Standard Steel Works Co.

In the Matter Of STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF LODGE No. 1940, AMALGAMATED ASSN. OF IRON, STEEL & TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA ''I Case No. C-812.-Decided August 9, 1940 Jurisdiction : steel product manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices. In General: respondent's responsibility for acts of supervisory employees. Company-Dominated Union: employer's participation' in formation and adminis- tration of: supervisory employees' membership in, attendance at meetings, solicitation of members, and collecting dues-contribution of support to, by permitting employees to solicit members and collect dues on company time. Discrimination. allegations of discrimination, dismissed. Remedial Orders : company-dominated union disestablished and its contract abrogated. Mr. W. G. Stuart Sherman, for the Board. Morgan, Lewis cQ Bockius, by Mr. Frederick H. Knight, of Phila-, delphia, Pa., and Mr. Gilbert H. Montague and Mr. A. A. Clifford Hansen, both of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. Anthony Wayne Smith, of Washington, D. C., for the S. W. O. C. Mr. Howard 0. Lantz, of Lewistown, Pa., for the Independent. Mr. David Delman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges,and amended charges duly filed by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., on behalf of Lodge No. 1940, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Stpel & Tin Workers of North America, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles T. Douds, Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint, dated May 5, 1938, against Standard Steel Works Company, Burn- ham, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),,(2), and 26 N L. R. B., No. 41. 447 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (3) 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 respondent and the S. W. O. C. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that at all times since April 15, 1937, the respondent made known to its employees its hostility to the Committee for Industrial Organization; that the respondent coerced and intimidated persons lawfully engaged in soliciting members on behalf of the S. W. O. C.; that the respondehtIfostered the Independent Steel Workers, Burn- ham, Pennsylvania, herein called the Independent, by soliciting mem- bers for the Independent and threatening loss of employment to cer- tain employees if, said ,employees did not join the Independent; that the respondent tdominated and. interfered with the administration of the Independent and contributed financial and other support to it; that the respondent' discriminatorily demoted' and transferred one named employee and discharged five other named employees 2 be- cause of their membership in, and-activities on behalf of the S. W. O. C.; and that the respondent, by all the aforesaid acts, interfered with, re- strained, and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.' On May 10, 1938, the respondent, appearing specially, filed with the Regional Director,a; written motion praying that the Board furnish certain particulars' in respect of certain paragraphs of the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Lewistown, Pennsylvania, from May 17 to June 1, 1938, before William P. Webb, the Trial Ex- aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Independent4 were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. We find that 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 beginning of the hearing the respondent moved to quash service of the complaint, on the ground that the copy of the com- plaint served upon • the respondent was not a copy of the complaint I Herbert Harpster IPaul Ferguson , Harry De Frehn , Paul Kauffman , Charles McKahps , and Harry Searer ' Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint on May 5, 1938, the S P1 0 C. filed a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondent and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives (?hatter of Standard Steel Works Com- pany and`Sleel Workers Organizing Committee , Case No VI-R-64) On April 18, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to.Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended , ordered that an investigation be conducted and that an appro- priate hearing be provided for upon due notice On the same day the Board , acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2 ), of said Rules and Regulations , ordered the consolida- tion of,the representation case with the instant proceeding On May 3, 1938, the Board granted a request by the S W 0 C that it be permitted to withdraw its petition requesting an investigation and certifi cation of representatives , and ordered the severance of Case No . VI-R-64 from the instant proceeding 4 The Trial Examiner granted a written motion to intervene which was submitted at the hearing by the Independent STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 449 within the meaning of the Act and the Rules and Regulations. The Trial Examiner denied this motion. His ruling is hereby,afl^irmed.' ; The respondent's motion praying that the Board furnish therespond- ent with particulars in respect to certain allegations of the complaint was denied by the Trial Examiner. We hold that the complaint afforded a sufficient basis for apprising the respondent, of the issues of fact it might be called upon to meet. The ruling of the Trial•Examine'r denying the request for particulars is hereby affirmed.'- I" ' '• During the first day of the hearing counsel for''the, respondent also moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds set forth in the motion to quash, because of numerous other alleged irregularities in the pleadings and in the proceeding, because of alleged violations'of the Constitution of the United States, and on numerous other grounds. The Trial Examiner denied the motions to dismiss. -These rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. During the hearing the respondent made a written request, for the issuance of certain subpenas and subpenas duces tecum.s This request was denied by the Trial Examiner and his' ruling is hereby affirmed. At the close of the Board's case counsel for the Board moved to amended the complaint to conform to the proof with respect to varia- tions in minor matters, such as dates and the spelling of names. The motion was granted and the ruling is hereby affirmed. Motions were then made by the respondent's counsel to dismiss on all the grounds stated at the outset of the hearing and on numerous other grounds. