The Triplex Screw Co.

In ' the Matter of THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL No. 1583 Case No. C-1034.-Decided July 31, 1940 .Jurisdiction: hardware manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Intel ference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; interrogation con- cerning union membership ; declaration of union preference ; inducing employees not to become or remain members of a labor organization by wage increases. Company-Dominated Union: employer's participation in formation of; permitting employees to engage in activities on company time in behalf of. - 71 isc, inaination: discharges for union membership or activity;, charges of, dis= missed as to 34 persons. Collective Bargaining: charges of refusal to bargain collectively dismissed. Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back.pay awarded; company-dominated union disestablished. Mr. Max Johnstone, for the Board. Thompson, Hine c6 Flory, by Mr. Charles W. Sellers, of ,Cleveland, Ohio, for the respondent. Mr. Wendell P. Kay, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges and amended charges having been filed by Amalgamated Association of Iron; Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint on March 22, 1938,1 against The Triplex Screw Company, Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaninn of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. 1 The complaint was inadvertently dated March 22, 1937. The correct date is that stated above 25 N L R B, No. 119. 1126 THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1127 With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance (1) that from July 1, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the respondent fostered, encouraged, donminated, and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization' of its employees known as Independent Employees Association of Triplex Co., Inc., herein called the Association, by certain enumerated, and by various other, acts and practices; (2) that from `August 15, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent discharged 49 named employees 2 be- cause of their activities on behalf of the Union, thereby discrimi- nating .in regard to their hire and tenure of, employment and discouraging membership in the Union; (3) that at various times since September 1, 1937, and at the present, the respondent refused and refuses to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees of the respondent in an appropriate collective bargaining unit in that it refused and refuses to bargain and negotiate in a bona fide manner with the Union, although the Union was and is the designated representative for collective bar- gaining purposes of a majority of the employees in said unit; and (4) that by these acts, and by certain enumerated acts and practices and by various methods and means, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is now interfering with, restraining, and coercing ,its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed, in Section "7' of the 'Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. On March 24, 1938, the respondent filed its answer, denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged; and averring with respect to the employees named in the complaint _ that it, discharged or laid them off "for-cause-and economic reasons." Pursuant to notice a -hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, on April 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1938, before Joseph L. Maguire, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the-Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded the parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions and on the 2 In some instances names were misspelled As corrected at the hearing the employees named are as4ollows • Jessie Antkiewicz , Lody Aukustin , Ben Barckowiak, Leonard Bogacki, Alfred Brophy , Margaret Bujnak, Alex Choromanski , George Damasiewicf :, Joseph Dedon, Pauline Dedon , Joseph Dietrick , Robert Fuller, Chester Genius , Bruno Graczyk, Anne Gurdea, John Holt, Allen Januszewski, Chester C . Kinkelaar, Grace Koberna, Helen Kolasa, Stanley Ksepko , Josephine Kubit , John Kwiatkowski , Leo Labuda, Mary Latawiec , Stella Markowski , John Matuszewski , Stanley Michalski , John Miller , Stanley Paryzek, Otto Pilney, Rudy Pilney, Chester Pokropski , Jessie Polaccynski , Frank Price, Henry Sadano- wicz, Joseph Selva, Josephine Seremak , Laddie Sindelar, John Stachura , Stella Stanek, Sam Staniszewski , Lottie Stojek, Edward Stylinski , John Szczygielski, Helen Trawinski, Frank Vorechovsky , Barbara Wesolowki , Florence Zenda. 1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD admission of evidence. He denied motions by the respondent to strike certain allegations of the complaint and to dismiss the com- plaint as a whole. He granted a motion of the Board that the complaint be amended to add the names of four employees of the respondent to the names of those allegedly discharged for union activity,' and to strike the names of 11 persons from the complaint.' The Trial Examiner also granted a motion by the Board's counsel to amend the complaint in order to set forth correctly the names of certain persons 'therein named, and to conform the complaint to the proof in respect to variances as to names, dates, and places. The Board has reviewed all these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On November 7, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the Union, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such practices; that it reinstate 13 named employees,' with back pay as to 12 of them; 6 and that it take certain other affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act and remedy the situation brought about by its unfair labor practices. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the respondent had discriminated against 29^ named employees within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. On November 25, 1938, the Union filed exceptions to the Intermedi- ate Report, and on November 28,1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the record and requested an opportunity to submit briefs and present oral argument before the Board. In its exceptions .the Union objected solely to the Trial Examiner's find- ing that the respondent had not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lody Augustin, Alex Choromanski, Chester Genius, John Szczygielski, and Florence Zenda, as alleged in the complaint.' Although no exception has been taken to the 3 The names of these employees are : Stanley Boncella , James Bradley , Felix Orlik, and Henry Przybylski 'The names of these employees are, Alfred Brophy, Maigaret Bujnak, Joseph Dedon, Pauline Dedon , Anne Gurdea, Allen Januszewski , Stella Markowski, Stanley Michalski, Lottie Stojek , Helen Trawinski , and Barbara wesolowski - 6 These employees were* Stanley Boncella , Joseph Dietrick, Bruno Graczyk, Chester Kinkelaar, Grace Koberna , Stanley Ksepko , John Kwiatkowski , Chester Pokropski, Henry Przybylski , Josephine Seremak , Laddie Sindelar , Stella Stanek , Sam Staniszewski. O The Trial Examiner recommended that back pay be given to all those named in foot- note 5 above except Joseph Dietrick 'The Union , mistakenly , filed exceptions as to Josephine Seremak , although the Trial Ex,uninei had recommended her reinstatement THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1129 Trial Examiner's findings that the respondent engaged in no unfair labor practice with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Jessie Antkiewicz, Ben Barckowiak, Leonard Bogacki, James Brad- ley, George Damasiewicz, Robert Fuller, John Holt, Helen Kolasa, Josephine Kubit, Leo Labuda, Mary Latawiec, John Matuszewski, John Miller, Felix Orlik, Stanley Paryzek, Otto Pilney, Rudy Pil- ney, Jessie Polaccynski, Frank Price, Henry Sadanowicz, Joseph Selva, John Stachura, Edward Stylinski, and Frank Vorechovsky, of any of them, as alleged in the complaint, we have reviewed the evi- dence bearing upon their discharges or lay-offs and concur in- the findings made. These findings are affirmed, and the order will pro- vide for a dismissal of the allegations of the complaint pertaining to them." On February 28, 1939, a hearing was held pursuant to notice before the Board at Washington, D. C., for the, purpose of oral argument. The respondent appeared and presented oral argument. A brief has been submitted by the respondent. The Board has considered the respondent's and the Union's exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the record and, except in so far as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The .Triplex Screw Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of bolts, nuts, and screws. Its plant is located in Cleveland, Ohio. During. 1936 and 1937 the number ,of persons there- employed by the respondent varied between 127 and 350. All the raw materials used at the plant in the course of pro- duction are purchased within the State of Ohio, and between 70 and 80 per cent of the finished products are regularly shipped from the plant to points outside the State of Ohio. During the year 1937 the respondent purchased raw materials costing $735,000 and its net sales amounted to $1,461,093. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583, is a local branch of Amalgamated Asso- ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, at times 8Matter of National Supply Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 16 N L R B 304 1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD herein called the Amalgamated, a labor organization affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, formerly known as Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called - the C. I. 0., and with Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C. The Union admits to membership employees of the respondent other than supervisory and salaried employees. Independent Employees Association of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., is •a labor organization admitting to membership all production em- ployees of the respondent. Members who are supervisory employees may not hold office or vote. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion In 'April 1937 the S. W. O. C. opened an organization campaign among persons employed in the respondent's plant, for the purpose of forming a local branch of its affiliate, the Amalgamated, among those workers. The campaign met with marked success, and, by May 1, 1937, the Union was established with a membership comprising a majority of the respondent's employees. The activity of the S. W. O. C. and formation of the Union immediately aroused the respondent's antagonism, an antagonism which was quickly translated. into acts interfering with, restraining, and coercing plant employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. The president of the respondent, one Weber, promised an employee a substantial increase in his hourly rate of pay if the Union did not come into the plant. Forelady Fit-,h, in charge of box fabrication, interrogab,d the em- ployees under her supervision concerning membership in the Union, and openly compiled a list of the names of those who joined and those who did not. During negotiations in early May between the respond- ent and the Union for settlement of a plant strike of several days' duration which began on May 7, Weber suggested to the employees acting as representatives of the Union that they abandon their organi- zation and form an "inside" union at the plant, saying, "Why don't you form your own union. You can get yourself a lawyer there for fifty dollars and you can send him down to Columbus and get yourself a charter." Despite the afore-mentioned attitude and conduct of the respond- ent, the Union persevered in its organization of the plant employees. On May 12, 1937, about 174 of approximately 180 employees eligible to affiliation with the Union were members. Also on that day, the Union, as representative of these workers, succeeded in obtaining from the respondent a collective labor agreement covering wages, hours of service, and other working conditions of the plant employees, and THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY - 1131 providing a procedure for the adjustment of- grievances. Under the contract wages were substantially increased , and working hours were reduced from 50, and in some cases 60 hours a week, to a uniform 40 hours per week. Execution of the contract, however, did not deter the respondent from continuing its hostility to the Union. Anti-union statements to^ employees by management, along with other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of the Act, were engaged in. An employee's delay or apparent delay in production, his momen- tary inactivity during working hours, or a request for assistance in connection with some work at hand , was seized upon by the respond- ent as proof of a deleterious effect of unionization upon its employees and as an excuse for a severe reprimand., On such an occasion, the respondent's president, Weber, told one employee, "That is what I get for letting you fellows join the union. You just loaf around. You seem to think you have the union back of you and you can run things" ; told another employee, "Just because you joined the union doesn't mean you are going to run this shop. I will show you, I will fire you all"; and told another employee that "just because" she had "joined the union" was "not a sign" she could not be discharged. The record discloses no warrant for such conduct . At the hearing Weber denied having made the first two of these statements,. but testified to having "probably" made the third . Weber's testimony as a. whole was frequently contradicted by other witnesses worthy of credence. They related a, variety of anti-union statements and conduct on Weber's part, as hereinafter found. The Trial Examiner who heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor did not believe the-denials of Weber regarding the anti-union statements, and found that "the statements attributed to Weber were made ,by him substantially. as attributed." We are satisfied that the Trial Examiner was right. Upon the entire record we find that Weber made the statements above-mentioned. During this period and thereafter the respondent, likewise through its president, by various statements to employees, often accompanied by profane epithet , disparaged the Union , its members, leaders, and activi- ties. To one employee Weber dubbed the Union a "bunch-of radicals and Communists"; called a union member a "Communist " for having "started" the " union"; accused another of "sticking up" for the " union"; termed a union committeeman a. "Bolshevik"; and inquired of still another, if he thought the " union" would obtain him reinstatement to his position after a lay-off. While,Weber denied at the hearing having made these statements , we accord no weight,'for reasons already stated, to such denials. 1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Late in August 1937 the respondent, through Weber, attempted to induce one of the most active'members in the Union and its vice presi- dent to resign from the Union. In consideration thereof, he offered to promote this employee to a position as foreman and to compensate him on a salary basis. When the employee evidenced hesitance in the matter, Weber asked if the employee was "going to see Brother Brophy [Union president] about it." The following day the employee refused to accept. At that time the respondent's industrial engineer, Bennett, who was second in authority, to Weber, told the employee that he was a "damn fool," and stated, "If I were you, I would look out for myself, not the union." Weber, in similar vein, inquired of the employee, "Now supposing the union gets out of there some time or other, what will you do?" Although the contract between the respondent and the Union pro- vided a procedure, as stated above, for the adjustment of employee grievances, the grievance committee of the Union, one composed of plant employees, consistently found itself unable to adjust grievances without the intervention and assistance of the S. W. 0. C. At one of the conferences between the Union and the respondent concerning certain grievances, Bennett, the respondent's industrial engineer, told the union committee, "Why don't you form your own union and we'll get along a whole lot better and work in closer relationship." By "own union" Bennett had reference to an "inside" union. Shortly thereafter, the respondent hung from the ceiling in its plant a large sign, painted on a board, stating, "This is an open shop. You do not have to belong to a Union to work here." - There is no evidence which would indicate that the Union at any time requested of or even discussed with the respondent the introduction of a closed shop at the plant. The record is ,equally. barren of any supposition, among the employees that membership in the Union constituted a condition of employment. Between September 1, 1937, and February 1, 1938, a large reduction in the working force at the plant took place, as more fully set forth hereinafter. During this period the respondent utilized the circum- stance of the dismissals to implant in and foster among the employees a belief that it was selecting employees for lay-off upon the basis of their activities in and loyalty to the Union. Indeed, in some cases, the respondent did rest its selection upon that basis, as set forth here- inafter.a In a conference with the Union concerning the dismissals, Weber stated that he "had a right to lay off who he pleased, when he pleased, and the C. I. 0., John Lewis, the New Deal or anybody See Section III, D, infra. THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1133 else wasn't going to tell him how to run his shop." In reply to inquiry by one employee as to the reason for his lay-off, Weber said, "Well, since you guys got this union in here, you think you can run the place." To another employee who asked a' similar question Weber stated, "Well,- you joined the union . . . Why do you want me to help you now ?" Another employee who returned to the plant after his lay-off to seek reemployment, was brusquely told by Weber to ". . . get the hell out of here . . . I don't need the C. I. 0. any more." When one of the union committeemen was recalled to work after a 6-day lay-off Weber made it apparent that the employee would be "making more money" if he "didn't hang around with that gang [the Union]." The respondent's above-mentioned acts in connection with the lay-offs and dismissals materially affected membership and activities in the Union. While substantially all of the plant employees were members of the Union in September 1937, many of them thereafter ceased paying dues to the Union and-absented themselves from union meetings. The foregoing facts establish that the respondent, through its agents, in complete disregard of its employees' right of self-organization and their other rights under the Act, engaged in a course of action designed and intended to destroy the labor organization of which they were members and prevent its use as an instrumentality for furthering their employee interests. As -is evident from what has been stated above, the respondent's action, in which its president played a prin- cipal role, covered a wide range of anti-union acts and statements. The decisions of the Board and of the courts repeatedly have con- demned such conduct as violative of the Act. As regards the state) ments they clearly were not mere expressions of opinion and comment, but constituted an interference, restraint, and coercion, within the meaning of the Act 1° 10 Consumers Power Company v. N. L R B, 113 F. (2d) 38 (C. C. A. 6), enf'g Matter of Consumers Power Company, a corporation and Local No. 740, United Electrical, Radio G Machine Workers of America, 9 N. L R. B 701 ; Matter of Harry Schwartz Yarn Co., Inc and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 12 N. L. R. B. 1139 ; Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 6 N L. R B 284, enf'd as mod., N. L R B V. Nebel Knitting Company, Inc., 103 F. ( 2d) 594 (C. C A. 4) ; Matter of American Manufacturing Company, et at. and Textile Workers' Organizing Com- mittee, C. I.' O., 5 N. L. R B . 443, enf'd as mod., N. L. R. B. v. American Manufacturing Company and Nu-Art Employees , Inc., 106 F. ( 2d) 61 (C. C. A. 2), aff'd as mod . 60 S. Ct. 612; Matter of Arthur L Cotten et at and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, '6 N L R B 355, enf'd, N. L R B v Arthur L Colten and Abe J Colman, Co-partners doing business as Kiddie Kover Manufacturing Company, 105 F. ( 2d) 179, 181 (C C. A 6) ; Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, No 9, 8 N. L R . B. 730, enf'd as mod, Virginia Ferry Corporation v. N. L. R B , 101 F. (2d) 103, 104-6 (C. C. A 4) ; Matter of Walter Stover, doing business under the trade name and style of Stover Bedding Company and Upholsters Allied Crafts Local Union No. 501, 15 N. L. R B. 635 . ' Cf. Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40, etc., 84' F. ( 2d), 641, 643-4 (C. C. A. 4 ), 300 U. S . 515, 644. 