A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORA- TION and UNITED GRAIN PROCESSORS, LOCAL 21490 AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-1180.-Decided April , 1940 Crain Pioee.ssing Industry-Interference, Restraint , a4nd Coercion: use of grievance machinery set up in conjunction with company -dominated organiza- tion as a device to discourage membership in other labor organizations-Com- pany-Dominated Union: domination of, interference with, and support of three successive labor organizations ; second organization a mere revision of the first; no hiatus between termination of each organization and formation of succes- sor ; identity of employee leaders in each organization ; employee realization of employer preference shown at time of formation of third organization ; refusal to post neutrality notice at request of outside union ; payment to accountants for certification of inside union ; payment of employee representatives for non- working time spent in conference , third successive organization ordered disestab- lished, refuse recognition ordered as to, other two organizations--Check-Off: for company-dominated unions ; employer ordered to reimburse employees for amounts deducted from earnings as dues for company-dominated unions. Mr. Robert R. Rissrnan, for the Board. LeForgee, Samuels d Miller, by Mr. Carl R. Miller, of Decatur, Ill., for the respondent. Hayes, Downing ct Rosenberg, by Mr. Edward A. Hayes, of Decatur, Ill., and Mr. Francis R. Wiley, of Decatur, Ill., for the I. S. W. U. Pines, Stein cC Beber, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Robert A. Wilson, .of Washington, D. C., for Local No. 21490. Mr. Woodrow J. Sandler, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges and amended charges having been duly filed on March 4, 1938, and November 30, 1938, respectively, by United Grain Processors Local No. 21490, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called Local No. 21490, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated December 2, 22 N. L. R. B., No. 31. 663 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1938, against A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company, a corporation, Decatur, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respond- ent, Local No. 21490, and upon Independent Starch Workers' Union, herein called the I. S. W. U., a labor organization allegedly dom- inated by, interfered with, and supported by the respondent. In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of and con- tributed financial and other support to Employees' Representation Plan, herein called the E. R. P., a labor organization, later known as Staley Employee's Organization, herein called the S. E. 0., that subsequent thereto the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of and contributed financial and other support to the I. S. W. U.; and that by the aforesaid and other acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer, in which, as amended at the hearing, it admitted the allegations of the complaint as to the character of its business, but denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Decatur, Illinois, on December 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 1938, before Thomas S. Wilson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the re- spondent, and the I. S. W. U. were represented by counsel and par- ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing the I. S. W. U. filed a petition for leave to intervene in the proceed- ing,' wherein it denied that it was dominated or supported by the respondent, and wherein it requested certification by the Board as the collective bargaining agent of the respondent's employees. The 'Trial Examiner granted leave to the I. S. W. U. to intervene on the issue of the respondent's alleged domination and support of the I. S. W. U., but denied it intervention for the purpose of certification. This ruling is hereby affirmed. Both at the close of the Board's case and at the end of the hear- ing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for 1 The I. S. W. U. had previously filed a similar petition with the Regional Director, on December 10, 1938. The petition was refiled with the Trial Examiner at the suggestion of the Board's attorney. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 665, lack of evidence and counsel for the L'S. W. U. moved to dismiss the complaint as to it for the same reason. On these motions the Trial Examiner reserved decision. Subsequently, in his intermedi- ate Report, the Trial Examiner granted the motion of the I. S. W. U., but denied the motion of the respondent except in so far as said motion related to the respondent's alleged domination of, interfer- ence with, or support of the I. S. W. U. To the extent indicated below and for the reasons indicated below, these rulings are hereby reversed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion of the Board's attorney to conform the pleadings to the proof. This ruling is hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numerous other rulings on mo- tions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. After the close of the hearing, the respondent and the I. S. W. U. filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. On February 1, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, in which he found that the respondent had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the E. R. P. and the S. E. O. and had con- tributed financial and other support thereto, and had thereby inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. He further found that the allegations of unfair labor prac- tices with respect to the I. S. W. U. were not sustained by the evi- dence, and accordingly recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to these allegations. Thereafter, Local No. 21490 filed its excep- tions to the Intermediate Report. On October 19, 1939, pursuant to request therefor by the respond- ent, and notice thereof to all the parties and their attorneys, a hear- ing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. Counsel for the respondent, the I. S. W. U., and Local No. 21490 appeared and participated therein. At the oral argument the I. S. W. U. moved to consolidate the instant case with a representation proceeding instituted on August 11, 1939, by Local No. 21490,2 wherein Local No. 21490 requested certification by the Board as the sole collective bargaining representative of the respond- ent's employees. The I. S. W. U. further moved to stay further action in the instant case, and requested that an election be held among the respondent's employees. The motions of the I. S. W. U. made at the oral argument are hereby denied. 2 The petition in that proceeding was filed on behalf of Local No. 21490 by an affiliate organization, National Council of Grain Processors, affiliated with the A. F. of L. 