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent again moved to dismiss on all the grounds stated in the respondent's motions to dismiss at the outset of the hearing and also on other grounds. The motions were denied by the Trial Examiner and his rulings are hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing the Trial Ex- aminer made various other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, dated July 12, 1938, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 '(6) and (7) of the Act,' and s See Matter of North Electric 1Lianufacturang Company and International Association of 1%Iachanists, Local 1151, 24 N L R B 547 6 The subpenas requested were for J . Warren Madden, Chairman of the Board , Edwin S Smith , member of the Bow d , Charles T Douds, the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, John L. Lewis, Chairman of Committee for Industrial Organization , Philip Murray, Chairman of S. W. 0. C , Clinton S. Golden, Director, Northeastern Region, S W 0 C ; John Doe (the real name being unknown ), chief executive officer of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, J II Carstetter, President of Lodge No 1940 thereof. 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommending that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act, including the disestablishment of the Independent and the rein- statement, with back pay, of five named individuals. On August 15, 1938, the respondent filed a statement of exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the record. On the same date the Independent filed a document entitled" Statement of Intervenor's Exceptions," in which it adopted each and every exception contained in the statement of exceptions filed by the respondent. Pursuant to notice served on the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held on July 25, 1940, before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent and the S. W. 0. C. were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. In its statement of exceptions the respondent contends, among other things, that it was prejudiced by conduct of the Trial Examiner at the hearing, that it was deprived of its right to give testimony, and that, in general, it was denied due process of law and its right to a fair and impartial hearing. We have examined and reviewed the record of the instances at the hearing cited by the respondent in support of its contentions. We are of the opinion that the respondent was afforded full opportunity to give evidence material to the issues, that it was not denied due process of law, and that it was accorded a full and fair hearing; that the conduct complained of was not prejudicial to it. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the record, and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsist- ent with the findings,, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Standard Steel Works Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Baldwin Locomotive Works, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office and manufacturing plant at Burnham, Pennsylvania. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of steel products, such as steel-tired wheels, rolled and forged steel wheels, steel castings, forgings, steel springs, and the like Its plant covers an area of approximately 280 acres of land and consists of some 24 or more buildings. Both the land and the buildings are owned by the respondent. The principal raw materials used in connection with the manufac- ture of the respondent's products are steel scrap, pig iron, iron ore, electrical nickel, fuel oil, coal, sand, clay; and ferro alloys, including manganese, ferro silicas, ferro titanium, spiegeleisin, and vanadium. STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 451 In 1937 the respondent used approximately 361,000 tons of raw materials, about 18 per cent of which came from outside the State of Pennsylvania. The output of the plant in 1937 amounted to some 116,409 tons, having a, total value of about $7,200,000. During the same year the respondent sold and shipped about 60 percent of its finished products to points outside the State of Pennsylvania. In the distribution of its products the respondent utilizes practically every first-class railroad in the United States, motor-trucking facilities, and nine or more steamship lines. It maintains district offices at Eddystone, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; San Francisco, California; and Portland, Oregon. It employs 16 salesmen who travel over the entire country in' the interests of the respondent's business. Baldwin Foreign Sales Department acts as foreign agent for the respondent. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The charges in this proceeding were filed by Steel Workers Organiz- ing Committee on behalf of Lodge No. 1940 of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, herein called Lodge No. 1940. We find that both S. W. O. C. and Lodge No. 1940 are labor organizations affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.7 Lodge No. 1940 admits to membership employees of the respondent except those in supervisory capacities. ' Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, is an un- affiliated labor organization admitting to its membership all shop employees of the respondent except salaried employees. ' III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference with and domination of the Independent ' In November 1933 the Amalgamated- Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of Lewistown, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, attempted to organize the re'spondent's employees. During the'same period efforts were launched to form a "company organiza- tion." In November 1933 notices were posted on bulletin boards in the respondent's plant announcing an organization meeting, which subsequently was held at the Y. M. C. A. John P. Sykes, who at that time was vice president of the respondent, presented a constitution and bylaws and delivered a speech to the assembled employees urging 7 While the record contains no detailed evidence relating to the structure and function of the S W 0 C' and the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, we have found upon numerous occasions in other cases, and the record as a whole in this case makes clear , that steel workers are organized into lodges of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Wokers of North America, which function under the S W. 0 C. The S W n C is a committee composed of representatives of a group of unions affiliated vuith the Congress of Industrial Organizations See Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation , a Delaware Corporation , et at and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 14 N. L. R. B. 539; Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L. R. B. 219, enf'd as mod , Republic Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C A 3) 452 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them to vote for, the proposed organization. Following this speech a vote was taken, by a show of hands. The record does not disclose the results,of the vote. It is clear, however, that an organization, called the Employees Representation Plan, herein called the Plan, was formed and,that it continued.in existence until sometime in 1937. In May 1937 the S. W..0. C. began its organizational activities at the respondent's plant. In June 1937 the Independent was initiated and organized., Ross Hufford, a teacher and an athletic coach in the Lewistown public schools, played a prominent role in the organization