Precision Castings Co., Inc.

In the Matter of PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION -OF- DIE - CASTING . WORKERS, LOCAL No. 5, AFFILIATED WITH C.LO. Case No. C-1658.-Decided March -10, 1941 Jurisdiction :- die castings manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor - Practices -- - - - Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements. Company-Doininatcd Union: suggestion of formation of, to forestall legitimate labor organization ; statements by supervisory employees in support of-suc- cessor organization to prior company-dominated union; financial support by respondent to leaders in prior company-dominated.umon to enable them to investigate outside unions at other plants of respondent; hostility to outside organizations; hasty exclusive recognition of inside organizations. Discrimination: Charges of, not sustained Remedial Orders : disestablishment of company-dominated union; notices to employees that respondent will not give effect to contract with company- dominated union. Mr. Harry L. Lodish, for the Board. Mr. W. K. Stanley, Mr. H. E. Smoyer, and Mr. Eugene B. Schwartz, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the respondent. Mr. Edward Lamb, of Toledo, Ohio, and Mr. Edward S. Crudele, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Union. Mr. R. S. Horan, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the P. E. A. fur. Edward Schevinaemann, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by National Asso- ciation of Die Casting Workers , Local No. 5 , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, ( Cleveland , Ohio) issued its complaint dated February 8, 1940, and its amended complaint dated March 6, 1940, against Precision Castings Company , Inc.,, Cleveland , Ohio, herein called the respondent , alleging that the re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices 30 N. L R . B, No. 30. 212 PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 213 affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,. 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accom- panied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon ,the respondent, the Union, and Precision Employees Association, herein called the P. E. A. The complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent (1) from and after June 1936 to on or about December 1, 1936, initiated and formed a labor organization known as the Old-Welfare Club and thereafter dominated, interfered with, and contributed support to it; (2) from October 1939 instigated, formed, interfered. with, domi- nated, and contributed financial and other support to the P. E. A.;, (3) on or about November 25, 1939, entered into an illegal collec- tive bargaining agreement granting sole bargaining rights to the, P. E. A.; (4) on or about January 16, 1940, discharged and thereafter- refused to reinstate Blanche Classic because of her union member- ship and activity; and (5). by these and other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 3, 1940, the P. E. A. filed a petition for leave to inter- vene, and, on March 7, 1940, the Regional Director granted such permission. On March It, 1940, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted some of the specific' facts alleged in the complaint, but denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was- held at Cleveland, Ohio, on March 11-16, 18, 25-29, and April 1-3, 1940, before Thomas H. Ken- nedy, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the P. E. A. were represented by counsel, and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing, the respondent filed a demand for a bill of particulars. In ,lieu of granting, this demand, the Trial , Examiner granted the respondent 7 days interval at the close of the Board's case in order to prepare its defense. He also granted the motion of the Board to strike from the P. E. A.'s petition to inter- vene, allegations that the P. E. A. represented a majority of the , employees in an appropriate unit ' and a request for certification of representatives. During the hearing, the Trial Examiner, granted the respondent's motion to exclude evidence, and strike allegations from the amended complaint concerning matters which occurred prior to October 26, 1939, on the ground that such matters were not set forth in the third amended charge upon which the amended com- plaint was based. Thereafter, during the hearing, the Union filed a, fourth ampndPd eharue covering such matters. and the Trial Ex- 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD aminer granted the Board's motion to reinstate the allegations in the complaint and admit the excluded evidence. The respondent took exception- to the ruling. The Trial Examiner also granted the re- spondent's motion to establish its answer filed before the hearing as its answer to new matter that might have- been brought into the record by way of Board's evidence 'before the Board closed its case. - At the -'close of '• the -hearing -the respondent - made several motions to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner granted the mo- tions in so-far as the complaint alleged that the respondent accorded preferential treatment to its employees who were active in the P. E. A., favored employees who were opposed to the Union in the distribution of work to them, and demoted union,adherents and pro- moted those opposed to the Union. During the course of the hear- ing, the Trial Examiner made a number of other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re- viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi- cial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On August 15, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of'the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such violations, and disestablish the P. E. A. He found further that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act and recommended that this part of the complaint be dismissed. On October 21,1940, the respondent and the P. E. A., and on October. 