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, briefs were filed with it on March 27, March 28, and April 6, 1939, by the I. S. W. U., Local No. 21490, and the respondent, respectively. In its brief, Local No. 21490 asked leave to introduce additional evidence as to the alleged super- visory duties of one Harry Bell, one of the respondent's employees. This motion is hereby denied. The Board has considered the excep- tions filed by Local No. 21490 to the Intermediate Report and, to the extent in in the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, hereby sustains them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT A., E, Staley Manufacturing Company, the respondent , is a Dela- ware corporation engaged in the manufacture, - preparation, process- ing, sale, and distribution of corn and soy-bean products, having its main office and principal place- of business in Decatur, Illinois. The respondent is the second largest enterprise in the corn milling wet process industry. It maintains sales offices in Chicago, New York, Boston, and Atlanta, and warehouses its products in approximately 150 warehouses located throughout the United States. The principal raw materials used by the respondent are corn and soy beans; the principal supplies are coal, bags, cans, shipping cases, and chemicals. In 1937 the total value of all raw materials and sup- plies purchased by the respondent was in excess of $21,000,000. Ap- proximately 90 per cent of the corn, 95 per cent of the soy beans, and all the coal purchased by the respondent are obtained by it within the State of Illinois. Approximately 50 per cent of the respondent's remaining supplies are obtained from points outside the State of Illinois. The respondent's principal products are corn starch, corn syrup, crude corn sugar, gluten -feed, corn oil, soy-bean meal, and soy-bean,-oil., The respondent annually sells and ships products rang- ing in value from $16,000,000 to $24,000,000. Approximately from 80 to 871/2 per cent of its products are sold and shipped by it to points outside the State of Illinois. During the 5 years preceding the hear- ing, the respondent has exported to foreign countries from 4 to 8 per cent of its products. At its plant the respondent employs from 1,100 to 1,200 hourly paid workers and approximately 110 salaried foremen and assistants. In its administrative offices the respondent employs approximately 200 departmental supervisors, assistants, and clerks, and approxi- mately 30 sales executives and assistants, all on a salaried basis-. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 667 United Grain Processors Local No. 21490, affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, admitting to its membership all hourly paid employees of the respondent. Employees' Representation Plan is an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion, admitting to its membership all hourly paid non-supervisory employees of the respondent.- Staley Employee's Organization is an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion, admitting to its membership all hourly paid employees of the respondent.' Independent Starch Workers' Union is an unaffiliated labor organi- zation, admitting to its membership all employees of the respondent in respondent's processing, mechanical, and service departments, excluding executives and foremen. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination of, interference with, and support of labor organizations 1. The E. R. P. Just-prior to July 1935, United Grain Processors, Local 20014,' af- filiated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called Local No. 20014, began to organize the respondent's employees. Before that time, the respondent had never dealt with any labor organization in its plant, nor had the respondent ever been asked to do so by any labor organization. Andrew J. Percival, the respondent's personnel manager, had for some months suggested to the respondent the formation of an em- ployees' representation plan, but the respondent had objected to doing so. Early in July 1935 Percival called Augustus E. Staley, Jr., the respondent's president, to his office, stating that Leo Richards, an employee who was in Percival's office, was interested in the for- mation of an employees' representation plan. Richards then asked Staley what the respondent's attitude would be toward such a plan 5 and Staley replied that the respondent had no objection thereto if the employees desired it. At that time Staley knew of the organi- 6 Both the E. R. P. and the S. E O. were superseded by the I. S. W. U . and are no longer recognized by the respondent. However, It is not clear whether either the E. R. P. or the S. E. O. was ever formally dissolved . We are therefore treating those organizations as technically still in existence. 4 This local conducted the organizational activities at that time , and not Local No. 21490. 6 Staley testified that, prior to this conversation with Richards , no one but Percival had ever , to his knowledge , suggested the establishment of an employees ' representation plan in the respondent's plant. Staley also testified that he did not know how Richards hap- pened to be in Percival's office, nor where Richards had got the idea of a plan. 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD zation of the respondent's employees by Local No. 20014. Shortly thereafter, petitions addressed to the respondent requesting the estab- lishment of an employees' representation plan were circulated among the employees. The petitions were prepared on the respondent's mimeograph -machine and were circulated by employees during work- ing hours, with Staley's consent. On July 11, 1935, while these peti- tions were being circulated, the respondent distributed a letter to all its employees, in which it stated that there was no obligation to sign the petitions. Endorsing the. plan, the respondent added in the letter, however : All that the company can say is that if you men do want the plan, we will assist in putting it in and we are inclined to believe that it will prove to be a benefit both to all the employees and to the management as well. Some time prior to July 26, copies of a question-and-answer brochure entitled "What is an Employee Representation Plan?" were dis- tributed to each department in the plant. This brochure was pre- pared by Andrew J. Percival, the respondent's personnel manager, with Staley's consent and approval, and was submitted to Staley before it was distributed. In the following excerpts from this bro- chure, the respondent pointed out to its employees the alleged ad- vantages of an employee representation plan over "unionism": Q. How does an employee representation plan differ from "unionism"? A. An employee representation plan differs from "unionism" in four important particulars. (1) It is truly representative of the employees in that it is free from control or pressure by out- side interests or by employees in competing plants .. . Q. What objections do unions have against the plan of em- ployee representation? A. They contend that since the employee representatives may receive their regular wages while attending meetings, their free- dom of action is thereby limited as compared with that of an outside representative whom the employees themselves pay. If all of the time of the conferences were taken up for discussion of wages and hours, this criticism would be important. Actu- ally, the meetings deal largely with safety measures, sanitation, efficiency of operating methods, personnel problems, and similar matters, for which work the employer would have had to pay others if it were not handled by these representatives. Q. Then what is the primary purpose of a