of'the- Independent. He was employed by the respondent in the sum- mer.of 1936 as an electrician's helper, and the summer of 1937 as an electrician, in the repair shop. Hufford testified that in the summer of 1937 there was a great deal of talk among the men because some of them knew that the Plan would have to be disbanded since it did not comply with the Act; that he, as a teacher of social science, was familiar with new legislation ; that in conversations with the men he mentioned the choices they had with respect to unions and that one of the employ- ees suggested that they, try to "get something started." On June 8, 1937, Hufford asked-a group of men to attend a meeting to be held the 'following night at the Lewistown Y. M. C. A. He testified that his purpose was to organize "a defense against strike movements." On the night of June 8 three men from the Eddystone plant 8 introduced themselves to Hufford and told him that they had a plan for organizing the respondent's employees. Hufford invited them to speak at the meeting scheduled for the following night. On June 9, 1937,, a, group of approximately 10 men met at the Lewis- town Y. M. C. A. The group included Ira S. Tapler, formerly chairman of the Plan, Dwyer Burkholder, formerly a shop representative for the Plan, and Samuel S. Cooper, who had been a foreman in the coreshop Hufford presided until'Burkliolder was appointed temporary chairman. Burkholder introduced the three men from Eddystone, who stated that,they; had come to help form an independent union. They ex- plained how,they, had'formed the Eddystone organization and how a similar. organization could be formed at, the respondent's plant. ,-,On June 16;,,1937, a general meeting was held at the Burnham Y.IM: C:.A.,for• the purpose of, forming the Independent and electing officers. -John Burtoh;'a_gang boss and formerly a foreman, was elected president. A. committee was appointed to draft a constitution and bylaws. - This committee consisted of Burkholder, Burton, Hufford, and two others. The constitution of the Independent provided for a Board of Trustees which "shall direct the policy" of the Independent. The members of the Independent in each department of the plant 8 The Eddystone plant, located in Eddystone, Pennsylvania, was operated by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, the'parent company of the respondent herein The Federation of Baldwin Employees, organized at Eddystone in May 1937, has been found to be an employer-dominated organization Matter of The Bald- win L'scesnot:ae Works and Steel Workers Organizing Committee. 20 N. L R B. 1100. STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 453 wore to elect a representative committee. This committee was to elect its chairman . The Board of Trustees was composed of these committee chairmen, who automatically became members thereof. On July 20, 1937 , the Independent informed the respondent that it represented a majority of the respondent 's employees and requested recognition as exclusive bargaining representative . The respondent suggested that three arbitrators be appointed to determine whether or not the Independent represented a majority. On August 3, 1937, a committee , consisting of the secretary of,the local Y. M. C. A., the president of a local bank, and a priest in a local church , after compar- ing Independent membership cards and written powers of attorney signed by the employees with the respondent 's employment ,records, certified that the Independent represented 993, out of 1,921 shop employees as of July 23, 1937 . On August 4, 1937, the Independent submitted to the respondent a draft of a proposed agreement . On,the, same day the respondent submitted a proposed agreement which it had. prepared shortly after receipt of the Independent 's, demand for recog- nition. The Independent made no suggestions as to changes , and the contract as prepared by the respondent was signed ; by representatives of the respondent and the Independent on August 5 or 6, 1937. 'The contract was to remain in effect for a period of a year, and , thereafter was terminable by- either party, on 30 , days' notice. ^,,I During June and , July 1937, the period of , organization, of the Independent ,, there was widespread activity in aid of the, Independent among many of the respondents supervisory employees. , This activity, took the form of solicitation of membership, distribution of Independ-, ent, application cards, collection of dues, and , attendance- at, Inde- pendent meetings . The respondent's daily activities . and operations were managed by the, works manager,, Irvin, A. Billiar; the, assistant, works manager, Thomas; the plant engineer in charge of the, plant engineering department , Amos Cole; the master mechanic in, charge of maintenance and construction , Uiiah Showers; and 10 general foremen, each in charge of a separate department . In each of the departments , with,one.or two exceptions , there were supervisory„em; ployees who were subordinate to the general foreman.' .Thus, the open hearth department had three molter bosses and four gang bosses;,the steel foundry and the master mechanic's section each had four gang bosses; the heat-treating department , the tool section, and machine shop No. 1 each had three gang bosses ;, the tire mill and , machine, shop No. 2 each had two gang bosses; the forge , shop and the internal transportation department had one gang boss each .' Starting, in the latter part of 1935 and continuing up-;to the time of the, hearing, Y In addition to those named above, the steel foundry had the following supervisory employees a molding foreman, a mold-closing foreman, a coremaking foreman; a cleaning and finishing foreman, and a, boss flask fitter. The master mechanic's section included a boss electrician, a boss rigger, a boss bricklayer, and a boss fireman - e , o"23429-42-vol. 26-30 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Billiar, at various times, instructed Thomas, Cole, and the foremen to be absolutely impartial in any dealings with employees concerning union activities . A number of the foremen testified that they had complied with these instructions ; none of them testified to the con- trary. It is not claimed , however, that any such ' instructions were given to the gang bosses or melter bosses. A summary of the testimony reveals that out of approximately 30 gang bosses and melter bosses, 16 were active in soliciting mem- bers for the Independent, 7 distributed Independent application cards, 2 collected dues for the Independent , 5 were members of the Independent, and at least 3 attended meetings of the Independent. Practically all of these testified at the hearing. Six admitted that they had solicited membership in the Independent , four admitted that they had distributed Independent application cards, two admitted that they had collected dues, and two admitted that they had attended meetings of the Independent. The record 'discloses that the employees who were classified on the respondent's records as gang bosses were known among the nonsuper- visory employees as "foreman ," " shift foreman," or "boss." They gave orders to the men working under them and supervised their work. They had the power to recommend wage increases and they undoubtedly were consulted concerning the quality of work of their subordinates whenever ' a reduction in personnel became necessary. Depending on the volume of business and on the department in which he was employed , the number of men supervised by a gang boss varied from 5 to 70. John E. Garver was employed in the heat-treating department. He testified that he was a gang boss and that he was in charge of one of three shifts in the department . He had 22 or 23 men under him. Two employees in the heat-treating department testified that Garver was a foreman. Merle Treaster, Charles Hunter, James Hartsock, and Robert Kauffman, employees in the heat-treating department, testified that in July 1937 Garver, carrying with him a bunch of Independent application cards, asked them and others to sign the cards. Garver admitted that he carried Independent cards in his hands and that he distributed them to the employees working under him. He also admitted that he had been a member of the Independent. There is considerable evidence that Garver made threatening and coercive statements during the time when he was engaging in the above-described activities on behalf of the Independent . Robert Kauffman testified that Garver came back to the furnace where Kauffman was firing and said, "Bob , do you want to sign one of these Independent Union cards?" To Kauffman's query, "Is this com- pulsory?" Garver replied , "Well, no, I will write your name down STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 455 here." When Kauffman asked, "What do you mean by that?" Garver said, "If you don't sign this, we will take it that you belong to the C. I. 0. If there is a lay-off, Bob,, you naturally know who will go." Concerning this conversation Garver testified as follows: I asked the man if he wanted one of the cards, and he said, "Is it compulsory?" I said, "No," and I went on about my business. The rest is untrue. According to Hartsock, Garver approached the men on the second shift in his department with a bunch of Independent cards in his hand and asked the men if they wanted to sign the cards. Hartsock refused to sign and Garver wrote his name down. When Hartsock asked why he did that, Garver said, "Well, if you don't sign these cards, we will know you belong to the C. I. 0.," and added that "if [they] didn't sign it [they] wouldn't have a job long." The testimony of Treaster and Hunter is to the same effect. Garver denied writing down the names of the employees who did not, sign the cards. The Trial Examiner did not credit Garver's denials. In view of Garver's admissions, we attach little weight to his denials. We find the testimony of Kauffman, Hartsock, Treaster, and Hunter to be substantially correct. Accordingly, we find that John E. Garver distributed Independent application cards to the employees under his supervision, solicited their membership in the Independent, and, by keeping a list of those who refused and making statements which threatened their tenure of employment, attempted to coerce employees to enroll for membership in the Independent. John L. Jackson testified that he was a gang leader of the laborers in the maintenance and construction department. In the summer of 1937 there were between 60 and 70 men in his gang. These employees considered him to be their foreman. John Burd testified that Jackson asked him to join the Independent. This occurred on three different occasions within a period of 2 weeks in July and August 1937. Jack- son said that he did not want the C. I. 0. in the plant and that," We don't want no trouble" such as they had at Johnstown and other steel works. He told Burd that there was a chance of his being laid off if he did not sign up with the Independent. Burd testified that he joined the Independent because he "thought by joining the Inde- pendent union [he] would hold [his] job." Harry De Frehn testified that, in June 1937, Jackson asked him to join the Independent. Paul Ferguson testified that in the latter part of July or early in August 1937, Jackson approached him and asked if he "belonged to the C. I. 0." When Ferguson asked "Why?" Jackson told him that he "would like [him] to sign an Independent union card." Ferguson then said that he did belong to the C. I. 0. and Jackson told him that some of the employees denied membership in the C. I. 0. when he 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD first questioned them but told' him that they were members of the C. I. 0. after he asked them to join the Independent. Although Jackson denied that he had any conversations with Burd, De Frehn, or-Ferguson concerning union; activities or that he solicited their mem- bership in the Independent, he admitted that he "contacted" Fer- guson and others, and that in June and July 1937 he was active in behalf of the Independent. Jackson testified that when he distributed Independent application cards to the men he said nothing to them except, "Use your head." He ceased his activities 'on behalf of the Independent in August 1937 when Showers, Jackson's immediate superior, told him to stop. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that John L. Jackson distributed Independent application cards, requested the men under his supervi- sion to become members of the Independent, and asked his men whether or not they were members of the S. W. 0. C. Thomas Betleyon was a melter boss in the open hearth department. ,He was in, charge of the third shift which was composed of at least 15 men.' He supervised the work of these men and issued orders to them'.' Betleyon admitted that he' joined the Independent in the summer of 1937. Jay Stroup, formerly a foreman, was a boss fireman in 1937. Samuel ' Graham testified that Betleyon and Stroup ap- proached him in the summer of 1937. Betleyon asked Graham if he was a member of the S. W. 6.'c. 'When Graham said, "Yes," Betleyon said, "I didn't think you would join that. I thought you knowed better than that." Stroup then talked to Graham for about an hour, urged him to joiri'the Independent, and told him that he would sign an application card if he "cared anything' for [his] job." Stroup finally persuaded him to sign an Independent card. In September 1937, Betleyon asked Graham whether he had attended the S. W. 0. C. meeting that night, and told him that he had been informed that Graham and others,had attended the meeting. F. J. Teim testified that Stroup, in July 1937, solicited his membership in the Independent, and told him that the employees would get an increase of 10 per cent in wages"if the Independent secured a majority. 