1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD We find that by offering employees an increase in wages or promo- tion as a means of inducing anti-union action; 11 by interrogating employees about their union activities; 12 by compiling a list of em- ployees joining a labor organization which it opposed; 13 by attempting to induce union representatives and members in its employ to establish a form of labor organization which it favored and in effect to renounce their affiliation with a union that it "opposed; 14 by attributing with- out justification production delays and other similar work incidents to unionization and reprimanding employees on that basis; 15 by threatening directly and indirectly employees with termination of employment or work because of membership or activity in a union which it opposed; 16 by disparaging that union, its members, leaders, and activities; 17 by acting with hostility toward union representatives, because of its opposition to unionization; 18 by giving notification to employees manifesting its desire that they renounce affiliation with a union it opposed; 19 by fostering a belief among employees that "See Matter of Brown Shoe Company, Inc. and its wholly owned .subsidiary, Moench Tanning Company, Inc. and National Leather Workers Association Local #44, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 22 N L. R B. 1080 ; Matter of Patriarca Store Fixtures, Inc and Morris Kaminsky, 12 N. L . R B. 93; Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2511, Onalaska, Washington, 2 N. L. R . B. 248 , 261, enf'd as mod, N. L It. B. v. Carlisle Lumber Co ., 94 F. (2d) 138 (C. C A 9), cert. den, 304 U. S 575. 12 See Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United Office and Professional Workers of Amer lea, No. 24, 14 N. L. R. B 1045, 1054. 18 See Matter of Greensboro Lumber Company and Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2688, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 1 N L. R. B. 629 ; Matter of The Boss Manufacturing Company and International Glove Workers' Union of America, Local No. 85, 3 N. L R . B. 400, 405. 14 Matter of Yates-American Machine Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1787, 7 N. L. R. B. 627; Matter of Metro- politan Engineering Company and Metropolitan Device Corporation and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 1203, 4 N. L. R. B. 542. Cf. C. Nelson Manufac- turing Company and Harry Semen and Willie Parker, complainants, 15 N. L. R. B 1051. 15 Matter of Walter Stover, doing business under the trade 'name and style of Stover 'Bedding Company and Upholsters Allied Crafts Local No 501, 15 N L R B. 634, 635; Matter of The Stolle Corporation and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, 13 N. L R. B 370; Matter of The Weber Dental Manufacturing Com- pany and The United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, 10 N. L. R. B. 1439. 10 Matter of Nebel Knitting Company , Inc and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 6, N. L -R B 284, enf 'd as mod, N. L It B . v. Nebel Knitting Co., Inc., 103 F. ( 2d) 594 (C. C. A. 4) ; Matter of Fruehauf Trailer Company and United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No 19375, 1 N L R B 68 , enf'd 301 U S 49. 17 Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Beaver Valley Lodge No. 200, 1 N. L. R. B. 503, enf'd 301 U S 1 ; Matter of Knoxville Glove Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 5 N. L. R. B. 559. 18 See Matter of Walter Stover, doing business under the trade name and style of Stover Bedding Company and Upholsters Allied Crafts Local Union No. 501, 15 N. L R. B 635. 1' Matter of Roberts Brothers , Inc and Furniture Workers Union, Local 1561, 8 N. L. R. B. 925; 929; Matter of Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc. and Committee for Industrial Organization, 10 N L R B . 288, 303 ; and Matter of Quality Shirt Manufacturing Company and United Garment Workers of America, Local No 181. THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANA 1135 lay-offs were determined by activities in such union and in some instances by so determining,20 and by each of these and other acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. B. Domination of and inner f erence with the formation. of, and support to, the Association As already set forth, during the course of its afore-mentioned con- tinual opposition to the Union the respondent on at least two occasions sought to induce persons in its employ to form an "inside" labor or- ganization, that is, one unaffiliated with any national or other labor organization and restricted in membership to employees of the respond- ent. In May 1937 Weber suggested to members of the union nego- tiating committee that they form their "own" union, and that the method for doing so would be to employ ' an attorney and have him take the necessary steps for settilig up an incorporated organization under Ohio laws. Weber mentioned that a lawyer would do this "for fifty dollars." In September 1937 Bennett, the industrial engineer, inquired of another union committee with whom he was conferring why the employee members thereof did not form their "own" union, for the respondent would cooperate and have a "closer relationship" with such an organization. These attempts of the respondent to induce its employees to form an inside union were unsuccessful. About the second week of November 1937 one Thomas,21 an individ- ual first hired by the respondent a week previously, began organizing an inside union at the plant. He inquired of various employees during working hours if they would be interested in such a union, and those who were, either signed or had their names listed upon a "petition" which he carried for such purpose. The record shows that Thomas was employed personally by Weber and was assigned to "stock- chasing," a type of work which took him into every department of the plant. He was able, accordingly, to meet large numbers of the em- ployees. In speaking to them about the proposed inside.union Thomas impliedly represented that he was acting with the knowledge and approval of the respondent. He promised at least one employee that interest in an inside union would be productive of a wage increase, and another that he would receive 8 hours of work each working day instead of the reduced number then being generally assigned. Thomas himself at that time worked 10 hours a day. He frequently was ob- served by employees in conversation after working hours with Weber. 20 Cf Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc . and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 6 N. L R B. 284, enf'd as mod . N. L. R. B. v. Nebel Knotting Co., Inc, 103 F. (2d) 594 (C. C A. 4). 21 The full name of this person is William R . Thomas. 1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the hearing Weber was interrogated • about these conversations. He stated that he "had no more to say to Thomas than to any other man that was working in a supervisory capacity ." When further questioned about this matter at the hearing, Weber stated that by "supervisory capacity" he did not mean that Thomas gave orders to other employees , merely that he "was no laborer," that "he had some- thing to do with expediting material." Toward the end of December Thomas, in the course of his travels through the plant, solicited employees to execute certain printed forms which he exhibited to them and which recited that the sub- scriber thereof did "accept of ... [his] own free will membership in the Independent Employees' Association of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, and agree to abide by its Constitution, By-Laws and Regulations, and ... [did] authorize said Association to act ... [for the subscriber] as the sole collective bargaining agency in all matters pertaining to wages, hours , and conditions of employment ..." So far as is shown by the record there existed at that time no employee association or labor organization known as Independent Employees' Association of Triplex Screw, Inc., let alone one which has adopted a constitution , by laws , and regulations . As hereinafter set forth, the Association was formed on January 8, 1940, and as of the time of the hearing had not yet prepared or adopted a constitution , bylaws, or regulations . Who paid for .the printed forms is not shown by the record. Officers of the Association questioned at the hearing about this mat ter, stated that they did not know. In soliciting employees to sign the forms Thomas continued his implied representation that his conduct had the approval of the respondent. He spoke of the respond- ent's future labor policy and of working conditions as if informed thereof, and threatened employees with loss of their jobs if they did not sign. As heretofore set forth , during this period the respondent was reducing substantially its plant force, and was creating in its employees, with some warrant in fact, the belief that activities in and adherence to the Union were determining factors in the selection of those dismissed. Shortly thereafter, Thomas, accompanied by two employees who had shown interest in his project , sought assistance of a local attorney in forming an inside union. A few days later, on January 8, 1938, Thomas, the attorney, and some seven plant employees met and formed the Association. Thomas and two of the employees became tempo- nary "trustees" of the new organization , and executed an application, previously prepared by the attorney , for issuance of a charter under Ohio laws to the Association as a non-profit corporation . On Janu- ary 17 such a charter issued. Subsequently in January , February, and March meetings of this organization were held and permanent trustees THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1137 and officers elected. Throughout this period solicitation of employees to become members of the Association proceeded unobstructedly on company time and property. On February 16 the Association claimed to have enrolled as members a majority of the 153' employees then in the plant. Members and leaders of the Association have shown no real interest in their organization. Certain of its leaders have evinced a surpris- ing ignorance regarding the purposes of unionization in general and their own duties as labor leaders in particular. The first holding of im',electibn for officers-of the Association was postponed because -of poor attendance at the meeting at which the election was to be held, and those who were elected at a subsequent meeting accepted office only after several speeches by the attorney, whose services Thomas had enlisted, "urging various members to accept nomination, show an interest, and do the work." One of the three trustees of the Association expressed the opinion at the hearing that the purpose of the Association was to "have all kinds of money to spend for a good time out of it"; the secretary of the Association was of the opinion that its purpose was to serve as a "kind of social club," holding dances and arranging for "good times." One of the employees who assisted Thomas in recruiting signers for the printed forms thought the aim of the organization. he, helped form' was to "collect?'