Corn Products Refining Co.

In the Matter of CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY and UNITED CANNERY, AGRICULTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 169 Case No. C-1302.-Decided April 9, 1940 Corn Products Manufacturing Industry-Settlement Agreement: signed by respondent and approved by Regional Director for the Board; although contain- ing no express provision that charges thereby settled, given effect as a settlement in order to carry out intent of agreement and to effectuate the policies of the Act, upon performance by the respondent, who was found not to have engaged thereafter in unfair labor practices (Smith, dissenting) refusing to give agree- ment effect as a settlement under special circumstances of case, and finding that respondent dominated and interfered with the formation of Employees' Asso- Tiation and contributed support thereto prior to agreement and engaged in unfair labor practices after execution of alleged settlement agreement-Complaint: dismissed. Mr. Herbert N. Shenkin, for the Board. Miller, Elliott c Westervelt, by Mr. Frank T. Miller and Mr. Donald 0. Beste, of Peoria, Ill., and Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, by Mr. Richard Grossman, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. Winston, Strawn c Shaw, by Mr. G. B. Christensen and Mr. Thomas S. Tyler, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association. Meyers & Meyers, by Mr. Ben Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND, ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Cannery, Agricul- tural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, Local 169, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Leonard C. Bajork, Regional Director for the Thir- teenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated October 8, 1938, against Corn Products Refining Company, Argo, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 22 N. L. R. B., No. 56. 824 CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 825 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.- 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) instigated the formation of a labor organization known as the Employees Association of the Corn Prod- ucts Refining Company of Argo, Illinois, herein called the Association, and dominated and interfered with its administration; (2) advised, urged, and warned its employees to refrain from joining or retaining their membership in the Union, spied upon its meetings, and in various other ways discouraged its employees from joining or retaining their membership in the Union ; and (3) by the foregoing acts and in other ways interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the re- spondent and the Union. On October 17, 1938, the respondent filed an answer, denying the material allegations of the complaint, and accompanied the answer by a separate written motion to dismiss in which it asserted, among other things, that such allegations were settled on or about January 3, 1938, by an agreement made with the Board and by the performance of the respondent's undertakings therein. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on various dates from December 5, 1938, to January 7, 1939, before Gustaf B. Erickson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the opening of the hearing, the Association moved to intervene; the Trial Examiner allowed the motion together with permission to file an answer; and the Association answered denying the material allega- tions of the complaint.' The Board, the respondent, the Association, and -the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. The Trial Examiner denied a motion of the Association for a bill of particulars with respect to the allegations of the amended charge and complaint relating to unfair labor practices. At various stages of the proceeding counsel for the respondent and for the Asso- ciation moved that the complaint be dismissed. The Trial Examiner denied certain of these motions and reserved rulings on others. At the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted motions of coun- sel for the Board for leave to amend the complaint to conform to the proof as to dates and spelling of names, and to make certain other 1 On October 19, 1938, the Regional Director had denied a prior application of the Association , made October 18, to intervene, and the Board , on November 2, 1938, had denied a request of the Association , made October 27, for review of the Regional Director's action. The order of the Board , however, recited that it was made without prejudice to the right of the Association to renew its application for intervention at the hearing. 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD corrections in the transcript. The Trial Examiner also allowed a motion of the respondent to take depositions of certain witnesses.2 Numeious other motions and objections to the admission of evidence were made and ruled upon at the hearing. The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to leave, counsel for the respondent, the Association, and the Union filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, dated June 3, 1939, copies of which were duly served upon the re- spondent, the Association, and the Union. In the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner sustained the contention that the respondent and the Board had settled by agreement the alleged unfair labor practices occurring prior thereto and, therefore, he made no findings concerning the allegations of the complaint with respect to such unfair labor practices. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices thereafter, granted the motions of counsel for the respondent and for the Association to dismiss, and recommended dismissal of the complaint. On June 17, 1938, the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the rulings of the Trial Examiner. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument upon the exceptions was held on March 5, 1940, before, the Board in WTash- ington, D. C. The respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the argument; the Association submitted a brief in the form of a letter to the Board. After the oral argument the respondent submitted to the Board a "Supplemental Statement" in the nature of a brief. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the briefs filed by each of the parties and finds the exceptions to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The respondent, Corn Products Refining Company, is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of products made from corn , including syrups, starches, oils, and allied products. It owns and operates plants in Argo, Illinois; Pekin, Illi- 2 The depositions, taken before a notary public on January 11, 1939, are hereby made a part of the record. 3 The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of fact between counsel for the respondent and counsel for the Board. CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 827 nois; Kansas City, Missouri; and Edgewater, New Jersey, and main- tains its principal office and place of business in New York City. The respondent controls affiliated corporations which operate plants in 13 foreign countries. Most of these, affiliates are owned entirely by the respondent. This proceeding is concerned only with the Argo plant where the respondent employs between 1300 and 1400 workers. During the period from November 1, 1937, to November 1, 1938, the respondent purchased for use in production at the Argo plant approxi- mately $6,200,000 worth of raw materials. Approximately 55 per cent of these raw materials were purchased outside the State of Illinois. During the same period the respondent manufactured at the Argo plant products having a value exceeding $20,000,000, of which the respondent sold and shipped approximately 85 per cent from that plant to points outside the State of Illinois. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, Local 169, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Employees Association of the Corn Products Refining Company of Argo, Illinois, is an unaffiliated labor organization. Both organizations admit to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE AGREEMENT COMPROMISING THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The compromise On November 15, 1937, the Board's Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region advised the respondent by letter that there had been filed against it a charge alleging "interference with employees in their right to join" . . . the Union and "domination and assistance in the formation of a company union," and assigned a Field Examiner to investigate the matter. The Field Examiner visited the respond- ent's plant, interviewed employees, and consulted with the manage- ment. On or about January 3, 1938, a conference took place at which the respondent was represented by its plant manager, the Union by an organizer, and the Board by its Field Examiner. As a result of the Field Examiner's investigation and the conference, the respondent signed an agreement, dated January 4, 1938,4 which recited as its object the compromise of differences growing out of the charge and 4The respondent signed a similar agreement , dated January 3, 1938. Since the January 3 agreement omitted any reference to the filing of it charge within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, the respondent agreed with the Field Examiner to substitute therefor the agreement of January 4. 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the effectuation of the policies of the Act . 5 In the agreement the respondent undertook to refrain from conduct proscribed by the Act and to post notices pledging itself to a policy of observance of the law. The Regional Director noted his approval of the agreement on itsaface; and the Field Examiner and the representative of the Union signed the instrument as attesting witnesses to the signature of the respond- ent's plant manager. The respondent promptly posted the requisite notices and main- tained them for at least the period required by the agreement. On May 18, 1938, the Regional Director wrote the respondent that there had been filed a charge 6 alleging that the respondent had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Associa- tion, and in reply to a request from the respondent for an explanation of the reopening of the matter, the Regional Director answered on May 24, 1938, that The present charge has been filed . . . in view of additional evidence that the union wishes to present. . . . The allegations (of the charge) refer to substantially the same matter as was previously investigated. Shortly thereafter, the Regional Director designated another Field Examiner who conducted a further investigation of the charge here involved. As we have stated above, the filing of an amended charge and the issuance of a complaint followed on October 8, 1938. B. Conclusions regarding the compromise We have heretofore held that we would give effect to an agreement made in settlement of unfair labor practices allegedly engaged in by an employer and would refrain from examining the evidence concerning such practices if an agent of the Board participated in the settlement and if the employer observed the terms of the settlement agreement and did not thereafter continue to engage in unfair labor practices.7 5 The agreement in part provided A charge having been filed with the REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the THIRTEENTH REGION, by the UNITED CANNERY, AGRICULTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 169 UNION, alleging that the CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 , Subdivisions ( 1), (2), and (3), of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, a meeting of a representative of the Union, the Employer, and an Agent of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was arranged , and, for the purpose of effectuating the policies of the Act and compromising the differences, the Employer agrees : . . . "This charge, as amended , forms the basis for the initiation of the present proceeding In Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Local