29, 1940, the Union, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On October 28, 1940, the respondent and the P. E. A., and on October 29, 1940, the Union filed briefs with the Board. On October 29, 1940,•.pursuant to notice,,a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the P. E. A. were represented by counsel and presented argument. On January 8, 1941, the attorney for the Board in this proceeding and the attorney for the Board in another proceeding against the respondent filed a motion to consolidate the proceedings. On Jan- uary 15, 1941, the respondent, and on January 16, 1941, the P. E. A., filed objections to the motion and briefs in support thereof. On Jan- uary 21, 1941, counsel for the Board filed a reply brief, and on the same day the respondent -filed a second brief further opposing the motion to consolidate. On January 21, 1941, the Board denied the motion to consolidate. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the briefs in support thereof and, save as the exceptions PRECISION CASTINGS,, COMPANY, INC. 215 are consistent 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 I. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS The respondent, a New York corporation with its principal office in Syracuse, New York, is engaged in the manufacture of die cast- ings for the automotive and utensil industries at its plants in'Fayette- ville and Syracuse, New York, and Cleveland, Ohio. The respondent employs approximately 180 employees in its Cleveland plant, the only one in this proceeding in which unfair labor practices allegedly occurred. In 1939 the. respondent's products manufactured at its Cleveland plant were valued at approximately $850,000. About '$250,000 of such products were shipped to purchasers outside the State of Ohio. During the same period the respondent obtained substantially all the raw materials used in the manufacture of such products outside the State of Ohio. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED National Association of Die Casting Workers, Local No. 5, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Precision Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion. Both organizations admit to membership employees of the respondent's Cleveland plant. The Old Welfare Club, also -known as Welfare Employees Associa- tion,, Employees ,Association, and Employees Welfare Association, and herein referred to as the Old Welfare Club, was organized in the respondent's Cleveland plant in 1936. The respondent contends that the Old Welfare Club was purely a social and not a labor organization. We find the contention to be without merit, since, as hereinafter noted, the Old Welfare Club existed as,an organization in which the employees reported griev- ances and discussed conditions of employment and through which they made representations to the respondent for the correction of particular grievances and the improvement of working ,conditions. Moreover, the respondent recognized and dealt with the Old 'Welfare Club as- a labor organization. It never communicated to' the em- ployees its asserted belief that the Old Welfare Club was a purely social club, or informed them that it would not recognize the Old Welfare Club as a representative agency of the employees for deal- 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, 'or conditions of work. Neither (lid the respondent inform the employees that, by virtue of the admitted support which the respondent granted, the Old Welfare Club could not act legally as a labor organization under, the Act. On the contrary, the respondent, by receiving its committees, con- sidering their grievances and requests, and by making changes in conditions of employment pursuant to the requests, affirmatively recognized and dealt with the Old Welfare Club as a labor organization. We find that the Old Welfare Club was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference with, domination, and support of the Old Welfare Club Early in the summer of 1936 a strike occurred at the respondent's Cleveland plant. The striking employees asked certain representa- tives of the American Federation of Labor to negotiate with the respondent on their behalf. In July 1936, these representatives and the respondent reached an agreement in settlement of the strike and the employees returned to work. Although some of the respond- ent's employees joined the American Federation of Labor during the strike and remained adherents for a short time thereafter, they did not organize a local union among the respondent's employees and were not thereafter represented by officials of the American Federation of Labor in their dealings with the respondent. During the first strike, Dan Danforth, a foreman in the Cleveland plant,' , suggested to some of the strikers that they form an "inside union" of their own. Approximately 3 weeks after the termina- tion of the strike, John Beltz,2 solicited the signatures of employees to a petition calling for the formation of the Old Welfare Club.' A number of the respondent's employees signed the petition which Beltz circulated and attended the first meeting of the Old Welfare Club. The employees' present elected Beltz, president, Mary Sliva, ' Danforth was general foreman of the trimming department and exercised supervision over the filers, punch, • and drill-press operators , lathe operators , salvage employees and shipping employees. ' At the time of the hearing Beltz was working supervisor in charge of the 25 employees in the final inspection department, and spent approximately 3.1 per cent of his time in direct supervisory activity. 