0. F. Rhodes testified that Stroup told him that he would like to have his signed application card immediately because he wanted "to get 51•% before the C. I. 0." There is evidence that Stroup solicited many others. Stroup, although still in the employ of the respondent, did not testify at the hearing. Betleyon admitted that he asked Graham to sign an Independent application card. He testified that he spoke to Graham for 15 or 20 minutes, that Stroup came in and gave Betleyon a card, that he handed the card to Graham, asked him if he wanted to sign it, and that when Graham stated that he belonged to''th"e C. I. 0. he said, "It don't make any difference, you can sign them both." STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 457 We find that Thomas Betleyon and Jay Stroup engaged in activities in behalf of the Independent, distributed application cards for the Independent, and urged employees of, the respondent to join the Independent. Samuel Moore was the head hammerman in the tire, mill. He was in charge of a gang of 17 men on the second shift. , Moore was a member of the Independent. According to the testimony, of 0. F. Rhodes, Moore left the mill on the night of the Independent's first meeting at the Burnham Y. M. C. A. and when he returned described to the men what had occurred at the -meeting, and then compared the Independent with the S. W. 0. C., saying that the dues in, the Inde- pendent were only 25 cents a month and no assessments,: whereas membership in the S. W. 0. C. would mean the payment of assess- ments as well as one-fifth of their wages for the support of outside, unions. Moore then distributed Independent application cards to the, employees in the tin mill. Moore admitted that he attended the Independent meeting, spoke to the men in his gang, distributed cards, and that the testimony of Rhodes was substantially correct. Edmund C. Aikin was a gang boss in the open hearth department. As gang boss, he had the power to recommend increases in wages for the men working under him. Cloyd Mumper testified that Aiken asked him to join the Independent in July 1937. and that he circulated Independent application cards among the men in the open hearth department. Aiken admitted- that he distributed cards. He did not deny that he asked Mumper to join the Independent, and we find that he did so. Guy M. Baker testified, that he was a gang boss in the heat-treating department. According to George Watson, he was an assistant foreman in charge of the heat-treating- plant during the night shift, and was known among the men as a shift foreman. Watson testified that Baker gave him an Independent application card in August 1937 and that the men paid dues to Baker in his office. Baker admitted that he collected dues and that he was active in behalf of the Inde- pendent for "a couple of weeks." He testified that he stopped because he did not think it was right for him as shift foreman to continue collecting dues. John Kreig, general foreman of the heat-treating department, testified that in February 1938 he was informed that Baker was "soliciting for the Independent union" and that he then told Baker to "cut it out." Frank E. Brinton was an electrical gang boss. He supervised the work of three electricians. Charles McKalips testified that in July, 1937 Brinton told him that he had batter join the Independent or he would lose his job. Brinton, who was a. member of the Independent, denied telling McKalips that he would lose his job if he did not join the Independent. He admitted that he asked many employees to 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD join the Independent, and that his activities on behalf of the Inde- pendent continued for "a couple of months." - In view of Brinton's admissions, we do not credit his denial of McKalips' testimony. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Brinton attempted to coerce McKalips to join the Independent. John McCurry, Sr., was a gang boss in the forge shop. He gave orders to the men under him and supervised their. work. Grant Stuck testified that in June 1937, about the time of the Johnstown strike, McCurry asked him if he had signed an Independent application card and that when he said "No," McCurry said, "Well, probably you want a trip to Johnstown." 'Stuck stated that he joined the Inde- pendent because he "didn't want to lose [his] job any quicker than was necessary." McCurry admitted that he had attended two meetings of the Independent. Concerning his conversation with Stuck, he testified as follows: We were talking about the union, not his union, mine, and I said, our union was all right. Well, he replied it was not no good. Well, I said to him-and the next thing was, Well, if you was out in Johnstown, you would not have a job like the one you have now. We find that McCurry urged and coerced Stuck to join the Inde- pendent. Herbert C. Price was a chairman leader, a minor supervisory em- ployee, known. as a strawboss or labor boss among the men. Price testified that he "solicited anyone that [he] felt would be a suitable meln- ber" of the Independent, those working under him as well as others. William Goss and James Burnell testified that Charles Smith and John Weader, gang bosses, asked them to join the Independent. Their testimony was not rebutted, since neither Smith nor Weader testified at the hearing. Gennaro Galucci was a gang boss of laborers in the transportation department. He gave orders to his gang and supervised their work. John Henry was a gang boss in the heat-treating plant. He gave orders to the men under him and supervised their work. Samuel McLaughlin was a gang boss in the open hearth department. Charles Swartzel was a gang boss in the tire mill. Dale Whitsel testified that Galucci distributed Independent applica- tion cards to the men in his gang in August 1937 and urged and coerced them to sign, saying that "the plant would shut down with the C. I. 0." Walter Anderson corroborated Whitsel's testimony.. Galucci denied everything. William Goss testified that when John Henry asked him and others to join the Independent in July 1937 he told them-that membership in the C. 1.,0. would cost $1.00 a month plus assessments of 1 day's pay each week, whereas the Independent' STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 459 cost only 25 cents a month and gave them the same benefits as the C. I. 0. Henry denied any and all activity on behalf of the Inde- pendent, although he admitted that he joined the Independent when it was first organized. Paul Kauffman and Herbert Shirk testified that, McLaughlin requested the employees in his gang to join the Independent and Rhodes testified that Swartzel urged him to join the Independent. McLaughlin and Swartzel denied that they had clone or said anything on behalf of the Independent. In view of the entire record, and the findings of the Trial Examiner, who had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, we cannot give credence to these denials. We find that Gennaro Galucci, John Henry, Samuel McLaughlin, and Charles Swartzel urged and requested the respondent's employees to join the Independent and that Galucci made threatening statements for the purpose of coercing the men in his gang to sign Independent application cards. We find that Edmund C. Aikin, Guy M. Baker, Thomas Betleyon, Frank E. Brinton, John E. Garver, Gennaro Galucci, John Henry, John L. Jackson, John McCurry, Sr., Samuel McLaughlin, Samuel Moore, Herbert