No. 26, 11 N. L. R B 885, which involved an .agreement, participated in by an agent of the Board , for the compromise of certain alleged unfair CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 829 In the present case, although there was no oral or written agreement that the Union would withdraw the charge or that the Board would not issue a complaint predicated upon the alleged unfair labor prac- tices adjusted by the January 4 agreement, we think it plain, as the respondent contends,8 that implicit in the recital of its objectives was an understanding that the pending charge would not be pressed as long as the respondent complied with the provisions of the adjustment, and did not thereafter engage in any unfair labor practices.9 We pass to a consideration of the question as to whether or not the respondent did engage in any unfair labor practices after January 4, 1938, the date of the agreement. On January 19, 1938, Sam Lynch, an extra employee, while wearing a C. I. O. button, applied for work in the absence of the employment manager's assistant to J. R. Stanley, the respondent's receptionist and visitors' tour guide, who occupied a desk outside the glass-enclosed office of the employment manager. labor practices of the employer, the Board said in support of its decision to refrain from a consideration of the alleged unfair labor practices and to dismiss the complaint' Although we do not agree that the compromise agreement estops the Board from proceeding herein, we believe that effective administration of the Act requires that the Board's agents have the respect and confidence of labor organizations and employers with «hoin their work bungs them in contact Repudiation of agreements entered into and relied on in good faith necessarily impairs such respect and confidence. See, also, Matter of Hope Webbing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee of the C 1 0 , Local No 111, 14 N L R B 55, Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Die, and Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No 21171 and No 2188, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N L It B 568; Matter of Stromberq-Carlson Telephone Manu- factitring Company and United Electrical, Radio d Machine Workers of America, Local No 500, 18 N I R B, 526; Cf Matter of Corinth Hosiery Mill, Inc, and American Federation of Hosiei y 11'oi kers. 16 N L R B 414, where the Board sustained allega- tions that the respondent had engaged in discriminatory discharges and acts of inter- ference within the meaning of the Act and refused to give effect to a settlement agicement, inasmuch as the employer had thereafter continued to engage in unfair labor practices See, also, Matter of Ifarry A Half, doing business as the 11alff Manufacturing Company and International Ladies' Gaiincitt Workers' Union, 16 N I, R B 667, Matter of The Van Iderstine Company and District #50 of the United Mine Workers of America, 17 N L R B 771; Mattei of Chicago Casket Company and Casket Makeis Union, No. 19306. 4ffiliated lVith tlieAinericon Federation of Labor, 21 N L It B 235 sAt the oral argument before the Board, counsel for the respondent made statements which might be constined to indicate that the respondent at no time relied upon the agreement as a settlement of the charge In our opinion, however, by these statements counsel intended to emphasize the respondent's contention that it had not engaged in any unfair labor practices, and particularly, that its signing of the agreement should not be regarded as an implied admission that it had violated the Act Counsel also asserted at the oral argument that if, in fact. the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices, the respondent "should not be spared by reason of the agreement" However, in view of the consistent position that the respondent maintained in its pleadings, at the hearing before the Trial Examiner, and in its briefs, we do not think that counsel intended at the oral argument to alter the respondent's position to the extent of waiving the agreement as a defense to the complaint e See Matter of J Dunitz, doing business under the firm name and style of Gloray Knitting Mills and Joint Council of Knit Goods Workers Union, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local No 155, 19 N L R B 712, where, although there was no express provision in the compromise agreement for dismissal of the charge that the respondent had previously engaged in certain unfair labor practices. the Board dismissed such charge without examining the merits, on finding that such a result should be Implied from the circumstances surrounding the agreement and that the respondent did not engage thereafter in any unfair labor practice. 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lynch testified that Stanley, who was also the Association secretary, inquired whether the applicant belonged to the Association and that when he replied in the negative, Stanley stated: "Well, you know that we have to take care of our members first. All the union people'. draw a check every week. If you don't belongs (sic) to our union, I don't know." At the hearing Stanley denied that he made the statement quoted above and asserted that he had advised Lynch that the respond- ent followed a policy of seniority in hiring help. We do not'deem it necessary to resolve this conflict in the evidence in view of our finding infra that the respondent is not chargeable with Stanley's statements or acts. In any event, when Lynch evinced an interest in joining the Association, Stanley produced an Association membership card, en- rolled Lynch as a member, and hired him to distribute Association literature outside the plant gates. By prearrangement with Stanley, Lynch found the literature the next morning alongside Stanley's desk and a sandwich sign bearing the inscription "Employees Association" in a locker located in a room used by the respondent's plant doctor. There was no showing that the respondent's officials were aware of Stanley's use of the respondent's facilities for such Association