8 Blanche Classic and Cecil Dotson, employees , testified , and J. R Millspaugh, plant manager, denied , that Millspaugh assisted in the formation of the Old Welfare Club and gave advice to the active members concerning the conduct of the organization . The Trial Examiner credited Millspaugh's denial. We find it unnecessary to resolve the conflict. PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY- INC. 217, an employee in the final inspection department, secretary,' and George Searle ,4 treasurer. Dues were fixed at 25 cents per month. , • - During the fall of 1936, the American Federation of Labor ad- herents called a second strike among the respondent's employees. Dotson testified, and we find, that Fritz Anderson, foreman in the die room, told the employees on the picket line during.,the strike that the respondent would never sign a contract with a union 1. 5, The strikers were unable to reach an agreement with the respondent or to obtain the intervention of American Federation of Labor repre- sentatives in their behalf and terminated the strike late in the fall of 1936. The record does not support the allegations of the com- plaint that during these strikes the respondent hired, strikebreakers or that it employed guards and cooks for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and we find that the respondent did not engage in such unfair labor practices. After this strike the Old Welfare Club became active among the respondent's employees in promoting social activities and in acting as a bargaining representative. At the January 19, 1937, meeting of the Old Welfare Club, Beltz advised the members that "all griev- ances done at the 'shop should be brought up at the meeting," and thereafter, the employees regularly discussed grievances at meetings of the Old Welfare Club. Pursuant to these discussions, Old Wel- fare Club committees made representations to the respondent seeking to improve working conditions. On June 5, 1937, the Old Welfare Club addressed a letter to the respondent making specific requests for the improvement of working conditions including a demand for a better place in which to eat lunches, free coffee to be served at lunch, better ventilation, and the installation of a drinking fountain. The respondent there- after installed new drinking fountains and opened the skylight windows in the plant. On or about July 10, 1937, an insurance company, the Benefit Asso- ciation of Railway Employees, issued to the respondent a group insurance policy, covering all employees who paid the requisite pre- mium. In connection therewith, the insurance company also char- tered among the employees the Precision Castings Social Benefit Club, ' At the time of the hearing, Searle was working supervisor in the grinding department and exercised supervision over five employees. He spends approximately 1 2 hours per day in distributing work, and instructing the employees in the department. He occasionally makes recommendations to Howard Prancoeur, foreman of the trimming room which include the punch-press, drill press, lathes, filing and grinding departments, respecting the work of the employees. 5 Although the Trial Examiner did not credit Dotson's testimony, Anderson was not called as a witness, the testimony is undenied, and upon the entire record, we think it worthy of credence. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD herein called the B. A. R. E. Club. It was organized on September 28, 1937, at a meeting .of the Old Welfare Club. The ,constitution of the B. A. R. E..Club provided inter alia that "subjects pertaining to Political, Sectarian, or Labor Organizations shall not be discussed at any of the meetings," and one Gibson, a representative of the insur- ance company, ;apparently advised the employees at the meeting of September '28, 1937, that the B. A. R. E. Club could not engage in collective bargaining and that the two organizations should be sepa- rated by formally closing the meetings of the B. A. R. E. Club .and opening a new meeting 'as the Old Welfare Club in order to discuss grievances. In November 1937, Karl Webbeking, an employee, was elected president of the -Old Welfare Club succeeding Beltz. Webbeking was 'apparently .at the same time, or shortly thereafter, president of the 'B. A. R. E. Club. Thereafter the employees active in the Old Welfare and B. A. R. E. Clubs continued at their meetings to discuss grievances, and protested ,early in 1938 the' respondent's action in eliminating vacations with pay. Although the Old Welfare Club had not been formally dissolved, some of the employees apparently believed that it had ceased to exist and that the discussion of griev- ances and the protests made after September 1937 were conducted through the B. A. R. E. Club. Either the Old Welfare Club con- tinued during this period under its own name or it had been succeeded as a labor organization by the B. A. R. E. Club. We need not de- termine which alternative is correct, since if the B. A. R. E. Club succeeded the Old Welfare