. money from the employees and "have a good time, throw a party, dance or stuff like that." Various of the members of the Association who testified did not know the name of the union. One of the trustees testified that the name was "The Independent Manufacturing Association." An- other trustee testified that he was unaware of his duties as trustee, that he was unable to name his fellow officers, that he was of the opinion it had been Thomas who administered the union.22 The ignorance of leaders of the Association respecting the purposes of unionization was reflected in the apathy of the Association, itself, toward collective bargaining with the respondent. A written request for recognition and collective bargaining in behalf of the Associa- tion was made by the above-mentioned attorney on February 16, but a reply thereto of the respondent to the attorney indicating a willing- ness to discuss the matter was never brought to the attention of the officers. or members of the Association, nor were further steps taken by the Association in that respect: At the time, of the hearing no collective labor contract had been prepared or submitted by the Asso- ciation to the respondent, nor had the Association attempted to adjust any employee grievances with it. 22 Upon establishment of the Association, Thomas did not become an officer. 1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We are convinced from the foregoing facts considered in the light of the entire record, and we find, that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation of, and contributed support to, the, Association. The Association is not nor has it been a freely chosen labor organization and collective bargaining representative of the, plant employees. We find it incapable of being or acting as, such organization and representative. , The respondent's domination, interference, and support respecting, the Association assumed various forms. By continual and, unmiti- gated- opposition to the Union and to membership -in the Union'23 and, contrariwise, by approval of inside unionization the respondent diverted the desires of its employees for ' collective, bargaining from fulfillment through the Union they selected for such purpose toward a form of labor organization which the respondent favored.. Forma- tion and organization of the Association were thus 'dominated and, interfered with by the employer ; they did not result, from free and_ unfettered employee action.24 Favoritism -toward an inside- labor organization and contemporaneous hostility to the Union, also con- stituted. material support to the Association. Moreover, we are satisfied that the establishment,of the Associa; tion was altogether engineered by the respondent., We entertain no doubt, and we find, that the respondent directed and authorized Thomas upon,his employment to form an inside union at the plant, and thereafter sponsored, authorized, and approved his action in that respect.. Our finding in this connection is confirmed among other things by the respondent's attempts,,twice unsuccessful, prior to the employment-of Thomas, to induce other employees to form an inside union; by the respondent's assignment- of Thomas upon his employ- inent to a type of work which would enable him, a new employee, readily to meet employees throughout the plant and carry on organi- zational activities among them, and by its refraining from ever taking any action to prohibit his use of, its time and property for such pur- pose;25 by the alacrity and directness with which Thomas, proceeded within a week after his employment to form an inside union upon 23 See Section III A, supra 24 See Matter of Crawford Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Com. mtittee, 8 N. L. R B. 1237 Our finding in this respect receives strong corroboration in the indifference of the members and leaders of the Association toward that organization, and their ignorance and lack of concern for their duties as labor leaders and the purposes of unionization in general 2° We are unable to give credence to the respondent 's contention that it had no knowl- edge of Thomas' organizational activity on behalf of the Association during the time of its occurrence His activity was widespread and unconcealed. On December 23-the re- spondent was expressly informed by the Union that an inside organization was being formed in the plant ; yet Thomas' activity thereafter continued. THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY -1139 company time and property, without any apparent misgivings about his, employer's attitude in that respect and with knowledge that so far as his fellow workers were concerned they already were members of a union which had won concessions from the employer; by the iespondent's contemporaneous hostility to the Union as Thomas went about organizing an inside union at the plant. Thomas did not testify at the hearing. 'Shortly after the hearing was begun he abandoned his job with' the respondent, and departed with his belongings from his place of abode, for parts unknown to the respondent or to any of the parties herein.26 The Trial Examiner -in his Intermediate Report found that "Thomas was planted in respondent's factory incidental to the serv- ices of the [Corporation Service] Bureau . . . for the purpose of initiating a union." Corporation Service Bureau is a detective agency located in Cleveland, Ohio, and renders services to, industrial firms. The record shows that this agency's services were engaged by the respondent in September 1937 and that thereafter from October 1937 until February 1938, the period in which Thomas organized the Association, it received from the respondent by way of compensation monthly amounts amounting respectively from $151 to .$251. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the explanation given by the re- spondent'concerning its transactions with Corporation Service Bureau is not entirely satisfactory. Also the evidence tends to support a find- ing that Thomas was a secret operative of the Bureau. However, since in any event Thomas, upon his employment, was directed and author- ized by the respondent to organize an inside union, and since his for- mation of the Association was sponsored by the respondent, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether Thomas was procured from Corporation Service Bureau. We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the for- mation of the Association, and contributed support to it; that by such acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employ- ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 26 The attorney for the Association testified that Thomas telephoned him on the date of his disappearance and stated that "members of the C I 0 . group" had visited his home and left word that he had "better get out of town " Although Thomas, according to the attorney , was "in fear of his life," the record shows that the attorney did not advise Thomas to telephone the police , but merely told him to "sit tight" and not "get unduly excited " Thomas' landlady, from whom Thomas tented a' room at the time, testified under subpoena that no - one threatened Thomas at her house. She also related that on the day following Thomat ' telephone call to the Association's attorney several men appeared at her home, declared they were "C. I 0 men" seeking Thomas, but'after some discussion admitted they were "friends . . fiom the shop" The record shows that these imposters were members of the Association, not of the Union, and were seeking Thomas at the direction of the Association 's attorney. 1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Discriminatory discharges of Koberna, Kinkelaar, Graczyk, Seremak, Pokropski, Ksepko, Kwiatkowski, and Sindelar, and allegedly discriminatory discharges of other plant employees Between September 1937 and February 1938 the respondent dis- missed the following named persons employed in its plant, Joseph Dietrick, Grace Koberna, Chester Kinkelaar, Bruno Graczyk, Jo- sephine Seremak, Chester Pokropski, Stanley Ksepko, John Kwiat- kowski, Laddie Sindelar, Henry Przybylski, Stanley Boncella, John Szczygielski, Lody Augustin, Alex Choromanski, Florence Zenda, Chester Genius, Stella Stanek, and Sam Staniszewski. During the ,same period it laid off, for business reasons, a majority of the plant employees. The respondent contends that none of the above-named persons was dismissed because of activities or membership in the Union, or because of any antipathy on its part toward-the Union, but -merely for the same reason, save in two instances,27 that it laid off -the plant employees generally, viz, business conditions. However, as we have said of a similar situation, "it does not necessarily follow that the afore-mentioned dismissals, or any of them, were occasioned '[by poor business conditions] . . . The question remains whether the termination of the employment of those persons was in whole or in-part caused by their union affiliation and activity." 28 The respond- ent also contends that irrespective of whether it dismissed the above- named persons because of their activity in and affiliation with the Union, it cannot be held to have engaged in discrimination, within the meaning of Section 8 (3), for'under the circumstances presented -any dismissal or lay-off at that time, so far as the respondent then -understood, necessarily would have been of a member of the Union; -that from May 1, 1937, until the hearing the respondent acted upon the representation of the Union that that organization had "100% -membership" in the plant. However, even if the Union at all times .enjoyed 100 per cent membership among the plant employees, that fact alone could not preclude discriminatory conduct by the respond- ent. If in selecting employees for dismissal or lay-off it chose the leaders of the Union and others active and loyal to the Union, because .of such leadership, activity, or loyalty, and preferred for retention in its employ persons who were relatively inactive or disinterested in the Union, the respondent would have engaged in an unfair, labor practice, within the provision of Section 8 (3). The question in all 27 The respondent contends it discharged Joseph Dietrick for cause, and replaced Chester Kinkelaar with another employee for purposes of plant efficiency. 23 Matter of Walter Stover, doing business under the trade name and style of Stover Bedding Company , and Upholsters Allied Crafts Local Union No. 501, 15 N L. R. B. 635, ,642 See New York Handkerchief Manufacturing Company v . N. L. R. B, 114 F. ( 2d) 144 ,(C. C. A 7). THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1141 cases must be whether the respondent in dismissing the above-named employees, was guided, as it now claims, by matters of comparative efficiency, and, other factors being equal, by seniority, or whether it was guided by anti-union considerations. 