equip= ment. Employment Manager Ben Gibbs, Stanley, and a company policeman, separately, warned Lynch not to distribute the material within the plant gates, and on one occasion when he sought refuge in the employment office from the cold, he was compelled by Gibbs and Stanley to remove the sign from his person while he remained inside. For distributing the leaflets that day Lynch was paid the sum of $3.00 in cash by Stanley, who took the money from an envelope which he removed from his pocket. Lynch did not receive any employment by the respondent after joining the Association, except a few days' occasional work similar to that which he had received in ,the past as an extra helper. There is also testimony given by Alex Munday that some time in February 1938 he saw a box of Association buttons and some member- ship cards on Stanley's desk and, on the same occasion, witnessed Stanley furnishing a supply of such cards and buttons to an Associ- ation committeeman during working hours when Rudolph Tiachacek, Gibbs' assistant, was in the employment office. While Stanley admits that he kept Association paraphernalia on his desk, occasionally dis- tributed it to Association committeemen, and performed part of his duties as secretary of the Association in the employment office, he testified that he took precaution to conceal his activity from company officials, and Gibbs and Tiachacek testified that they had never ob- served Association membership cards or buttons on Stanley's desk. CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY - 831 Stanley had no authority to hire any person for the respondent. Occasionally he handed application blanks to persons seeking employ, went and answered their inquiries; in certain instances he read aloud to those assembled in the office 'the names of persons chosen for em- ployment from a list made up by Gibbs or Tiachacek. While the circumstances surrounding his Association activities on company time and property are suspect, Stanley's relationship to the respondent is not such as to charge it with responsibility for his conduct, and the evidence does not establish that Stanley acted at the instance of the respondent or with its approval. Marshall Garmon, an employee, testified that he overheard Louis Brandt, refinery foreman, assure Leo Green, an extra employee who had been recalled to work after' a lay-off, a steady job if he would wear an Association button. At the hearing Brandt specifically denied this testimony. Green was not called as a witness. While both on direct examination by the Board and cross-examination by the respondent, Garmon maintained that the alleged statement was made in February 1938, on cross-examination by the intervenor, Garmon testified that Green was recalled to work in April or May 1938, and that the state- ment was made thereafter. The respondent's records, however, show that Green returned to work on October 11, 1937. In view of this fact and the confused state of Garmon's testimony as to the date of the alleged occurrence, we find that Brandt did not make the state- ment attributed to him by Garmon. Both before and after the date of the agreement the respondent refused to treat with the Union in respect to grievances on the ground that the employees had designated the Association as their exclusive bargaining representative. Since the Union did not -represent a ma- jority of the employees, and consequently did not enjoy status as their exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, under the circumstances the respondent's refusal to discuss grievances with the Union does not constitute an unfair labor practice io We find that the respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices subsequent to January 4, 1938. Since the respondent posted the required notices and maintained them for the period specified in the agreement and did not thereafter engage in any unfair labor prac- tices, we shall give effect to the compromise agreement and accordingly refrain from considering the events which transpired prior to Janu- ary 4, 1938, in connection with the charge of unfair labor practices, and dismiss the complaint. 10 See Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills and Local No. 1221, United Textile Workers of America, 2 N. L It. B 952, enf'd as mod, Mooresville Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 94 F. ( 2d) 61. 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following : CONcrusIONs OF LAW 1. The operation of the business of the respondent constitutes a con- tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of America, Local 169, and Employees Association of the Corn Prod- ucts Refining Company of Argo, Illinois, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) 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 complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting : I do not concur in the decision to dismiss the complaint. In my opinion the agreement of January 4, 1938, under the circumstances of this case, should not preclude an examination of the evidence with respect to the events which took place prior to its execution. The agreement made no provision for the withdrawal of the charge, and so far as the record discloses, the charge was never withdrawn. Ob- viously, if the charge were true, the agreement was inadequate to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act since it bound the respondent to do no more than obey the Act in the future. This the respondent was already under obligation to do. Although the respondent posted notices pledg- ing itself to a program of observance of the Act, as the agreement re- quired it to do, it cannot be said that the respondent acted in any sub- stantial degree in reliance upon the agreement as a settlement of the charge. Indeed, counsel for the respondent stated at the oral argument that the respondent did not intend that the agreement operate as a vehicle for the repair of unfair labor practices. On the contrary, he argued that the respondent did not regard the agreement as a settle- ment of the pending charge and urged the