representation plan? A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 669 A. It is to provide means for peaceful settlement without being drawn into outside battles .. . Q. What is the strong feature of an employees representation plan? A. For both the management and the men it is a fact that it settles local problems without getting involved in outside com- plications .. . By July 19, 1935, 85 per cent of the non-supervisory employees had signed the petitions, and the respondent suggested the next "logical" procedure, in a memorandum distributed to all employees on the respondent's letterhead. The "suggested procedure" was as follows: (1) That each department in the plant elect a temporary representative. (2) That these representatives meet in the plant cafeteria or elsewhere on Friday, July 26, at 9 a. m. (3) That these temporary representatives then draft a plan setting forth a plan and method for the election of regular rep- resentatives. (4) That this plan and method for electing your regular rep- resentatives be then submitted by your temporary representa- tives to a vote by all employees to determine whether or not it is satisfactory. (5) That if this plan and method is satisfactory, you then elect your regular representatives in accordance with the plan adopted by you. This procedure was followed in detail. Temporary representatives were elected during working hours by the employees in each depart- ment of the plant. The first meeting of the temporary employee representatives was held in the plant cafeteria on July 26, from 9 a. m. to 3 p. m. Staley addressed the meeting. Andrew J. Percival was present, having been "invited into the meeting in an advisory capacity only." The extent of his participation, however, was de- scribed by witness John W. Talley as follows : "As a rule he done most of the talking." The second meeting, which lasted all day, was held in the same place, on July 30. At this meeting it was an- nounced by the chairman that at the request of an employees' com- mittee, Mr. Staley had agreed to meet the expenses of the formation of the plan. As a result of this meeting, "Part I" of the plan, which dealt with the internal structure of the E. R. P., was drafted. Part I provided that for the purpose of representation, the plant was divided into 29 departments, each with one employee representa- tive. No dues were provided for, nor was any provision made for full membership meetings. 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On August 16, 1935, the employees voted to adopt Part I of the plan. This election was held at the plant; employees moved throughout the plant without interference by supervisors ,and col- lected ballots from the men who were working. The ballots were counted in the respondent's safety director's office, in the presence of Andrew J. Percival and Bart Wilson, a foreman. One employee, Velma Nelson Breuer, was expressly granted permission by his fore- man to carry a ballot box among the employees during working hours. In addition, he was paid by the respondent at his regular wage rate for one hour of his off-time spent counting ballots on the following day. On August 20, 1935, the permanent employee repre- sentatives were elected. By September 4 "Part II" of the plan, which set forth the pur- ported collective bargaining procedure, had been agreed upon by the respondent and the employee representatives. A "Plant Con- ference Board" was created thereunder, consisting of an equal num- ber of employee and management representatives. The "Plant Con- ference Board" had three standing committees, which were organ- ized in the same fashion, called the "Plant Conditions Committee," the "Health and Safety Committee," and the "Planning Committee." These joint committees had been suggested by Staley, even as to names. Part II provided for a grievance procedure, whereby through successive appeals, a grievance could finally be brought before the "Plant Conference Board," the committee of final appeal. Decisions even of this joint committee, however, could be set aside by the re- spondent's own Executive Committee, subject thereafter to arbitra- tion, provided that the respondent would agree thereto. The expenses of the formation of the E. R. P. were met by the respondent, as promised, and the respondent furnished materials and mimeographing services to the E. R. P. without charge. The employee representatives were paid by the respondent at their usual hourly rates for their time spent on E. R. P. matters, whether in discussions with the management or otherwise, and whether or not during working hours. No membership meeting of the E. R. P. was ever held, but the various committees set up under Part II functioned during the life of the E. R. P. 2. The S. E. O. After the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., ° on April 12, 1937, and following the issuance of certain Board de- • N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, rev'g 83 F. (2d) 998, and enf'g 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. A. E. STALEY - MANUFACTURING COMPANY 671 cisions interpreting Section 8 (2) of the Act, Staley feared that the E. R. P. was "illegal," and decided to withdraw the respondent's, financial support from the organization. In addition E. R. P. mem- bers were complaining to the respondent that the E. R. P. grievance procedure was too cumbersome. On June 10, 1937, the E. R. P. employee representatives wrote to Staley that they had unanimously agreed that Part I and Part II of the E. R. P. should be "revised" as soon as possible. They formed a "committee to revamp", whose duty it was to get information as to the attitude of the respondent toward changing Part II. According to Talley, a member of the committee, "We asked Mr. Staley how far we could go in changing Part II of the plan." Staley told them to go as far as they desired. However, but few changes were made. The "committee to revamp" was replaced by a "legal committee" of E. R. P. employee representatives, which drew up a set of by- laws for the S. E. 0., and on or about July 1, 1937, the E. R. P. employee representatives adopted these bylaws. The bylaws cor- responded to "Part I" of the E. R. P. They provided for dues of 25 cents per month. No new basis for representation was provided. Again, no provision was made for membership meetings. 7 On July 1, 1937, the E. R. P. employee representatives, acting on behalf of the S. E. 0., negotiated a "Joint Agreement" with the respondent. The final working draft of this agreement, which was mimeographed by the respondent, refers to the revised organization as "Employee Representation Plan." This was changed to read "Staley Employees' Organization" in the final agreement. The agree- ment, which was never signed, was in fact merely a revision of Part II of the E. R. P. Many of the working rules and conditions which had been adopted by the E. R. P. Plant Conditions Committee and Plant Conference Board were readopted bodily by the management and employee representatives. Although the respondent did not ask for any proof that the S. E. O. 