C. Price, Charles Smith, Jay Stroup, Charles Swartzel, and John Weader were supervisory. employees for whose activities and statements the respondent is responsible.1° In addition to the activities of the above-mentioned supers isory employees, the record is replete with evidence of activities on behalf of the Independent by non-supervisory employees during working hours on company property. These activities included open solicitation of members, widespread distribution of Independent application cards and literature, and collection of dues.ll A number of the general foremen of various departments 12 testified that they never observed 10 Sunshine Mining Cod N L R B , 110 F (2d) 780 (C C A 9), enf'g Matter of Sunshine Mining Co and International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers , 7 N L R. B 1252, N. L. R. B v. American Mfg Co , 309 U S 629, aff'g as mod 106 F (2d) 61 (C C. A 2), which enf'd as mod Matter of American Mfg Co , et at and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , C I 0 , 5 N L R B 443, N L. R B v A S. Abell Co 97 F (2d)951 (C.C A 4), enf'g as mod Matter of TheA. S Abell Co , a corporation , and International Printing and Pressmen's Union, Baltimore Branch , Baltimore Web Pressmen 's Union , No 51, 5 N. L. R B. 644, N L R B v Virginia Ferry Co , 101 F. (2d) 103 (C C A 4), enf'g as mod. Matter of Virginia Ferry Corp. and Master, Mates and Pilots of America , No 9, 8 N. L R B. 730 , Al. L R. B v Planters Mfg. Co, 105 F . (2d) 750 (C C A. 4), enf'g Matter of Planters 2ilfg Co , Inc and United Veneer Box and Barrel Workers Union, C 1 0, 10 N L R B 735, N L R. B v Goshen Rubber Co, 110 F (2d) 432 (C C. A. 7), enf'g as mod Matter of Goshen Rubber and Manufacturing Co and United Rubber Workers of America , Local #124, 11 N. L. R. B. 1346, Swift & Co v N L R B, 106 F. (2d) 87 (C C. A 10), enforcing as modified Matter of Swift & Co , a corporation , and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No 300, 7 N. L. R B 269, International Association of Machinists v N L R B., 110 F (2d) 29 (App D C ), enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corp and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America , Local No 459, 8 N. L R B . 621, cert granted, 60 S Ct. 721. It See the testimony of Charles Carpenter , Reed Havice , Paul Kauffman , Grant Stuck , William Hall, Herbert Shirk , Cloyd Mumper, James Hartsock , Rudolph Gahagan, James McCardle, Robert Ranck, Harry De Frehn, Paul Ferguson , Charles McKalips, Walter Anderson , and Joseph Fisher. See also the admissions of Melvin Miller, George Barger, David Bishop , Oscar Harmon , J V Montgomery , and Ira S. Trapler. ti The following general foremen testified Vinemt E Bawn , machine shop No. 2, Fred W. Beardsley, steel foundry , James R Bryant, machine shop No 1, J S Gross , tool section , James G. Mitchell, molding; John J. Kreig, heat treating , George Baldwin, open hearth. 460 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any solicitation or other activities on behalf of the Independent. They testified, in substance, that they knew nothing about the Independent; some of them denied knowledge of its existence, and of the fact that a : contract had been'executed between the Independent and the respondent. We' do not credit their testimony. It is un- believable that they remained completely ignorant of the widespread activity of employees and gang bosses in their departments, of the Independent's organization meetings, of the certification by three prominent citizens that the Independent represented a majority, and of the existence of contractual relations between the respondent and the Independent. We find that the general foremen knew of and allowed the solici- tauion of employees to join the Independent, the circulation of In- dependent application cards, and the collection of Independent dues during working hours on company property. We' find that the respondent, by the above-described course of conduct, dominated and interfered with the formation and adminis- tration of, and contributed support to the Independent, and that it thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find that the respondent, by the above-described statements and activities of Thomas Betleyon, Frank Brinton, John Garver, ' Gennaro Galucci, John Henry, John L. Jackson, John McCurry, Sr., Samuel McLaughlin, Samuel Moore, Herbert Price, andJay Stroup, discouraged membership in the -S. W. O. C. and encouraged member- ship in the Independent, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment Paul Ferguson began to work for the respondent in November 1936 as a sand-machine operator. In January 1937 he was injured in the course of his duties and did not work until April 19, 1937, when he returned as a laborer in the plant engineering section. He joined the S. W. O. C. on July 27, 1937, and solicited members among his friends. On August 15, 1937, Ferguson and 23 others, who were pant of a gang of 61 men, were informed by Jackson, their gang boss, that they were being laid off and would be recalled when business improved. At the date of the hearing none of these men had been rehired. Be- tween August 13, 1937, and April '29, 1938, shortly before the hearing, the number of the respondent's shop employees working on an hourly and piece-work basis had been reduced gradually from 1,819 to 795. Ferguson testified that shortly before the termination of his em- ployment he was asked by Jackson to join the Independent and was questioned concerning his membership in the S. W. O. C. He stated STANDARD STEE L WORKS COMPANNY , 461 that he told Jackson that he was a member of the S. W. 0. C., and that thereafter Jackson unreasonably criticized his work, although his work was good. Jackson admitted that he "contacted" Ferguson for membership in the Independent, but denied that he had discrimi- nated against him.13 He testified that Showers, his superior, asked him to speak to Ferguson and others about their unsatisfactory work and that when Ferguson told him that his arm had been broken he gave Ferguson easier work to do. Showers, Cole, the plant engineer, and Billiar, the work manager, denied any knowledge of Ferguson's membership in the S. W. 0. C. Billiar, who made the ultimate decision that Ferguson should be laid off, testified that it did not seem fair to retain Ferguson, who had been employed only about 8 months, when so many other men with more seniority were being laid off. No evidence was introduced to show that employees with less seniority than Ferguson were retained at this time. We find that Ferguson was not laid off because of his union mem- bership and activities. -Charles McKalips had been employed by the respondent for approximately 40 years, not including periods of lay-off. At the time of the termination of his employment on September 30. 