Club as a labor organization, the relation- ship between,them was such that any finding of employer domination, interference, ,and support with respect to the Old'Welfare Club would be equally applicable to the B. A. R. E. Club.' Webbeking testified that after the letter of June.5, 1937, referred to above, and the elimination of employees' vacations, the, ability of the Old Welfare Club to obtain concessions from the respondent dwin- dled, and it thereafter became inactive. Its officers, with the excep- tion of Searle, resigned, and in December 1939, Searle, with the con- currence ,of several employees who had been members, divided the treasury among those who had belonged, each of whom received approximately $2.50. The Old Welfare Club, however, was never formally dissolved. Millspaugh and Alphonse Weigolt,.plant superintendent, admitted that they encouraged the Old Welfare Club and supported its activi- ties. They did so allegedly because they felt it would restore "har- 6 See note 11, below. For the period tollowing September 1937, this intramural organ- ization in so far as it engaged in activity concerning wages, hours , and conditions of -employment is referred to as the Old Welfare Club , without regard to whether it was known to the employees under this name or under that of the B. A. R. E. Club. PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC., 219 mony" by composing the differences existing between the employees who participated in the 1936 strike and those who did not. On several occasions, Millspaugh contributed sums of money to the Old Welfare Club upon request of its officers or committee,, members, and both Weigolt and Millspaugh attended at least one of its meetings. The respondent has never', disestablished, withdrawn recognition from, or otherwise severed its connection with, the Old Welfare Club. We find that the respondent, by Danforth's suggestion that an "inside union" be formed following the first strike in 1936, by the admitted encouragement and support given the Old Welfare Club by Millspaugh and Weigolt, by their attendance at at least one of its meetings, and by contributing money to the Old Welfare Club, has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Old Welfare Club and contributed financial and other support to it ; and that by its aforesaid acts, and by statements of Foreman Ander- son during the second strike in the fall of 1936, the respondent has in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Interference with, domination, and support of the P. E. A. (1) Sequence of'events; the Syracuse-Fayetteville trip; organization of the P:'E. A. In the spring of 1939, the Union opened a drive for membership among the respondent's employees by distributing pamphlets and cir- culars outside the Cleveland plant. Sometime in May 1939, a clipping from a newspaper appeared on the bulletin board stating that the employees "were a hundred percent organized in the Cleveland plant." Underneath the statement someone had written a sentence to the effect that the undersigned employees did not desire a union. A number of employees signed their names to the statement. Although the record does not show who, posted the clipping or who wrote the statement underneath it, Searle, a working supervisor, testified that his own name appeared at the, top of the list of signers, and that Herbert Man- tell, an, operator in the foundry, solicited the signatures of the em- ployees. Millspaugh removed ' the clipping when it was called to his attention and sent it to J. W. Knapp, vice president and general manager of the respondent, in Fayetteville, New York. Knapp re- ceived the petition, kept it a few months and then destroyed it. The Union increased its activities during the summer, -and by the fall of 1939, distributed literature daily outside the plant. On or about October 19, 1939, the Union distributed a newspaper containing a statement that a majority of the, respondent's employees in all 3 plants had affiliated with its parent organization, the National Asso- ciation of Die Casting Workers, herein called the N. A. D. C. W. 220' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shortly thereafter the Union' distributed a circular containing the following statement : Forty-two_ delegates representing -a distinct majority of the employees in the three Precision plants met in Buffalo, New York,- Sunday, October 22, and adopted a program of demands, which have already been submitted to your management. Bill Heeder, a stock boy in the filing room, suggested to George Searle that, inasmuch as the Union claimed that the N. A. D. C. W. represented a majority of the employees in the other plants of the respondent, someone representing the employees of the Cleveland plant should investigate the claim. Searle agreed with Heeder' and- volunteered to ask Millspaugh for permission to make the trip. On or about October 22, Searle suggested to Millspaugh that some of the employees desired to go to Fayetteville to- investigate the Union's claim. Millspaugh stated that he thought it was "a good idea."