'represented a majority of its em- ployees at that time, and in fact had no evidence of such a majority until a month thereafter, it recognized the S. E. O. in the agreement as the collective bargaining representative of a majority of its em- ployees. A "Plant Conditions Committee," "Health and Safety Com- mittee," and "General Committee" were provided for, each to consist of not more than six employee and six management representatives. The committees, however, did not operate on the basis of a majority vote. As testified to by Dr. Robert Edman Greenfield, the respond- ent's assistant general superintendent, "We wished to either arrive at an agreement, the management members arriving at an agreement, or not arriving at an agreement ; at least, there would be no voting." T But one such meetine was ever held. 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Committee was the committee of final appeal in griev- ance procedure. The respondent refused to agree to a mandatory arbitration procedure and a clause providing for arbitration de- pendent upon the consent thereto of both parties was included in the agreement. Staley testified that he could recall only one instance in which the respondent had agreed to arbitrate any matter. The "Joint Agreement" was of no specified duration and provided that it could be terminated "at any time upon written notice to the Gen- eral Committee signed by two-thirds of the Employee Representa- tives or by the Management or by a petition signed by a majority of members of the Employees' Organization." The only way in which the question of the change of organization was referred to the E. R. P. members was by the distribution of S. E. O. membership cards and wage assignment forms to employees throughout the plant by E. R. P. employee representatives. This was done openly and no supervisors objected thereto. It is not clear whether the S. E. O. membership cards were distributed before the bylaws were adopted and the agreement arrived at, or afterward. At the time this change in organization was taking place, Velma Nelson Breuer, an employee, asked his E. R. P. representative, George Bafford, "why they were changing." Bafford answered that it was "to make it legal." The wage assignment forms, wherein the employees authorized a check-off of their S. E. O. dues from their wages, were signed by a majority of the employees. On September 1, 1937, the respondent, at the request of an S. E. O. committee, agreed to honor these author- izations, subject to certain conditions." During the active existence of the S. • E. 0., the respondent checked off $2,621.50 in dues to the organization. Meetings of the S. E. O. joint committees began on July 27, 1937. That the S. E. O. was considered merely a revision of the E. R. P. is further indicated by the following excerpts from the minutes of the first meeting of the S. E. O. General Committee : ... the first meeting of the General Committee of the Employee Representation Plan was held at 1: 00 p. m. in the Executive Committee Room on the Eleventh Floor of the Administration Building. [Italics supplied] There was considerable discussion of the proper routine for presentation and transmission of grievances through the various parts of the revised Employees Representation Plan. [Italics supplied.] 6 One of these conditions was "that no employee be coerced or intimidated into signing such orders or assignments or mistreated in any manner for refusing to sign such orders or assignments." A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 673 Staley attended several of the committee meetings. The old E. R. P. representatives remained as employee representatives in the S. E. O. until August 1937. At that time an election of representatives was held at the plant. Employees' wages were not docked for the time spent by them in conducting the election. On September 13, 1937, the newly elected S. E. O. employee representatives elected the first officers and committeemen of the S. E. O. The "Staley News," a newspaper "by and for Staley people," prepared, printed, and edited by the respondent, in its October 1, 1937, issue, reported the "re- election" of all the acting officers to "carry on" for the year 1937-8. Minutes of the joint committees of the S. E. O. were prepared by 1 he respondent on its own "ditto" machine. In at least one instance, a, stenographer in the respondent's employ typed communications for the S. E. O. Welfare Committee, which consisted of employee repre- sentatives only. She was not paid by the S. E. O. for this. Although on October 1, 1937, the respondent ceased paying the employee rep- resentatives for the time spent at their own meetings 9 it continued to pay them for their time spent in conference with the management, whether or not during working hours. Meetings of the employee representatives were held on company property, but there is no testimony that any payment was made therefor. Local No. 21490 held its first open meeting for the organization of the respondent's employees sometime in February 1938. John R. Sanders, the president of Local No. 21490 and an employee of the respondent, testified that shortly thereafter, S. J. Seibert, the assistant foreman of the packing house, said to him and one Chester Boyle, an employee, "If you join the A. F. of L.; A. E. Staley will discon- tinue insurance and the fellowship club. I believe if we stick with the S. E. O. that we will be better off." Seibert denied having said this. Seibert never spoke to Sanders about Local No. 21490 there- after, none of Seibert's alleged threats was ever carried out, and Sanders thereafter wore a union button and solicited members for Local No. 21490 at the plant in the presence of Seibert and the superintendent and without objection on their part. The Trial Ex- aminer disbelieved Sanders' testimony that the alleged conversation took place and credited Seibert's denial, as we do. 3. The I. S. W. U. 'On March 9, 1938, 5 days after the charge had been filed in the instant case, an examiner from the Regional Office, L. J. Disser, Jr., visited the respondent's plant to investigate the charge. On 'March 10, 1938, Disser again visited the respondent's plant, inter- This was done after the General Committee had discussed this matter. 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rogated several of the employees, and recommended to the respondent that it disassociate itself from the S. E. 0. and withdraw all recogni- tion therefrom. On March 11, 1938, the respondent addressed a letter to all its employees, in which it set forth the nature of the charges, Disser's recommendation, and its disbelief that it dominated any labor organization. It also therein stated that its labor policy was one of neutrality,10 that Disser's recommendation had placed it in a dilemma, and that it had decided to hold its decision thereon in abeyance." The alleged dilemma was posited as follows : . . . the request of Mr. Disser for the company to cease col- lective bargaining with the Staley Employees' Organization places the company in a difficult position. If we refuse it, we may be placed in a position of not cooperating with the request of a representative of the National Labor Relations Board, which may result in a public hearing and a possible order to take action now requested. If we grant it, we may be interfering with the right of our employees to bargain through the Staley Employees' Organization. On April 14, 1938, 800, approximately 80 per cent, of the respond- ent's production employees, signed petitions requesting the respondent to continue to recognize the S. E. 0. as the "collective bargaining agency" of said employees. These petitions were, circulated by Walter Rinehart, an employee, who testified that he circulated them because 'of the respondent's letter of March 11, 1938. At about the same time, the respondent told Disser that it would not withdraw recognition from the S. E. 0.12 11 This declaration of neutrality read as follows : 1. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargain- ing, or other mutual aid or protection. 2. The company will bargain collectively with any labor organization lawfully authorized so to act. 3. The company will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administra- tion of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. 4. The company does not care what organization represents the employees, and has no right under the law to express such preference if it had one. Our policy is entire neutrality. 5. The company desires to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, and desires to cooperate to the fullest extent with all lawful authority. 11 Annexed to the letter was a copy of the Board's letter to the respondent , informing it of the filing of the charge, and also a copy of a letter sent to Disser by the respondent in reply to his recommendation. 12 There is testimony in the record to the effect that Disser, in the course of his Investi- gation, told Staley and a few of the respondent's employees that no independent union would be certified by the Board, and that he urged some of the employees to join the American Federation of Labor. Disser has denied any such statements or activities, in an affidavit tiled with the Board. ' - - A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY , 675 Sometime in April or early in May 1938, Cleve Ginder, an S. E. 0. employee representative,13 went to the office of C. C. Martin, an at- torney, to see "whether there could be an independent organization organized that would stand.' Thereafter, at frequent intervals, several other S. E. 0. employee representatives met at Martin' s office and at each other's homes, with a view to forming a new, independent organization. As the leaders in the S. E. 0. had all been old E. R. P. representatives, so most of the organizers of the I. S. W. U., the new organization, were officers and employee representatives of the S. E. 0.14 The general feeling among these employees was that the respond- ent preferred to deal with an inside union. Martin, the attorney, testified to this as follows : Q. Was anything said at any of these meetings that the com- pany desired an independent union in the plant? A. Now, there was some innuendo in the air that the company might rather deal with an "independent union," but there was never any statement made to me that the company had said that and I don't recall a conversation with anybody or hearing a conversation in which it was stated the company had said that. Q. Could you tell me what was said that gave you that impression? A. I believe that one or two of them-maybe some more of them, and I don't know who they are now-said that in their opinion they thought the company would rather have the independent union. Q. Did they say why? A. No. No, they didn't. Q. But that was the feeling of the men in the meetings held in your office? A. I can't say what the feeling was. It was just an expression of opinion on the part of two or three that dealt with me there, and I don't remember who they were. In addition, the organizers expressed hostility to the idea of join- ing the American Federation of Labor when this was suggested by Martin. la Ginder had also been an E. R P. employee representative. 14 Of the 17 employees who comprised the organization group of the I. S. W. U , 12 were S. E 0 employee representatives Of these 12, 6 had also been E. R P employee repre- sentatives . Included in the 12 were Harry Bell, George Hewitt, and W E . Robinson, the S E O. president , vice president , and secretary, respectively Bell, the S E 0 president, was chairman of the original I S W. U. organization group. Moreover, of the 9 employee representatives subsequently elected by the I . S. W. U. members , 6 were former S. E. O. representatives. 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In May 1938, while the I. S. W. U. was being organized, the S. E. 0. employee representatives met and voted to dissolve the S. E. 0. and submit the question of dissolution to the employees. This meeting was attended by the attorney, Martin, at the request of S. E. 0. employee representatives,, some of whom were also part of the I. S. W. U. organization group which had been consulting with him. Martin was paid by the S. E. 0. for his services in at- tending this meeting. Talley, an S. E. 0. employee representative, testified that the reason for the vote to dissolve was that "there had been some of us working on another organization before this meet- ing. We wanted it dissolved so that we could organize another one." A few days thereafter, W. E. Robinson, the secretary-treas- urer of the S. E. 0., told Talley that he had changed his mind about dissolution of the S. E. 0. because he and Ben Garner, another S. E. 0. employee representative, had gone to see Dr. Robert Edman Greenfield, the assistant general superintendent of the plant, and said to him, "Doctor, we're on the spot. We don't know what to do. We want you to tell us what the Company wants to do," and that Greenfield had answered, "All right, I will tell, but if any- body asks anything about it, you are just a damn liar; I didn't tell you anything. The company wants you to fight it. If you throw this one out before another one is organized you never will get another one in." 15 Greenfield admitted at the hearing that Robinson and Garner had, in substance, addressed the above-quoted remarks to him, but he denied making the response attributed to him. He tes- tified that his answer was, "That problem is something for you boys to work out .for yourself." At any rate, a week after the S. E. 0. employee representatives had voted to dissolve the S. E. 0., they met at the plant; under pressure of the members, and rescinded their action. . Sometime in June 1938, representatives of Local No. 21490 asked the'respondent to post a notice to the effect that the respondent had no objection to its employees joining any organization they chose to, join. The respondent 'contended that this was unnecessary, in view of its neutrality declaration of March 11, 1938, and did not post the notice. Harold Behnke, the secretary of Local No. 21490, told Staley that there were employees in the plant who, in his opinion, were afraid to join Local No. 21490, for fear of reprisal by the re- spondent. Staley told Behnke that if Behnke would show him one man who felt that way, Staley "would be delighted to personally assure that man of what his rights were," and also suggested to "The entire conversation between Gieenfield and Robinson and Garner was testified to by John Talley , as it had been related to him by Robinson Neither Robinson nor Garnet; both employees and prominent I. S W. U. members , was called by either the respondent or the I S W. U. to deny Talley's testimony. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 677 Behnke that he show such an employee the respondent's letter of March 11, 1938. The organizers of the I. S. W. U. continued to hold meetings at their homes and at Martin's office. Martin testified that the personnel of the committees which visited him kept changing and that he was often confused as to whether he was attending a S. E. O. or an I. S. W. U. meeting. In addition to discussing with Martin the forma- tion of a new organization, the men also discussed with him the termination of the S. E. O. "Joint Agreement." On June 27, 1938, eight of the organizers adopted a constitution for the I. S. W. U. which had been prepared by Martin. After the adoption of the con- stitution, the drive for I. S. W. U. members started. Open I. S. W. U. meetings were called, beginning on July 1, 1938, at which the constitution was read and explained, and members were enrolled. These meetings were presided over by Jesse Stark, an S. E. O. em- ployee representative. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether Stark, at the opening meeting, told the employees that since the respondent had been antagonistic toward organized labor for so long, he believed that the organization that he was sponsoring had the best chance of negotiating an agreement with the respondent. During the month of July, Stark, with the permission of his fore- man, conducted some I. S. W. U. organizational meetings during his own working hours but deductions were made in his pay for taking such time off. The internal structure of the I. S. W. U. as set forth in its "Arti- cles of Agreement" 16 differed from the structure of the E. R. P. and the S. E. O. Under the I. S. W. U., the employees were divided into three groups, processing, service, and mechanical, each group having three representatives. Dues of 50 cents per month were provided for. During the week of July 11, 1938, three S. E. O. employee repre- sentatives called at Staley's office and requested recognition of the I. S. W. U. as the collective bargaining agent of the respondent's employees. Staley told them that he would recognize any labor organization that submitted evidence to him of its representation of a majority of the respondent's employees. At this time, the S. E. O. "Joint Agreement" was still operative, but Staley did not mention this fact at the conference. On July 18, 1938, the S. E. O. employee representatives voted to terminate the "Joint Agreement" and so notified the respondent. The respondent, on the following day, acknowledged receipt of the notice of termination and withdrew recognition from the S. E. O. as the collective bargaining agent of 18 These were the bylaw s of the I. S W. U. 233033-41-vol 22--44 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD its employees. The question of terminating the S. E. O. agreement was never voted upon by the S. E. O. membership. Soon after the termination of the S. E. O. agreement, an I. S. W. U. committee again requested of the respondent recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. The committee brought with them a package which they said contained the I. S. W. U. membership applications of more than 51 per cent of the employees. Staley suggested to the committee that they take their evidence of membership to a firm of accountants, Murphy and Nash and Jones, of Decatur, Illinois, and said that he would send the accountants a certified copy of the respondent's pay roll, for signa- ture comparison. This was done, and on August 16, 1938, Murphy and Nash and Jones certified to the respondent that 754, 63.15 per cent, of 1,194 hourly paid employees, had signed applications for membership in the I. S. W. U. The respondent paid the accountants $100 for their services in this respect. The I. S. W. U. paid no part of their fee. On August 19, 1938, the respondent granted recogni- tion to the I. S. W. U. as the exclusive collective bargaining repre- sentative of its hourly paid employees. Up to the time of the hearing, no contract had been signed between the respondent and the I. S. W. U., although they had conducted negotiations for one on the average of twice a week during August, September, October, and November, 1938, and had reached a sub- stantial accord on the general terms of an agreement. The I. S. W. U. members had a voice in these negotiations through meet- ings at which employee representatives were given instructions. The I. S. W. U. employee representatives were paid by the respond- ent for their time spent in conducting these negotiations, whether or not during working hours. As to the payments for negotiations during non-working hours, Dr. Greenfield testified that the respond- ent had not wished to make them, but that it had done so at the insistence of the I. S. W. U. after several days of negotiation. As it had with the S. E. 0., the respondent, at the request of the I. S. W. U., honored wage assignments, executed by a number of its employees, authorizing the check-off from their wages of I. S. W. U. dues. The form of wage assignment used had been sub- mitted by the I. S. W. U. and revised by the respondent's attorneys. Up to November 15, 1938, the respondent had checked off $1432.00 in dues to the organization. John W. Talley, a member of Local No. 2149017 and an employee of the respondent, testified that on December 9, 1938, his foreman, Phil Wills, told him that "we was better off and that things would "Talley had been an employee representative under the E R P. and the S. E 0, and was one of the organizers of the I S . W U. Ile left the I. S. W. U. in the early stages of its formation and joined Local No. 21490. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 679 be a damn sight better under the present administration than they would be if we had a union in here, because the jobs would fill up more if we had a union in here." Wills testified that he did not recall making the statement and that he had been instructed by the respondent on several occasions not to interfere, in the employees' union activities. He did not, however, deny making the statement and we find that it was made as testified to by Talley. 4. Conclusions as to the E. R. P., the S. E. 0., and the I. S. W. U. In its brief filed with the Trial Examiner, the respondent admits that ". . . there is no question but what the respondent did certain acts with reference to the formation of the E. R. P. which the Board would now consider acts of domination and influence over the organization." This admission is fully justified by the facts. The E. R. P. was organized on company time and property, not only with the respondent's knowledge and consent, but also with its active encouragement. In view of the respondent's prior refusals to entertain the idea of an employees' representation plan, its en- couragement of and assistance to the E. R. P. coincident with the attempts of Local No. 20014 to organize its employees, can be in- terpreted only as a deliberate attempt to frustrate such organiza- tional activity. The respondent prepared the petitions for the formation of the E. R. P. and, while the petitions were being circu- lated, advised its employees that it favored such an organization; its question-and-answer brochure further indicated its partiality to the plan and its bias against "outside" unions. The respondent