- nition of the Union as their representative, and wanted to bargain for better working conditions in general. Bates told Kinstley he could still give him no definite answer since the Council had come in in the meantime and claimed to represent a majority. Kinstley told Bates he had definite proof that the Council was company dominated, and told him of the activities of foremen seeking to discourage mem- bership in the Union and to foster the growth of the Council. When Bates refused to give Kinstley a definite answer to any of his ques- tions, Kinstley stated that he would file charges with the Labor Board, which he did on the following day, April 3. Bates made no effort, between the first and second conferences, to determine whether or not Kinstley was an official representative of the Union. He testified that he was still doubtful of Kinstley's right to represent the men at the time he granted the second meet- ing, but granted it nonetheless "out of courtesy." In fact, Bates testified, it was not until after a conference with the Board's Regional Director in New Orleans sometime after April 2 that his doubts about Kinstley's authority were removed by the Regional Direct or's assurance that Kinstley was an official representative of the Union. We do not believe that Bates' failure to bargain with the Union THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 903 was due to any doubts as to Kinstley's authority to represent the men since, as we have pointed out above, he could readily have sat- isfied his mind on that score by questioning Kinstley or by otherwise seeking to ascertain Kinstley's status with the Union. It seems clear that Bates had no intention of bargaining in good faith with the Union, but sought at this second conference, just as he had at the first, to delay negotiations with the Union until the Council had further opportunity to gain members. Nill's statement that the respondent was willing to bargain at any time with the men as in- dividuals strikes the keynote of the respondent's attitude toward collective bargaining with the Union. The respondent, in short, preferred to bargain with its employees as individuals, and was de- termined that, if it must bargain collectively, it would do so only with an organization that it could dominate and control. We are convinced that the respondent, in order to avoid bargaining with the Union, delayed the negotiations with the hope that upon the successful organization of the Council it would be relieved of its obligation to deal with the Union, and that by such conduct the respondent refused to bargain collectively within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. We find that the respondent, on April 2, 1938, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of its employees in the appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of em- ployment. We further find that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore, as nearly ,S BOARD 904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION as possible, the situation that existed prior to the respondent's com- mission of the unfair labor practices. We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Council and has con- tributed support to it. By such domination and interference the respondent has prevented the free exercise of its employees' rights to self-organization and to collective bargaining. In order to re- store to the employees the full measure of their rights guaranteed under the Act, and in order to remedy the respondent's unlawful conduct, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Council and to disestablish it as a representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concern- ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions of employment. We have found that the respondent has refused to bargain col- lectively with the Union as the respresentative of its employees with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. We shall order the respondent, upon request, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees within the appropriate unit. THE PETITION In view of the findings in Section III above as to the designa- tion of the Union by a majority of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, it is not necessary to consider the petition of the Union for investigation and certification of representatives. Consequently, said petition will be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUS10Ns OF LAw 1. Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, and Solvay Employees Council are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and ad- ministration of Solvay Employees Council and contributing sup- port thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. All the employees of the respondent at its Baton Rouge, Louisi- ana, plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 905 'employees, gatemen,. brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of -collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, was, on March 22 and April 2, 1938, and at all times thereafter has been, the ex- clusive representative of all the employeees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargainihg, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Oil Workers' Inter- national Union, Local No. 424, as the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit, the respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties; for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, The Solvay Process Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Solvay Employees Council, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support to Solvay Employees Council or to any other labor organ- ization of its employees; (b) Recognizing Solvay Employees Council as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond- ent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment; (c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Oil Workers' Interna- tional Union, Local No. 424, as the exclusive representative of all 906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD the employees at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant, exclusive of -clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory employees, gatemen, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-, certed activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Solvay Employees Council as a representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said organization as a representative of its employees; (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Oil Workers' Interna- tional Union, Local No. 424, as the exclusive representative of all the employees at the respondent's Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory em- ployees, gatemen, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment; (c) Post immediately, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its em- ployees in conspicuous places throughout its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in' paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this'Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives, filed by Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.