- On or about October 25, Searle told Millspaugh that he had discussed the trip with other employees and that they desired to go but felt that they could not afford to lose the time and expense of making the trip. Millspaugh called the respondent's attorney and asked him if it would be proper for the respondent to- pay the ex- penses of the men making the trip. The attorney replied that it was proper provided the respondent had not "instigated" it. Mills- paugh then informed Searle that the respondent would see that the employees did not lose any time in making the trip and that their expenses would be-paid. He suggested further that the employees leave that afternoon. Millspaugh, by letter, informed Knapp, man- ager of the Fayetteville plant, that he could expect a visit from a delegation of employees from the Cleveland plant. - Searle selected Heeder, Julian Barry, working supervisor on the night shift in the final inspection department, and Ted Kaput, work- ing supervisor in the men's filing department, to make the trip? He also asked Morris Tarr, foreman in the foundry, to choose one of his employees who might be willing to go. Tarr told John Biss, one ,of the employees under him, who he allegedly suspected was a union member, that a group of employees were going to Syracuse to aster= tain whether it was true, as the Union claimed, that a majority of the employees there had affiliated with the N. A. D. C .W., and that ° Barry, according to the respondent's records , spends approximately 5% of his time in direct supervisory work , and has charge of the five persons employed in the final in- spection department at night . Kaput spends approximately 50% of his time in direct supervisory work over 12 employees in the men 's filing department . He recommends to Francouer, the foreman, the discharge or transfer of employees in the department, assigns work, and checks the amount of work done and the amount claimed by the employees on time slips. PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC.': 221 if Biss desired to go he could. Biss agreed to go.8. Heeder, asked Joe Farbarik, Jr., working supervisor in the first inspection depart-, ment,9 to go and Farbarik accepted. Searle also asked Cecil Dotson, who later became president of the Union, to make the trip. Dotson stated he had no desire to be a "stooge" and refused. About October' 27 or 28, 1939, Dotson commenced wearing a C. I. 0. button while at work in the respondent's plant. Thereafter one Clevinger, the set up man, whose duties included assigning different,tasks to operators in the shop and who was to that extent Dotson's superior, informed Dotson that he would have to remain at his machine until'5 minutes before quitting time, contrary to custom. ' Dotson asked Clevinger "for what"; whereupon Clevinger answered, "for wearing a button." On the morning of October 27, a delegation consisting of Searle, Farbarik, Kaput, Biss, Heeder, and Barry, called on Knapp in Fay- etteville. Knapp greeted them in the reception room of the plant. He told them, in substance, I understand that' you want to find out something about the labor situation in this plant. The C. I. 0. has been trying to organize the workers in' this plant [and] in the Syracuse plant since about the first of June 1938. On- two occasions the organizer has claimed to me that he had a majority of the employees. On both occasions I asked him to give some, indication or some ,proof of the fact that they had a majority but they did nothing. Within the last couple of months some of the boys in this plant, I understand, started an independent union. I do not know what progress they have made. I have no way of knowing what progress they have made. You boys are perfectly free to go through the plant and talk to any one you want to talk to, and take as much time as you want to talk to them and find out for yourself. Knapp also said in substance that the N. A. D. C. W. had no, substantial membership. Knapp then presented the delegation to ' Dan Danforth, a foreman who had previously been employed in the Cleveland plant and who was familiar with many of the members of the delegation, and who also had suggested the formation of the Old Welfare Club in 1936. - 8 Biss testified that Tarr told him he was wanted in the office , and that when he went to the office Millspaugh told him to make the trip , stated that he had been "burned" once in connection with the 1936 strike, but he knew better now , and "when you come back, don't forget to go to town." Tarr and Millspaugh denied that the conversation occurred The Trial Examiner did not credit Biss' testimony in this respect and we attach no weight to it. 8 Farbarik spends approximately 30 per cent of his time in direct supervisory duties, and assigns work to approximately 15 employees. 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Danforth escorted the party first through his department and then through other parts of the shop. The members of the delegation spent some time separately interviewing employees concerning organiza- tional activities in the plant. Although the purported reason for the trip was to investigate the Union's claim, the employees, with the exception of Biss, who 'was sympathetic to the Union, made little effort to discover how many employees had affiliated with the N. A. D. C. W. Farbarik, Searle, Barry, and Kaput talked to from two to five employees. Some of the employees were reluctant to talk with the delegation. Some of the employees called Biss a "stooge" and, refused to talk with him until after an acquaintance had intro- duced him to the president of the N. A. D. C. W. local and vouched for him. - Shortly before noon, at Searle's request, Danforth took the group to the room in which a fluoroscope was being operated. He intro- duced them to one Martin, the operator, who was also president of the intramural union in the Fayetteville plant. Martin illustrated the use of the machine to the visiting employees, and told them that although he could not talk about