1. Discriminatory discharges of officers and a committeeman of the Union During the period of the lay-off the respondent dismissed from work at - the-phunt-the..presi(leut, ,vice president, secretary, and treasurer of the Union. Alfred Brophy, president of the Union, was laid off in December- 1937 but was reinstated after the respondent's attorney admitted to the Union in a conference, concerned in part with Brophy's dismissal, that Brophy had been improperly laid off. Shortly thereafter Brophy again was dismissed, and the record indicates that this was occasioned by his leadership and activity in the Union. However, at the hearing the allegations of the complaint in so far as they related to this dis- missal, were stricken, upon it appearing that Brophy was then em- ployed in.California and unable to testify. Accordingly, we make no findings herein concerning ai1y discrimination' in respect of Brophy's second dismissal. Joseph Dietrick, vice president of the Union and very active in its affairs, was discharged by Bennett, the industrial engineer, on Octo- ber 5, 1937. Some months earlier the respondent sought to persuade Dietrick to, withdi,aw from the Union by offering to elevate him to a foremanship. He refused because of loyalty to the Union. On the day of his discharge Dietrick had an altercation with Bennett, and in that connection was immediately discharged by Bennett. The Trial Ex- aminer was of the opinion that the respondent, through Bennett, seized upon the altercation as a pretext for terminating the employ- ment of an employee it considered undesirable because of his union, leadership and loyalty. While the entire record creates a suspicion that•,this;was the case, we deem the evidence insufficient to warrant our so finding. The allegations of the complaint relating to Dietrick will be dismissed. Grace Koberna, secretary of the Union, a union steward, and mem- ber of the union negotiating committee, was laid off on December 20, 1937. In view of the fact that Koberna was then ,junior in point of service among employees at work in her department we concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that her lay-off was not discriminatory. Sub- sequent to the lay-off, however, and prior to the hearing the respondent recalled to work two employees in Koberna's department, theretofore laid off. w-ho were less efficient workers than Koberna and less com- 283036-42-voi 2:1-73 1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD petent to, do the work.2° Koberna was not recalled. No satisfactory explanation has been offered herein by the respondent for its failure to follow in Koberna's case its policy of making work available first' to those employees who were most proficient. We have heretofore found that during this period the respondent was embarked upon a course of conduct aimed at destroying the Union, and at the same time was engaged in foisting an inside labor organization upon its employees. Weber by then imputing the lay-offs to activity in and loyalty to the Union, impliedly was threatening employees with loss of livelihood if they did not conform to the respondent's views of union ization, and Thomas similarly was threatening them with dismissal if they did not join the Association. Indeed, some months previous Weber had told Koberna that "just because" she joined the Union was not "a sign" she could not be discharged. We are convinced from the, foregoing facts and the record, and we find, that the respondent failed or refused to recall Koberna to work, despite her superior competence . as a worker, because of her union leadership and activity, and in order to set an example for other employees who persisted in their loyalty to; the Union. By refusing to recall to work this laid-off employee, the- respondent evinced the intention which it had then and there to assign her work no longer and to terminate her status as an employee, thereby discharging Koberna. Chester (Kinkelaar, treasurer of the Union, was discharged on Janu- ary 18, 1938. He had been employed at the plant as a maintenance electrician and wireman for over 2 years. Kinkelaar was very active in the Union. He served as a member of the committee which negoti- ated the contract with the respondent and otherwise had represented the Union in transactions with the respondent. The respondent strongly opposed Kinkelaar's activity in the Union, and through: Weber made its opposition clear. On'one occasion in August Weber berated Kinkelaar as a "Communist," and accused him of being the, "one who started this union here." - Weber thereafter informed an- other employee that the respondent desired to "get rid" of Kinkelaar. Late in December 1937 the respondent began seeking an electrician to replace Kinkelaar. It found one who, it thought, would be satis- factory and on January 18 discharged Kinkelaar and substituted the other man for him. At that time Kinkelaar was in the midst'-of in- stalling a section of lighting in the plant. When hired, the new elec-, trician was asked by Weber whether he ever was a member of the C. I. O., the parent organization of the Union, and he informed Weber that he was not. °Althonnh tbev bad more Qeninrity than Koberna they had been laid off before she was,. because of their comparative inefficiency. k THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY - - - ' 1143 The respondent does not contend that Kinkelaar's dismissal was part of the general lay-off brought about by business conditions. The work he performed had to be accomplished irrespective thereof. It does contend, however, that it made the replacement because of an alleged inability of Kinkelaar to perform some of the electrical work required at the plant. It offered proof of its employment from time to time prior to his discharge of an additional -electrician to check, oil, and clean certain micromats, which work thereafter was done by Kinkelaar's successor. But the record not only shows, as above-men- tioned, that the individual who worked on the micromats was not regularly employed at the plant but had engaged in such intermittent work from some time prior to Kinkelaar's employment in 1935. Kinke- laar testified that he was competent to work on the micromats. The record shows that during his employment he transferred the electric furnace of which the micromats were a part, from one point in tha, plant to another and then wired them and put them in operation. The respondent also claimed at the hearing that Kinkelaar could, not per- form work on certain D. C. electric motors. Kinkelaar denied at the hearing that-he was unable to care for any of the electrical apparatus in the plant, including the D. C. motors. The record shows that the D. C. generator which was placed in the plant during Kinkelaar's employment had been installed by him,30 and that in fact he performed all the electrical work required of him during the period'of his em- ployment. The respondent states that Kinkelaar's discharge could not be attributable to any opposition to the Union, inasmuch as its main- tenance foreman, Tretara, had suggested to Weber a year previous, and before formation of the Union, replacing Kinkelaar with an elec= trician who could work on the micromats. Assuming that such sugges- tion was made, a matter we do not determine, it does not necessarily follow that Kinkelaar's discharge a year later resulted therefrom. Finally, the respondent introduced the testimony of Kinkelaar's suc- cessor which was to the effect that upon his employment he found certain deficiencies in the plant electrical equipment. However, there is no showing that these alleged deficiencies were known to the respondent at the time it decided to replace Kinkelaar. - We are not persuaded by the foregoing, facts or the record that Kinkelaar was incapable of doing any of the electrical work required to be performed in the plant. He had had 16 years' experience as an so The respondent's maintenance foreman, one Tretara, testified that on one occasion, Kinkelaar, while wiring the D C generator , admitted he was "stuck" and asked for assist- ance . However , it is clear from the record that this incident involved no reflection upon Kinkelaar's ability. The evidence shows in connection with this matter that while Kinke- laar was wiring the generator he discovered an omission on'the blueprint, and that Tretara himself, when the omission was brought to his attention, suggested calling in the "com- pany man" to correct it. 1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD electrician,.and during his 2 years ' employment at the plant received no complaints about his work. We are satisfied , and find, that lie was an efficient workman capable of satisfying the respondent's needs, and, in any event, that the true reason of his discharge did not concern his competency. Upon the entire record we find that the respondent dis- charged Kinkelaar likewise because of his union leadership and activ- ity, and that the employment of his successor was merely incidental thereto. The respoitdeiit's claim that the- dismissal foundits origin in a suggestion of its maintenance foreman a year previous is particu- larly unimpressive . We do not believe the respondent would have waited that period of time to put into execution such a suggestion if the matter really was of consequence . The true cause of the discharge was the respondent 's determination to oust the Union from the plant by getting rid of those employees upon whom contnuied existence of that organization depended. Bruno Graczyle was dismissed on January 3,1938. He NN as then told by the respondent that his lay-off was occasioned by slack work. Graczyk had been employed in the plant about 3 years and at the time of the dismissal worked-on a machine in the tapping department. He was one of the original members of the Union and served as union shop steward as well as a member of the union committee which handled employee grievances . Members of the Union who had complaints about working conditions brought their grievances to Graczyk for presentation to the respondent. Graczyk had been dismissed by the respondent once--before:-- On- No.'ember 29, 1937, the respondent laid him off allegedly for lack of work. However, it immediately assigned to his tapping machine an employee from another department who was wholly inexperienced at such work . At a conference of the Union with the respondent's, attorney, acting for the respondent in that behalf, the respondent's at- torney conceded that Graczyk was entitled because of his relative effi- ciency to the .position assigned the other employee , and agreed that, Graczyk could return to work. When Graczyk thereafter reported to Weber for-work, Weber^at first refused to reinstate him, inquiring with respect to the union button Graczyk was wearing whether he, Graczyk, "could use any more buttons." Weber then offered to rein- state