sug- gested the form of the plan, financed it, prepared its materials, per- formed services for it, paid its representatives, and dominated it by means of joint participation in E. R. P. committees and the power to veto its acts. The E. R. P. collected no dues to support it and its members never held a meeting. These facts conclusively demonstrate that the E. R. P. was the responden s creature and incapable of serving the employees as their genuin representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. We find that the respondent domin ted and interfered with the formation and administration of the . R. P. and contributed fi- nancial and other support thereto, an that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 o the Act. The S. E. 0. was merely the old E. R. P. revamped and revised, and was so viewed by both the respondent and the E. R. P. employee rep- resentatives who organized it. The structure of the S. E. O., devised -by E. R. P. representatives, was essentially the same as that of the E. R. P., devised by the respondent. The E. R. P. members had no 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD part in the revision and were merely advised of the change in organization by the distribution to them of S. E. 0. membership cards. The E. R. P. representatives adopted the S. E. 0, bylaws and negotiated the S. E. 0. "Joint Agreement" with the respondent, at which time the respondent did not even request proof of majority representation. Membership cards and wage-assignment forms were distributed and elections were held on company time and property without objection by the respondent. The organization was governed, as was the E. R. P., by joint employer-employee committees, to whose decisions the approval of the respondent's representatives was neces- sary. This participation by the respondent in the administration of the S. E. 0. rendered the organization incapable of serving as an effective collective bargaining agent for the respondent's employees. Again, there was no provision for membership meetings and S. E. 0. representatives held their meetings on the respondent's property. The respondent ceased paying them for their time spent in their own conferences but continued to pay them for their working and non- working time spent in conference with the management. In addition, the respondent assisted the S. E. 0. by granting it the privilege of a check-off of its members' dues. Although this was granted at the request of the S. E. 0., we find that the respondent complied with this request as a means of assisting an organization which it dominated and which it desired to continue in existence. It is thus clear that the revision and revamping of the E. R. P. in June 1937 to form the S. E. 0. did not result in the formation of a new organization free from the respondent's domination and support. We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the S. E. 0. and contributed finan- cial and other support thereto, and that the respondent thereby inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. With respect to the I. S. W. U., we reach the same conclusion. The I. S. W. U. was the third of an unbroken 18 succession of company, sponsored and company-dominated labor organizations in the re- spondent's plant, and was organized by representatives of the S. E. 0., the second of such organizations, while the S. E. 0. was still in ex- istence. In July 1935 when the respondent informed its employees of its preference for an "inside" union, the employees, encouraged, ad- vised and financed by the respondent, formed the type of oiganiza- . tion desired by the respondent. "It is at the stage of `formation' that employer activity is most effective and harmful.719 The E. R. P.'s 18 In 1937, the transition from the E . R P. to the S E 0 consisted of mere revision. In 1938, the I. S W. U. claimed its majority the day after the S. E. O. agreement was terminated. 1D See Senate Committee on Education and Labor Print Comparison of S. 2961, 73d Cong., and S 1958 , 74th Cong., p. 27. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 681 and the S. E. O.'s history of the respondent's initiation, participation, and support inevitably shaped the attitude of the respondent's em- ployees toward those organizations and their successor, the I. S. W. U., as well as toward inside organizations generally. This is clear also from the evidence that in 1937 E. R. P. employee represent- atives asked Staley "how far we could go" in changing Part II of the E. R. P., that in 1938 S. E. O. employee representatives asked Greenfield "what the company wants to do" about the S. E. 0., and that when they came to Attorney Martin "there was some innuendo in the air that the company might rather deal with an `independent union"' and that a few of them said that "in their opinion they thought the company would rather have the independent union." The respondent contends that it advised its employees of its im- partiality in union matters in its letter of March 11, 1938. This letter, however, was -sent to the employees a month before the I. S. W. U. was conceived and four months before it was organized and the S. E. O. agreement canceled; the letter was a lengthy docu- ment, and concerned itself with matters in addition to the respond- ent's declaration of neutrality in labor matters. Under the circum- stances it was not effective as a neutrality declaration. That the respondent never intended effectively to proclaim neutrality is indicated by its, 'refusal to post a short, concise declaration of neutrality in June 1938 at the request of Local No. 21490, when S. E. O. representatives were organizing the I. S. W. U., particularly in view of the respondent's expressed preference for an inside organi- zation over a period of three years. The leaders and organizers of the I. S. W. U., most of whom represented the previous company-dominated organizations, adopted consistently with their past pattern of conduct, bylaws for the new organization before it was even formed and read them to the em- ployees as they were enrolled for membership. The respondent's payment to Murphy and Nash and Jones for the certification of the I. S. W. U., in the absence of any explanation therefor, its payment of I. S. W. U. representatives for their non-working time spent in conference with the management, its regrant of the check-off privi- lege, when viewed in the light of the respondent's past partiality to and support of the E. R. P. and the S. E. 0., and its refusal to reaffirm neutrality, clearly constituted domination of and inter- ference with the I. S. W. U. by the respondent and contribution of support to it. It is apparent from all the foregoing that the pattern of employee control, which was initiated with the E. R. P., became firmly in- grained in the employees' minds, and that they were at all times fully aware of their own lack of independence. The effect upon the 682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees of the respondent's relationship with the E. R. P. and the S. E. O. was therefore not eliminated with the abandonment of those organizations. The I. S. W. U. could have been viewed by the re- spondent's employees only as the successor to the E. R. P. and the S. E. 0., and hence as a company-sponsored organization, and it is thus