the independent union and its ac- tivities on 'company property, he would be glad to give them'informa- tion if they would come to his home in the evening. Sometime during the, day, Searle requested and received from Knapp, $20 to defray the expenses of the visiting employees. In, the evening, Danforth took the delegation to dinner. After dinner they returned to the plant and then went to Martin's resi- dence. Martin explained in detail the formation and status of the independent union. He claimed that it had 200 or more mem- bers, but Heeder and other members of the group, after counting the membership cards which Martin submitted, determined that the number was substantially less. Martin gave Searle some of the lit- erature and application cards which the independent union had used, and offered to cooperate with them in the formation of an inside union at the Cleveland plant.10 Although some members of the del- egation knew that the N. A. D. G. W. was holding a membership meeting that evening•they made no attempt to attend. The delegation returned to Cleveland the following day. They agreed among themselves that neither the independent union in the Fayetteville plant. nor the N. A. D. C. W. had organized to the extent which they respectively claimed. Upon their return to the plant Millspaugh advanced to Searle approximately $100 to pay the expenses of the delegation. 10 Soon after the trip , Heeder and Bias joined the Union The other employees , as here- inafter noted , became active on behalf of the P. E A. PRECISION CASTINGS. COMPANY, INC. 223 On or about November 1, 1939, John Beltz and Russell Stephan asked several other employees to attend a meeting in the office of Richard F. Horan, who later became attorney for the P. E. A., to discuss the formation of an unaffiliated organization. 'The meeting, which was held on November 2, 1939, was attended by approximately 12 employees including Beltz, Barry, Webbeking, Leach, and Stephan. The employees present elected Webbeking chairman of an organiz- ing committee.. Following the„meeting, they solicited employees to join the P. E. A. Farbarik, Barry, and Kaput were particularly active in soliciting signatures. On November 4, 1939, Barry and Beltz sent telegrams to 57 of the respondent's employees asking them to attend an organizing meeting the following day. At a meeting on November 5, 1939, the employees present decided to form the P. E. A. Attorney Horan, who had been retained by. Beltz, presented ,a, draft of bylaws and a proposed constitution which were adopted. The employees present elected the following ^ officers : Carl 'Vebbeking, president, Russel Stephan, vice president, Mary Sliwa, secretary, and Norman Leach, treasurer. Horan also an- nounced to the meeting -that the executive committee would present a contract to the respondent covering wages, hours, and working conditions. On November 7, 1939, the Union filed with the Board -a petition requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On the same day the P. E. A. by letter advised the respondent that it represented a large majority of the respondent's employees and requested a meeting for the pur- pose of discussing' wage changes and vacations with pay. The re- spondent advised the P. E. A. that it would not deal -with either organization until the Board had decided which was entitled to represent the employees. On November 18, at the -Regional Office, of the Board in Cleve- land, Ohio, the respondent and the Union discussed the possibility of a consent election or some other method of determining the major- ity representative in the, plant. The parties were unable -to agree to a check of application cards against the pay roll or upon the time and place at which a consent election could be held.- Prior to November 24, 1939, Horan requested of and received from the respondent's attorneys a copy of the contract in effect between the "On August 12, 1940, after a hearing on a new petition filed by the Union, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election , directing that an election be conducted' among the employees of the respondent within an appropriate unit to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Union. The election resulted in 85 votes against the Union, 67 votes for the Union, and 12 votes challenged On September 26, 1940, the Board disnussed the Union s petition without prejudice, 26 N L R B. 528 27 N L R B 491 `224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent and the Fayetteville independent union. Using that as a model Horan drafted a proposed contract. On November 24, 1939, the P. E. A. demanded an immediate conference with the respondent to discuss the proposed contract. The respondent consented to a meeting on November 25, 1939. The respondent was represented by Millspaugh, Weigolt, and its attorneys. The P. E. A. was represented by Norman Leach, Mary Sliwa, and Attorney Horan. The parties checked the P. E. A.'s applications against the pay roll and agreed that the P. E. A. represented a majority of the employees. The Re- spondent's attorneys made some changes in the contract submitted by'the P.' E. A., and stated that it was acceptable, but that they would not allow the contract to become effective until it was signed by a majority of the employees in the plant as well as by the officers of the P. E. A. On November 25 and 26, the P. E. A. organizers, particularly Barry, Sliwa, Webbeking, Stephan, and Leach, obtained the signa- tures of approximately 125 employees. On or about November 27, 1939, the• contract