Graczyk but with a reduction in pay. After considerable discus- sion Graczyk was given his job. At the hearing the respondent sought to show that Graczyk's second dismissal in January was attributable to the condition of slack work in the tapping department , and that he was selected for dismissal because of alleged inefficiency . This explanation, is not supported by the record . Graczyk was at least as _ efficient a worker as two other employees in lus;Clepartment , of substantially]e^s seniority , who were THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1145 retained.31 His foreman thought highly of his work, and in June 1937 had requested the respondent to make Graczyk his assistant. After the lay-offs were begun, the foreman told Graczyk that because of his.com- -petence he proposed to retain him "until-the -last man." -While the foreman testified at the hearing that on several occasions Graczyk oper- ated his machine in low rather than high gear, any inference therefrom that the employee had been inefficient we think stands refuted by the above-mentioned attitude and statements of the foreman made prior to the time the respondent called him as a witness. Graczyk testified that he did not operate the machine at low gear if the work was such as to permit operation at high gear. Although the' plant superin- tendent testified that Graczyk's production was slow, no convincing proof was offered in support thereof, and the same witness denied any testimony he may have given at the hearing that the dismissal was occasioned by inefficiency. We find that the respondent dismissed Graczyk in January as an- other step in its plan•°for, destroying the Union and setting up-the Association. As shop steward and a member of the union grievance committee, Graczyk held an office important to the continued func- tioning of the Union. We have had occasion to say in another pro- ceeding involving the discharge of an employee who had engaged in grievance committee work: It is common knowledge that the availability of means for ad- justing individual grievances through group representives, con- stitute an important inducement to union affiliation . . . In furloughing [an employee] . . . because of his activity as chair- man of [the union grievance committee] . . . the respondent struck at a vital union activity, and by such discrimination as to employment, discouraged membership in the-Union, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.32 We think this language here applicable. Some question has arisen as to whether Graczyk was laid off or discharged. The issue is without substance, for in either event the respondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment, within the meaning of the Act. Upon the circumstances presented, especially the reasons which induced his dismissal, we are of the opinion, and find, that the respondent intended to rid itself perma- nently of him and, accordingly, that it discharged him.33 31 One of these employees had been with the respondent only 5 months, and was then engaged °in' assisting Thomas in organizing the Association. 32 Matter of The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company and United Rubber Workers of America, Local No 20 and James if Reed and Minnie Ramp, 6 N L R. B 325, 331 33 Matter of Indianapolis Power & Light Company and Utility Workers Organizing Com- mittee, Local 120, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial organizations , 25 N. L R B 193, and see cases cited in footnote 28 1'146 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD Wefind- that the respondent failed or refused to recall -to work and: thereby discharged Grace Koberna some time prior to the hear- ing, 'and discharged Chester Kinkelaar on January 18, 1938, and Bruno Graczyk on January 3 , 1938, because of their activity and leadership in the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of said employees, and each of them, and discouraging membership in the Union; and that by said acts the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the, exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7. 2. Discriminatory discharges of certain employees and allegedly discriminatory dismissals of others Josephine Seremak was dismissed on December 23, 1937. She had been employed in the plant for more than a year and worked on a hand-shaving machine. Seremak was an active and loyal member of the Union, and had assisted in enlisting members for that organiza- tion. She joined the Union at its inception , and regularly wore her union button at the plant. On December 22, 1937, Seremak encountered trouble with her machine and spent about an hour cleaning it and having it repaired. She noted the incident on her time card. On the following day Ben- nett informed Seremak that she was dismissed for idling on company time. She explained to him what had occurred, but Bennett replied that he could do nothing about the matter, that she might discuss it with"Weber after January 1. Seremak thereafter did make inquiry of Weber, and was told by him that he could not reinstate her because she was married. At the hearing the respondent sought to establish through testi- mony of its plant superintendent that Seremak had been dismissed because there was not "very much work, and she was very low in her production." The superintendent did not testify that upon the dismissal any of the three hand-shaving machines ceased operation, although Seremak had previously testified at the hearing that she understood her machine was then'being operated . With respect' to Seremak's production , Seremak and the two other women who oper- ated the hand-shaving machines consistently maintained the same level of production . Seremak had had no previous complaints about her work. It is significant that at the time of the dismissal neither slack work nor low productivity was assigned as the reason for the termination of her employment . While the respondent called Ben- nett as a witness at the hearing and questioned him at-length about other dismissals , it did not interrogate him respecting Seremak's, although the testimony of its plant superintendent previously taken ,- THE ;TRIPLEX ISCRER% COMPANY 1147 ,was inconclusive about the matter in many respects because of his unfamiliarity therewith. We are convinced, and we find, that Seremak was- discharged because of her activity in and loyalty to the Union., The record does not establish that either slack work or low productivity was a -factor. Her dismissal occurred at a time when the - respondent was displaying marked antagonism to the Union, and against a back- ground of flagrant violations of the Act. The circumstances sur- rounding the' dismissal disclose that the respondent had been seeking ,some•.pretext for getting rid of Seremak, and, ,used ' the stoppage of her.machine_ for that purpose. ,Chester Pokropski was dismissed on November 30, 1937. Like Seremak, he was one of the first to join the Union, was active in its affairs, regularly attended union meetings, and wore his union button about the plant. He was hired in February 1937 and worked sub- stantially all the time thereafter at threading bolts on the hand cutters. The respondent states that it was compelled for business reasons to lay off one of the employees engaged in this work, and that it selected Pokropski for that purpose, rather than either of two other employees, because of his alleged comparatively -low productivity. The two mentioned employees who were retained either were not members of the Union or were inactive in it. Neither had as much seniority as Pokropski. - We are not convinced by the testimony adduced by the respondent, ,or otherwise, that, Pokropski was less- efficient than the two other' -employees who -were retained.-, Bennett, who directed Pokropski's dismissal, testified-that he did so because in connection with certain "time studies" 34 made in Pokropski's department, Pokropski "never did try. to Come up- and make his time .... he was the lowest or-one ,of -the lowest of the department." However, Bennett also testified that the respondent had "just started to put time study into the depart- ment," and that he did not "have any records [he could] show .because the time study had not been.in there long, enough." Bennett,- him- self, made no time study of any employee. The evidence shows that ,one of his assistants who was making such a study of Pokropski told Pokropski a few days before his dismissal that his rate of production was very good. At the hearing Bennett was interrogated about this matter and, after stating that he,did not know anything concerning it, proceeded to explain that he had had - an assistant by the name of Bulk who was very inefficient, whose "data" could not be used, and who had been discharged. - - 34 Studies of employees while at work for the `purpose of fixing methods and standards to increase production. 1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We are convinced, and we find, that the respondent's true reason in selecting Pokropski for dismissal was his union activity and loyalty. It was because of this reason that the respondent disregarded Pokrop- ski's seniority , and preferred employees not associated with the activity of the Union . We find that Pokropski Was not-ffiei•ely laid'°o`ff; but discharged , because of his activity in and loyalty to the Union. Stanley Ksepko was dismissed on January 3, 1938. He was em- ployed about 3 years at the plant and worked on a pointer machine. At the time of his dismissal Ksepko was informed by the respondent that the reason therefor was that there was no available work for him to perform . However, the record shows that in dismissing Ksepko the respondent disregarded his seniority and retained another em- ployee junior in service to work on a pointer machine. There is no showing by the respondent that the employee who was retained was more competent to do the work than Ksepko, and we do not so find. Ksepko had been very active in the Union, and was identified by the respondent as loyal to that organization . ' Ab`but , January 24 he returned to the plant seeking reinstatement, and there met Weber. Weber told him, "Get the hell out of here . . . I don't need the C. I. O. anymore." On another occasion , shortly after the dismissal, Thomas, who, as heretofore set forth, was engaged in setting up the Association at the direction of the respondent , told Ksepko that if he wished to keep his job he should join the Association. We are of the opinion, and find, that Ksepko was discriminatorily discharged because of his activity in and loyalty to the Union. Ordi- narily, other things being equal , seniority would have determined which of the two employees, Ksepko - or the one -who was retained, should have been laid off. We do not presume, in the absence of a showing, that some factor