1937, he was working on dies in the tool section. He joined the S. W. 0. C. on June 17, 1937, and was active in the distribution of literature and the solicitation of members. About the last of July 1937 Brinton, an electrical gang boss, told McKalips that if he did not join the Independent he would lose his job.14 Tom Steward, a gang boss,ls told McKalips that he (McKalips) and three others were the only ones in the shop who did not belong to the Independent. McKalips testified that after he joined the S. W. 0. C. Gross, the foreman of the tool section, found fault with his work without reason; that after a few complaints- had been made about his .work he had three disinterested employees -inspect his work before Gross did; that the three employees said his work was all right but that Gross subsequently criticized it. Gross denied any knowledge of McKalips', membership in the S. W. 0. C. He testified that he never criticized McKalips more than anyone else, but that when McKalips made mis- takes he would tell McKalips he would have to, do better or that he would have to fix up the•work,that he was doing. Gross testified that' he knew nothing of the incident when three employees were supposed to have inspected McKalips' work; until he heard McKalips' testi- 13 For our detailed findings on Jackson 's activities , see supra ' 14 Brinton admitted that he had solicited members for the Independent , but testified that he could not recall making the above statement to McKalips . we have found that he made such a statement. See supra. 15 McKalips referred to Steward as a foreman. 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mony, and that none of the three men mentioned by McKalips ever told him that McKalips' work was done all right. None of the three men mentioned by McKalips testified concerning this incident. -McKalips also testified that four men in his section with less seniority than he had were retained after he was laid off. He implies that this occurred because he was a member of the S. W. O. C. Gross, Cole, and Billiar, who were responsible for his lay-off, denied any knowledge of McKalips' membership in the S. W. O. C. The respond- ent contends that McKalips was laid off because of lack of work and that seniority, computed from the date of the most recent hiring, was the main basis of selection. The record as a whole substantiates this contention. Between August 6 and October 1, 1937, more than 200 of the respondent's employees were laid off. McKalips was last hired on March 16, 1937, after a lay-off of approximately 3 years. Of the 13 men doing the same general type of work as McKalips, only 2 were hired after March 16, 1937. One of these two was laid off before McKalips and the second, together with two others, was laid off on the same day that McKalips' employment was terminated. We find that McKalips was not laid off because of his union member- ship and activities. Harry De Frehn began to work for the respondent in January 1913. He was laid off in October 1934, returned to the respondent's employ on January 10, 1935, as a laborer in the plant engineering department and continued to work as a laborer until November 19, 1937, when his employment was terminated. De Frehn joined the S. W. O. C. on May 22, 1937, and was an active member. Jackson, his gang boss, and Showers, Jackson's superior, knew of Do Frehn's membership in the S. W. O. C. Do Frehn testified that Jackson, his superior, solicited him for membership in the Independent in June 1937 and that there was ill feeling between him and Jackson after his refusal to join the Independ- ent. Jackson denied that he asked De Frehn to join the Independent but, as noted above, we find that he did so. Billiar testified that poor business conditions necessitated a reduction in force in the labor gang and the lay-off of De Frehn. That business conditions were poor is evidenced by the fact that over 400 employees were laid off between August 1, 1937, and November 19, 1937, when Do Frehn's employment was terminated. The record discloses that 16 of the 23 men employed in be Frehn's gang, including both Independent and S. W. O. C. members, were laid off with De Frehn. There is no evidence that any of those retained had more seniority than De Frehn. Of the 16, only 1, who was an expert cement mixer, had been rehired at the time of the hearing. We find that Harry De Frehn was not laid off because of his union membership and activities. STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 463 Paul Kauffman began to work for the respondent in 1920, was'laid off in July 1930 and was rehired in May 1933 as a laborer. Thereafter he worked at a number of different jobs in the open hearth department including charge machine runner, crane operator and laborer, until February 8, 1938, the last day that Kauffman actually worked for the respondent. On April 1, 1938, Kauffman was notified by the employ- ment office to return his employment tag since he had not worked for over a month. Kauffman joined the S. W. O. C. in May 1937 and was an active member. He marched in the Labor Day parade in September 1937 and carried an S. W. O. C. banner. In November 1937 he was transferred from the crane operator's job to that of a laborer, with the result that his wages were reduced 20 cents per hour. The crane operator's job was given to Weader, a member of the Independent, who had less seniority than Kauffman. According to Kauffman's testimony, he complained to Baldwin, foreman of the open hearth department. He was told that since the open hearth department was operating only one furnace, Weader, who had been an active foreman when three furnaces were in operation, was being transferred to the crane operator's job. Baldwin testified that Weader was a gang boss and was given the crane operator's job in preference to Kauffman because the respondent "had an investment in him." The complaint did not allege that Kauffman was discriminatorily demoted in Novem- ber 1937, and that issue was not litigated. We find that Kauffman was properly transferred in November 1937. For more than a month prior to February 8, 1938, Kauffman and four other men had been working on a special construction job. Off February 8 the job was completed and the five men, all of them members of the S. W. O. C., were laid off. Billiar testified that in December 1937 the open hearth department was operating only one furnace with about 71 men. He decided to give the men who were oldest in point of service or had special ability 4 days work per week and to carry the rest of the gang as "extras to be given fill-in jobs. Kauffman was one of these "extra" men: After February 8 there was no work for the"extras." Billiar admitted that five men with less seniority than Kauffman were retained on the extra gang. He testified that three of them were kept because they could pour steel,ls and one because he was a pipe fitter. Billiar did not recall why the fifth man was retained. No'one has been hired to replace Kauffman. Billiar and Baldwin denied that they knew Kauffman belonged to the S. W. O. C. Although the case is not free from doubt, we find that Paul Kauff- man was not laid off because of his union membership and acitvities. 