was signed by Knapp, the respondent's vice presi- dent and general manager of the Syracuse plant. On the same day a wage increase provided by the contract went into effect in the Cleve- land plant. (2) Concluding findings with respect to the P. E. A. The respondent interfered with, supported, and dominated the Old Welfare Club, thereby diverting the employees' activities from an affiliated organization to the unaffiliated type. We are of the opinion that the P. E. A. reflects the same unlawful compulsion by the re- spondent in respect to the self-organization of its employees. The P. E. A. was promoted in large part by employees who were prominent in the Old Welfare Club. The respondent's failure to dis- establish the dominated Old Welfare Club inevitably created and fos- tered the impression that the employees who were active in the Old Wel- fare Club, in promoting the P. E. A., continued to act with the re- spondent's full approval and support 12 The Fayetteville trip also demonstrates the tainted character of the P. E. A. That trip, although initiated by a sympathizer of the Union and participated in by two such employees, was dominated by persons who had supervisory, authority and some of whom were prom- '3 N L. R B, v Leek Belt Co . and Ind Unworn of C, afts,nen, 311 U S 584, rev'g Lusk Belt Co. v. N. L R B, 110 F. ( 2d) 506 (C. C A 7) International Association of Ma- chanists, Tool and The Makers Lodge, etc v N. L R B 311 U S 72, aff'g 110 F (2d) 29 (C. A. D. of C) ; Westinghouse Electric Mfg Co v N L R. B, 112 F . ( 2d) 657 ,(C C A 2 ) cert granted 312 U S 660 ; Kansas Power and Light Co v N L R. B, 111 F ( 2d) 340 (C C A 8) : N L. R. B v Swsft Co, ]16 F. (2d) 143 (C C A 8) ; Magnolia Petroleum Company v . N L. R. B , 115 F (2d) 1007 (C C A 10) ; Matter of Baldiuin Locomotive Works and S W. 0 C, 20 N L R B 1100 PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY,, INC. 225 inent in the Old Welfare Club. Searle, who was chiefly responsible for the trip and who chose three of the employees to make it, had been an officer and active member of the Old Welfare Club. His opposition to the Union was further well known to the respondent and the em- ployees by the presence of his signature at the top of the list of those who signed the bulletin board statement opposing the Union. A delegation thus composed largely of supervisory employees and those chosen by Searle could not conduct an honest investigation of the Union's claim to majority representation. The respondent, by financ- ing such an "investigation," at the request of Searle, acted with knowl- edge of his activities and his opposition to the Union, and became a party to the biased investigation of the Union's claim. The dele- gates in Fayetteville made little attempt to discuss the Union with employees there and ignored a union meeting taking place during their presence in the vicinity. Although the ostensible purpose of the visit was to investigate the Union's claim, the respondent through Knapp directed, the attention of the delegates at the outset to the un- affilitited union at Fayetteville, and informed the delegates that the N. A. D. C. W. had no substantial membership. Thereafter the dele- gates concerned themselves almost entirely with a study of the Fay- etteville independent organization. In view of the' auspices under which the trip to Fayetteville was made, Knapp's talk to the dele- gates at Fayetteville, the failure of the record to disclose any other reasonable basis for this subsidy by the respondent, and the other cir- cumstances of this case, we find that the respondent subsidized the trip for the express purpose of checking the union campaign. Although Beltz and Stephan made the original suggestion that the P. E. A. be formed, the four supervisory employees whose Fay- etteville "investigation" had been financed by the respondent imme- •diately-became active on behalf of the P. E. A. The Fayetteville trip thus became a substantial step in the creation of the P. E. A. The respondent had placed its stamp of approval upon their activity by financing their "investigation" to check the Union'. They, to- gether with employees who had been active in the Old Welfare Club, and who, in such activity also enjoyed the respondent's approval and support, constituted the active organizers of the P. E. A., and the persons responsible for the affiliation of employees with it. It is clear that the- employees could not feel free to join or not to join the P. E. A. upon the request of organizers, whose activities thus bore :the stamp of the respondent's approval, particularly in view of the fact that some of the organizers also possessed supervisory authority 13 That the respondent was hostile to affiliated organizations is evident from- the considerations already mentioned, as well as from Fore- 13 See cases cited in the preceding note. 