Board to ignore the agree- ment as a defense, if it found that the respondent had engaged in any unfair labor practices, thus abandoning the position it took prior to the oral argument. An examination of the entire record reveals ample evidence, credible in character, that immediately following the advent of the Union in the respondent's plant in the latter part of April 1937, the respondent CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 833 engaged in a series of acts calculated to influence its employees against the Union. The respondent's supervisors 11 questioned the workers about their participation in the union movement, warned them against possible loss of benefits because of affiliation with the Union, belittled the advantages to be gained from the Union, and disparaged it and its leaders. In addition to the afore-mentioned acts to discourage self- organization of its employees, on May 25 the respondent posted on its bulletin board a unilateral statement of employment policy providing for the maintenance of the status quo in the plant as to wages, hours, and working conditions. One of the basic reasons for employees form- ing a labor organization is to obtain representation for the purpose of collective bargaining with their employer. By posting the statement of policy in the early stages of the Union's organizational campaign unilaterally fixing wages, hours, and working conditions, the respond- ent sought to eliminate the necessity for collective bargaining through the Union on those matters of primary concern to its employees. The, intended and necessary effect of the respondent's act, following its out- spoken opposition to the Union, was to divert its employees from adherence to the Union. On May 26, the day following the posting of the statement of policy, the respondent posted on its bulletin board a notice of a rule pro- hibiting solicitation in the plant. As appears hereinafter, the rule was invoked principally to curb the Union. On May 29, within 3 days after the posting of the rule, a group of employees adopted the respondent's open hostility to the Union and formed the Association for the purpose, among others, of combatting the Union. This was accomplished with the aid of almost the same group of supervisory employees who had previously made known to the employees the re- spondent's opposition to the Union. Some of these supervisory employees actively campaigned for Association members in the plant despite the presence of notices forbidding solicitation on the premises. By June 4, after a period of 5 days of plant campaigning led by Moe Williams '12 who. left his work to range among the employees in many of the respondent's plant buildings, the Association enrolled as mem- bers "more than 60 per cent" of the employees, and on the same day requested recognition as their exclusive bargaining representative. On June 9 the respondent extended such recognition upon proof of major- ity representation. It is incredible that the Association could have made such rapid progress in the plant, especially in the face of the company 11 These included top foremen , substitute foremen, and gang leaders. None of them had the power to hire or discharge employees, but all made recommendations with respect thereto to their supervisors or to the employment manager. 12 Williams was an employee with a service record of approximately 15 years, whose duties were divided between acting as chauffeur for company officials, tool-crib attendant, and pattern caretaker. 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rule forbidding plant solicitation, without the respondent's encourage- ment and support. Indeed, in printed instructions issued to foremen in April 1937, the respondent approved their giving employees "advice or information ... regarding organization." Moreover, while the re- spondent constantly reminded known or suspected union adherents of the rule forbidding plant solicitation, it was not until the Asso- ciation had enrolled a majority of the employees by widespread organ- izational activity in the plant that the respondent's industrial relations manager requested the Association's leading promoter, Williams, to curtail his organizational activity in the plant. While Williams can- not be classified as a supervisory employee, I am satisfied that the gen- eral solicitation in which Williams had engaged in the plant did not -go unnoticed by the respondent and that Williams pursued these :activities with the management's knowledge and acquiescence. Even after the signing of the agreement of January 4, 1938, the respondent pursued its policy of assistance and support to entrench the Association as the representative of its employees. While its con- duct thereafter is not shown to have been as serious an interference with the rights of its employees as its conduct before the agreement, it did contribute further support to the Association. Thus, J. R. 'Stanley, who occupied a strategic position for organizational purposes at a desk outside the office of the respondent's employment manager, where he supplied persons seeking employment with application blanks, and in at least certain instances notified them of work assign- ments in the plant, served as secretary of the Association and carried on Association business on company time and property. Inasmuch as the respondent knew of Stanley's position as secretary of the Asso- ciation, it is difficult to believe that activities conducted so openly did not come to the respondent's attention or that Stanley engaged in such acts without its approval. A consideration of the entire course of the respondent's conduct shows that the respondent has discouraged membership in the Union, has dominated and interfered with the for- mation and administration of the Association and has contributed sup- port to it, and I would so find. I would issue an appropriate order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and, affirmatively, to withdraw recognition from the Associa- tion as a representative of its employees and to disestablish it as such representative.