other than seniority , would have been determinative in the selection . However, seniority was not operative, for, as above set forth, Ksepko's greater seniority was disregarded. We are convinced that the reason for the respondent's ignoring of Ksepko's seniority lies in the hostility it had generally for those employees who, it thought, might prevent a successful installation of the Association as successor to the Union. Weber's strong showing of antipathy toward Ksepko and the Union when Ksepko sought work at the plant confirms our finding . Thomas' statement also is confirmatory. We also find , as already set forth , that Ksepko was discharged and not laid off. John Kwiatkowski was employed at the plant as a laborer to,move " stock and shelve bundles . He was laid off for 3 days in July or August 1937, recalled to work, and again laid off on November 19, 1937: He has not been reinstated. Some time prior to the hearing Kwiat- THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1149 kowski's job reopened, and the respondent hired a new employee to fill it. No fault had ever been found by the respondent with Kwiatkowski's performance of his job, and-there is no showing that the other employee was better fitted to fill it. Kwiatkowski was active in the Union. We have no doubt that the respondent was aware of his loyalty to that organization. Although Weber in April 1937 threatened Kwiatkowski with dismissal if he -"stuck by" the Union, the employee remained a union member. At the hearing the respondent contended that Kwiatkowski's lay-off, in November, as well as his prior lay-off, was occasioned by slack work. However, whether or not that fact be true, there is no satisfactory explanation why the respondent, when Kwiatkowski's work became available, ignored Kwiatkowski and hired a new employee to do it. We are satisfied that the respondent 's failure or refusal to recall Kwiatkowski to work was induced by his activity in and loyalty to the Union, and we so find . We are convinced that had he not been a loyal union member, the respondent in the ordinary course of its busihess would'-have reinstated him when his job reopened. By failing to do so the respondent indicated its intention to and did terminate Kwiatkowski's status as an employee, thereby discharging him. Laddie Sindelar was dismissed on November 17, 1937. He then worked as a sheer man cutting stock for the hot headers. At the time of the dismissal the respondent retained to perform this kind of work three employees , two of them junior to Sindelar in point of service. Sindelar was an experienced and competent worker, and there is no showing that any of the three retained was better fitted to do his kind of work. Sindelar was an active and loyal member of the Union . He solicited members for the organization, and wore his union button about the' plant,.,_ Bennett, the industrial engineer, testified that Sindelar was laid off because "there was not any particular work at that particular time." However, as set forth above, there was work at that time which Sindelar was competent to perform and which he should have been retained to perform as against the two employees who had less seniority. No satisfactory explanation of the respondent's ignoring of Sindelar's seniority right is shown. Some testimony was intro- duced respecting an incident 3 weeks prior to the dismissal involving a refusal by Sindelar, because of his concern that spoilage might result, to shear certain bars in the manner directed by Bennett. How- ever, this incident , we are satisfied , was unrelated to the respondent's selection of Sindelar for dismissal . Bennett's testimony, above quoted, attributed the dismissal to unavailable work. We find that the re- spondent dismissed Sindelar, in disregard of his seniority right, because of his activity in and loyalty to the Union. 1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the respondent discharged Josephine Seremak on December 23, 1937, Chester Pokropski on November 30, 1937, Stanley Ksepko on January 3, 1938, John Kwiatkowski prior to, the hearing herein, and Laddie Sindelar on November 15, 1937, and each of them, because of their activity in, affiliation with, and loyalty to the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure' of employ- ment of said employees, and each of them, and discouraging mem- bership in the Union; and that by said acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section T. Henry Przybylski, Stanley Boncella, John Szczygielski, Lody Au- gustin, Alex Choromanski, Florence Zenda, Chester Genius, Stella Stanek, and Sam Staniszewski were dismissed at various times, respec- tively, in November and December 1937 and in- January 1938. While the circumstances surrounding some of these dismissals raise a sus- picion that the respondent discriminated against certain of these per sons in violation of the Act, we do not find the evidence sufficient to establish that the respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice with respect to any of such persons. We shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint as they relate to these persons. D. The alleged refusal of the respondent to bargain in good faith In September 1937 the respondent authorized its attorney to act as sole representative of the respondent for purposes of meeting and negotiating with the Union in respect of terms and conditions of employment at the plant. In the succeeding period of lay-off s and discharges of plant employees, the Union, on various occasions, met and conferred with the attorney, principally regarding employees' grievances arising from the dismissals. It is-in connection with these conferences that charges have been filed herein alleging that the respondent did not bargain collectively with the Union in a bona lde manner, as required by the Act. 85 There is no issue presented con- cerned with negotiations for a collective labor agreement. $6 The duty of the employer to bargain with the statutory representative of his employees was stated by the Board in Matter of Highland Park Manufacturing Co. and Textile Work- ers Organizing Committee, 12 N. L. R. B. 1238, 1248-1249, enf'd 110 F. (2d) 632 (C. C. A 4), as follows : Collective bargaining , as contemplated by the Act is a procedure looking toward the making of a collective agreement by the employer with the accredited renresentatives of its employees touching wages, hours of service, and other working conditions of the employees. The duty to bargain collectively, which the Act imposes upon employers, has as its objective the establishment of such a contractual relationship. We have held that'this duty is not limited to recognition of the employees' representatives qua representatives , or to a meeting and discussion of terms with them. The duty en- compasses an obligation to enter into discussion and negotiation with an open and fair mind and with a sincere purpose to find a basis of agreement concerning the issues presented , to make contractually binding the understanding upon terms that are reached , and, under ordinary circumstances, to reduce that obligation to the form of a signed written agreement if requested to do so by the employees' representatives. THE TRIPLEX' SCREW COMPANY 1151 The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report found and con- cluded that the respondent "refused to bargain collectively with [the Union] ... in a bona Fide manner ip regard to grievances and other conditions of employment." We have considered the negotiations involved, and while the respondent's attack upon the Union and its setting up of the Association cast doubt upon the good faith of its negotiations with the Union, we are of the opinion that the record made is insufficient to substantiate the charges . Accordingly , we will dismiss the pertinent allegations of the complaint. 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 respondent, described in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several . States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It is essential to an effectuation of the purposes and, policies of the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices in which we have found it to have engaged, and in aid of such order and as a means of removing ,and avoiding the consequences of such practices that the respondent be directed to take certain affirmative action, more particularly described below. We have found that the respondent in many ways has interfered with, restrained, and coerced 'its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by the Act. It is plain that the respondent must cease and desist from such practices , and we shall so order. We have also found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation of, and contributed support , to, the Association, and that that organization is not nor has it ever been the employees' genuine choice of collective bargaining representative . The Associa- tion is incapable of ever serving as a true collective bargaining agency of the employees. Its existence does and will constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the respondent's employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. Hence, not only shall we order the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices in con- nection with the Association , but' in aid of that order and to remove the impediments thus established to the employees exercising freely their rights under the Act, we shall direct the respondent to withhold recognition from the Association as a representative of its employees, and to disestablish that organization as such a representative. 1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We also have found that the respondent terminated the employment of Grace Koberna, Chester Kinkelaar, Bruno Graczyk, Josephine Seremak, Chester Pokropski, Stanley Ksepko, John Kwiatkowski, and Laddie Sindelar, because' of their leadership, membership, or activity in, and loyalty to the Union. Accordingly, we shall order the respond- ent to cease and desist from such discrimination. Moreover, to effectu- ate the purposes and policy of the Act, we shall order the respondent to offer these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions with the respondent, with- out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of its discrimination against them. Our order also will direct certain other action which we deem necessary to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor practices we have found. 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. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583, and Independent Employees Associa- tion of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. By dominating and interfering with the formation of, and con- tributing support to, Independent Employees Association of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of its employees, and thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583, the respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583; within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act, as alleged'in the complaint. THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1153, 7. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices with respect to Jessie Antkiewicz, Lody Augustin, Ben Barckowiak, Leonard Bogacki, Stanley Boncella, James Bradley, Alex Choromanski, George Damasiewicz, Joseph Dietrick, Robert Fuller, Chester Genius, John Holt, Helen Kolasa, Josephine Kubit, Leo Labuda, Mary Latawiec, John Matuszewski, John Miller, Felix Orlik, Stanley Paryzek, Otto Pilney, Rudy Pilney, Jessie Polaccynski, Frank Price, Henry Przybyl- ski, Henry Sadanowicz, Joseph Selva, John Stachura, Stella Stanek, Sam Staniszewski, Edward Stylinski, John Szcygielski, Frank Vore- chovsky, or Florence Zenda, as alleged in the complaint. 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,. The Triplex Screw Company, Cleveland, Ohio, and its officers, agents., successors, and assigns, shall: 1: Cease-and desist, from : (a) In -any_ manner dominating or interfering with the administra- tion of Independent Employees Association of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., or with the formation or administration of any other labor organiza- tion of its, employees, and from contributing support to Independent Employees Association of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or by laying off any of its employees or in any-other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or-condition of their employment ; • (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives 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. _. 2. Take the following' affirmative action, -which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : ' ' (a) Offer to Bruno Graczyk, Chester Kinkelaar,, Grace Koberna, Stanley Ksepko, John Kwiatkowski, Chester Pokropski, Josephine Seremak, and Laddie Sindelar immediate and full reinstatement to the positions, respectively, which they formerly occupied at its plant, or to positions, respectively, substantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to tbRir seniority-and other rights aid privileges: '1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Make whole Bruno Graczyk, Chester Kinkelaar, Grace Ko- berna, Stanley Ksepko, John Kwiatkowski, Chester Pokropski, Josephine Seremak, and Laddie Sindelar, and each of them, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's dis- criminatory termination of their employment by payment to each such employee of a sum of money equal to that which he or she nor- mally would have earned as wages from the date of his or her dis- criminatory termination of employment, viz., Bruno Graczyk, January 3, 1938 •,- Chester Kinkelaar, January 18, 1938; Grace Koberna, April 11, 1938;36 Stanley Ksepko, January 3, 1938; John Kwiatkowski, April 11, 1938,37 Chester Pokropski, November 30, 1937; Josephine Seremak, December 23, 1937; and Laddie Sindelar, November 17, 1937, to the date-of offer of his or her reinstatement, less his or her net earn- ings 36 during such period; deducting however, from the 'amount otherwise, due to each of said employees, monies, received by him or her during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other • work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, -county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said projects; (c) Withdraw all recognition from and refrain from recognizing Independent Employees Association of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent in any manner concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em- ployment, and completely disestablish Independent Association of Triplex Screw Co., Inc., as such representative; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in Cleveland, Ohio, and maintain, such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) days from' the date of posting, notices to its employees stating .(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order;, (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action --;"in" those cases where the record 'does not fix the date prior to the, hearing when the discriminatory termination of employment occurred , we have taken for purposes of the Order April 11, 1938, the date when the hearing began 37 See footnote 36, supra. - ' ,M BY "net earnin gs" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and woiking else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful termination of his 'employment and the consequent, necessity of his seeking, employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N, L R B 440. Monies received for work performed upon Fedeial, State, county, municipal, or other work- relief projects are not considered as earnings, but, as provided, are to be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof paid over' to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-reliet projects THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1155 set forth'in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become and remain members of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583; and (4) that the respondent will not dis- criminate against any employee because of membership in or activity in or in behalf of said labor organization; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within ten ('10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, in so far as it alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor, practices with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Jessie Antkie- wicz, Lody Augustin, Ben Barckowiak,, Leonard Bogacki, Stanley Boncella, James Bradley, Alex Choromanski, George Damasiewicz, Joseph Dietrick, Robert Fuller, Chester Genius, John Holt, Helen Kolasa, Josephine, Kubit, Leo Labuda, Mary Latawiec, John Matuszewski, John Miller, Felix Orlik, Stanley Paryzek, Otto Pil- ney, Rudy Pilney, Jessie Polaccynski,, Frank Price, Henry Przybyl- ski, Henry Sadanowicz, Joseph Selva, John, Stachura, Stella. Stanek, Sam Staniszewski, Edward Stylinski,, -John Szcygielski, Frank Vorechovsky, and Florence Zenda; and= in; so far as it alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, concurring : I concur in the findings and conclusions of the Decision, and in the Order. However, while we have dismissed the allegations of, the complaint with respect to the alleged refusal of the respondent to bargain collectively with the Union in a bona file manner, I think our findings and conclusions should not rest there. Because of the loss of union membership occasioned by the respondent's unfair labor practices, the Board, in my opinion, should find and conclude that such, loss did not affect the status of, the Union as the statutory rep- resentative of the plant employees and that the Union has continued to be such representative. 39 , , ' 4 39 See my opinion in Matter of Joseph Levy , Jack Levy, and Isaac Levy, doing business under the name and style of Leybro Manufacturing Company, and Leybro Manufacturing Co. of New Jersey, Inc and Children 's D,ess, Infants, Wear, Housedress and Bathrobe .Workers Union , Local f$91, International ` Ladies Garment Workers Union , 24 N. L R B 786, in ' which I ' expressed the view that where the Board dismisses allegations of a refusal to bargain ' collectively, for reasons not 'related to, the status of the collective bar- gaining agency as the statutory representative , the Board nevertheless should make findings and conclusions regarding the appropriate collective bargaining unit and representation within such unit. 1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Preceding and throughout the conferences of the Union with the respondent, and at all times since, employees of the respondent em- ployed in production at the respondent's plant, excluding supervisory employees and office workers, constituted- a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and one which insured to the employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self- organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectilated„the policies of the Act. During the period of the conferences and prior thereto a majority of the respondent's employees, within the above- mentioned collective bargaining unit. designated and selected the Union as their representative for collective bargaining with the respondent, and, accordingly, at all such times the Union was the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for such pur- pose. As such representative the Union was entitled to recognition as the statutory representative by the respondent, and to performance by the respondent of its obligation to bargain collectively in good faith. Although, as set forth in the Decision,}° the Association on or about February 16, 1938, claimed to have enrolled as ,members, and, consequently to have been selected as exclusive bargaining repre5eiit- ative by, a majority of the plant employees, any such enrollment iii or selection of the Association could not affect the designation of the Union as statutory representative. A defection in -membership to the Association from the Union, to the extent that it occurred, resulted from the respondent's unfair labor practices in Initiating formation of the Association, favoring membership in that organiza- tion, and opposing the Union. It in no wise represented a, free choice of the Association. as bargaining representative. The pre- sumption is, and I should find, that the Union continued to ,be. c esig- nated as collective bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. I am satisfied, and would find, that the true desires of a majority of the employees within the unit have always been and now are for representation through the Union. The desire of these employees that the Union serve as their statutory representative could not be changed by the respondent's unfair labor practices.4' It is my conclusion that during and at all tunes since the negotia- tions in question, and at the present, the Union was and is the exclu- 10 See Section III B of the Decision, supra 1° See N L R B v Bradford Dyetnq Association (U. S. A ), 60 S. Ct. 918; N. L. R. B. v Some, set Shoe Company, 111 F. (2d) 681 (C. C A. 1) ; The M. H Ritzwoller Company v N L R B. 114 F (2d) 432 (C C. A 7 ) ; N L R B V Highland Park Manufacturinq Company, 110 F ( 2d) 632 (C. C. A 4) - THE TRIPLEX SCREW COMPANY 1157 sive representative of all employees within the above -mentioned collective bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining with the respondent regarding working conditions. • MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of I he above Decision and Order. 283036-42-vol. 25-74