1E While Kauffman had poured steel in the past, Billiar testified that he was not considered adept at this work 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Harry Searer was employed by the respondent for approximately 26 years prior to April 1938. His last hiring dated from July 10, 1933. Soarer joined the S. W. O. C. in March 1938. On April 15, 1938, Gross, the foreman of the tool section in which Soarer was employed as a tool grinder, informed him that one man had to be laid off and that he had been selected. Soarer testified that men with less seniority were retained. Gross admitted that Soarer had more seniority than some of the men who were retained. He testified that their comparative youth and their ability to perform various tasks in the toolroom operated in favor of the men retained. Cole, the plant engineer, testified that he received a memorandum from Billiar stating that because of poor business conditions the tool crib force had to be reduced by one man. Cole then consulted Gross and after an analysis of the abilities of the men employed in the tool section, Cole recommended to Billiar that Soarer, a "one purpose man," should be laid off. Billiar, Cole, and Gross denied knowledge of Soarer's membership in the S. W. O. C. Seven men had been laid off in the tool crib prior to Soarer's lay-off. We find that Harry Soarer was not laid off because of his union membership or activities. Herbert Harpster has been employed by the respondent for approxi- mately 27 years. .He joined the S. W. O. C. on June 6, 1937, was an active member and became vice president in July 1937. In February 1937 Harpster was employed as i chainman in the steel foundry. At about this time, Bilhar agreed to promote Harpster to a higher rate of pay as chainman leader "A" on March 6, 1937, "providing business conditions did not change." In February 1937 Harpster was transferred to the inspection department as a process inspector with the understanding that if that job did not continue he could return to his original position in the steel foundry. On Novem- ber l,'1937, the inspection job was terminated and Harpster was trans- ferred to the steel foundry as a shipping clerk on the second shift. On February 1, 1938, he was again transferred to his former job as a' chainman. Harpster charged that the transfers of November 1, 1937, and February 1, 1938, were discriminatory demotions. Billiar testified that he could not carry out his promise to promote Harpster to chain- man leader but gave him the inspector's job instead at an increased rate of pay. When that job was abolished, Harpster was transferred to the best available opening, that of shipping clerk, and subsequently was restored to his former position. The record as a whole substanti- ates,Billiar's testimony. We find that Harpster was not demoted because of his union mem- bership and activities. STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 465 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, 'aiid sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the{,several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to, take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and supported, the Independent. The facts heretofore found establish, and we find, that the Independent is incapable of ever serving as a true collective bargaining agency of the employees. Its existence does and will constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the respondent's employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. Hence, not only shall we order the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices in con- nection with the Independent, but in aid of that order and to remove the impediment thus established to the free exercise by the employees of their rights under the Act, we shall direct the respondent to with- draw recognition from the Independent as a representative of its employees, to disestablish that organization as such a representative, and to refrain from giving effect to or performing any and all existing contracts, understandings, or arrangements concerning labor relations to which the Independent is a party. Nothing in this Decision and Order should be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage; hour, seniority, and such other substantial ,features of its relations with the employees themselves, which the respondent established in performance of the invalid contract as extended, renewed; modified, supplemented, or superseded. Where we have found, that the record does not support the allega- tions of unfair labor practices set forth in the complaint, we will order the complaint dismissed in so far as it alleges such unfair labor practices. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS or LAW 1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee on behalf of Lodge No. 1940, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of 466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD North America , affiliated with the C. I. 0., and Independent Steel Workers, Burnham , Pennsylvania, are labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, -and coercing its employees in the exercise of 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. 3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, and by contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 4. The- aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Paul Ferguson, Charles McKalips , Harry De Frehn, Paul Kauffman, Harry Soarer, and Herbert Harpster. 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 respond- ent, Standard Steel Works Company, Burnham, Pennsylvania, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) In any manner dominating or' interfering with the administra- tion of Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support to Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Giving effect to or performing any and all contracts, under- standings, or arrangements relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment to which Inde- pendent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, is a party; (c) In any other manner'interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or, assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion 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: STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 467 (a) Withdraw all recognition from and refrain from recognizing In- dependent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, as the representa- tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the re- spondent in any manner concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, as such representative; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty .(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order;'and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) -of this Order; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps,the re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and'it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in' unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act with respect to Paul Ferguson, Charles McKalips, Harry De Frehn, Paul Kauffman, Harry Searer, and Her- bert Harpster. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.