clear that the respondent's activities and influence with respect to and its support of the E. R. P. and the S. E. O. persisted in such fashion as to accomplish directly the organization of the I. S. W. U.20 Not only, however, by the effect of the respondent's influence in the formation of the I. S. W. U. is its domination of and interference with that organization made clear, but also by the respondent's subsequent acts with reference to the administration of that organization. We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the I. S. W. U. and contributed financial and other support thereto, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion In October 1938 a grievance was filed by the I. S. W. U. and the respondent was requested by it to put certain jobs "up for bid." 21 Guy Dudley and Raymond Nihiser were cube-machine operators whose jobs, among others, were as a result put up for bid. The matter was handled by the respondent as a grievance of the I. S. W. U., of which neither Dudley nor Nihiser was a member. However, the respondent claimed at the hearing that they were entitled to be heard as individuals and that they had been so advised. There had been a previous request to put these jobs up for bid in 1936, but the respondent had failed to do so. Dudley and Nihiser protested in vain to the respondent that the jobs should not have been put up for bid. A few days later they conferred with Bell and Beals,22 two I. S. W. U. employee representatives. The testimony is in conflict as to what Dudley and Nihiser were told by the representa- tives, but it is uncontradicted that Beals told them that he could represent only I. S. W. U. members, and that Dudley and Nihiser joined the I. S. W. U. at that time. Dudley testified that he and Nihiser had joined because Beals had told them, "If you guys will 20 Cf. Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company and Telephone Operators Union, Local 175-A, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al, 12 N. L. R. B. 375. But see Matter of Magnolia Petroleum Company and Oil Workers International Union, Locals Nos. 280 and 378, 19 N. L. R. B. 184. 21 Putting jobs "up for bid" was the procedure by which jobs which were "open" were filled by employees having the most seniority. 22 Beals' named is spelled "Beel" In that portion of the record concerned with this con- troversy. This is obviously a stenographic error. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING - COMPANY 683 sign up, you can set in on the hearing" (referring to the discussion between the respondent and the I. S. W. U. with respect to the posting of the jobs for bids). Beals denied that he had said this, and testified that he merely told the men that he could represent only members of the I. S. W. U. Inasmuch as the jobs were posted at the instance of the I. -S. W. U. and as the grievance was being handled by the respondent as an I. S. W. U. grievance, we infer and find that Dudley and Nihiser joined the I. S. W. U. because they felt that it would be more advantageous to them to be heard as I. S. W. U. members than as individuals, and that this feeling was prompted by the respondent's known partiality toward the I. S. W. U. As we have already found that the respondent dominated -and interfered with the formation and administration of the I. S. W. U. and contributed financial and other support thereto,-we further find that the use by the respondent of the grievance machinery set up by it in conjunction with the I. S. W. U. operated in this instance as a device to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON' COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and with foreign countries and tend to. lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the E. R. P., the S. E. 0., and the I. S. W. U., and has contributed financial and other support to these organizations. - We shall order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom. In order to free the employees from the respond- ent's domination and interference and their attendant effects, to restore to them the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and otherwise -to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall also order 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the respondent to disestablish the I. S. W. U. and to withdraw all recognition from that organization as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall also order the respondent to refuse recognition to. the E. R. P. and the S. E. O. We have found that the respondent deducted from its employees' wages the amounts of their membership dues in the S. E. O. and the I. S. W. U. Such deductions resulted from the same employer domi- nation and interference which gave rise to those organizations. We shall, therefore, in order to restore the status quo, order the re- spondent to refund to each employee from whose wages it deducted or checked off dues in either the S. E. 0., the I. S. W. U., or both, the amount of such deductions or check-offs. 23 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Grain Processors Local No. 21490, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, Employees' Representation Plan, Staley Employee's Organization, and Independent Starch Workers' Union are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of Employees' Representation Plan, Staley Employee's Or- ganization, and Independent Starch Workers' Union, and by con- tributing financial and other support to said organizations, the re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company, Decatur, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 21 See Matter of Mt. Vernon Car Manufacturing Company, a corporation and Local Lodge No. 1756, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel 6 Tin Workers of North America, affil- iated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 11 N. L. R. B. 500. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 685 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Em- ployees' Representation Plan, Staley Employee's Organization, or In- dependent Starch Workers' Union, or with the formation or admin- istration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to Employees' Representa- tion Plan, Staley Employee's Organization, or Independent Starch Workers' Union, or to any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) Recognizing Independent Starch Workers' Union as the repre- sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to Jorm, 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 or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Independent Starch Workers' Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em- ployment, and completely disestablish Independent Starch Workers' Union as such representative; (b) Refuse to recognize Employees' Representation Plan or Staley Employee's Organization as the representative of any of its em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (c) Reimburse each of its employees whose dues in Staley Em- ployee's Organization, Independent Starch Workers' Union, or both, were checked off, for the amounts thus deducted from their wages; (d) Immediately post in conspicuous places in its plant notices to its employees and maintain said notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.