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD man Anderson's statement that the respondent would not sign a contract -with any union, from Clevinger's discrimination against Dotson because he wore a union button, and from Weigolt's anti- union statements noted below. In view of the respondent's hostility toward affiliated organizations and its favoring of unaffiliated or- ganizations, we find that the respondent's -recognition of the P. E. A. as exclusive representative, during the pendency of a representation proceeding initiated by the Union, discloses further the respondent's effort to intrench the P. E. A. In any event, such recognition was unlawful because it was accorded to an organization which was tainted with employer interference, support, and domination from its inception. We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the P. E. A. and contributed finan- cial and other support to it and that it thereby and by the other acts of- its supervisors and officials, hereinbefore set forth, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed the employees under Section 7 of the Act. C. The discharge of Blanche Classic The complaint alleged and the answer denied that the respondent- discharged Blanche Classic because of her union membership and activity. The answer alleged affirmatively, in substance, that the respondent discharged Classic for insubordination. The Trial Ex- aminer found that the discharge was -not discriminatory, and the Union excepted thereto. - Classic was employed by the respondent in the women's filing department in September 1935. She worked continuously until Jan- uary 16, 1940, when the respondent terminated her employment. Classic had been active in the Old Welfare Club and had also joined the P. E. A. On November 12, 1939, Classic joined the Union and thereafter wore her union button at work. 'Classic testified and Weigolt admits that when he first saw her wearing a button he stated, "Blanche, I am surprised to see you wearing a button, don't we treat you right.". On or about November 22, 1939, Heeder, the stock boy in the filing department, was transferred by the respondent to another depart- ment. The respondent based its action upon the complaints of several of the women filers that Heeder had been favoring Classic in the distribution of work and that Heeder had abused other employees in the filing department. On November 26, 1939, a union committee, of which Classic was a member, met with the respondent's officials to protest the transfer on the ground that it had been made because PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 227 of Heeder's membership in the Union. At the conclusion of the conference, the respondent called in other employees in the women's filing department who were not members of the Union to discuss the transfer. As a result of these conferences, the respondent refused to retransfer Heeder to the women's filing department. On January 16, 1940, Classic engaged in a heated argument with Mary Mulqueen,- forelady-of the women's filing. department,, concern- ing the jobs which Mulqueen had assigned Classic on a piece-work basis. Mulqueen reported the controversy to Howard Francouer, foreman in charge of the filing department. She told him that Classic had become unmanageable and that unless Classic were dis- charged she would quit her job. Francouer then told Classic that she had been causing trouble in the department for some time, that he had warned her before, and that he was laying her off until further notice. Francouer reported to Weigolt that he had laid Classic off. On the same day Mulqueen told Weigolt that several of the employees in the women's filing department desired to discuss, the Classic lay off with him. Weigolt consented to see them, and Mulqueen and six of the employees in the women's filing department thereafter con- ferred with him. They told Weigolt that Classic had caused trouble in the shop and that they opposed her reinstatement. On January 17, 1940, Classic received a telegram purporting to come from the respondent advising her to return to work. When she reported for duty Francouer told her that he knew nothing of her reinstatement and told her to see Weigolt or Millspaugh. Mill- spaugh informed her that the respondent had not sent the telegram, and that he was still considering whether she should be reinstated or discharged. Weigolt refused to confer with a committee of the Union concerning the lay-off and informed the committeemen that he would only see them individually and if they had individual griev- ances. Dotson, president of the Union, stated to Weigolt, "I am giving you 24 hours to decide about, Blanche Classic and taking her back to work, or else we will take action, and we will all quit." Weigolt told Dotson, in substance, that he had nothing further to say about the matter at that time. Weigolt and Millspaugh then referred the lay-off' to their attorneys for investigation. , The attorneys questioned employees in the depart- ment concerning the conduct of 'Classic and Mulqueen and asked if they thought Classic should be reinstated. As a part of the investi- gation, affidavits were taken from the employees who had protested Classic's reinstatement. Grace Gilbert, one of the filers in the wom- en's filing department who had protested against Classic's reinstate- ment was called into the office by Weigolt for the purpose of making an affidavit. During the conversation Weigolt told her, 440145-42-Vol :;o-16 122 8Q ..dC7 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I heard that the C. I. O. got together at noon, what are they going to do, pull a strike? Just to show you that the C. I. 0. is after your money, they came to us and wanted to sign any kind of a contract in order to get you people into their union., Every- thing was o. k. until Dago Brown (the organizer for the Union) came here. I hear he left you flat, and you have someone else to take his place-what nationality is he? He's a Jew, isn't he? Blanche was a good kid until she joined the C. I. 0. Take Johnny Biss, Cletus, Smith, I know deep down in their hearts that they are good boys but for the C. I. 0., if we want to get rid of them we can always find some excuse on which to do it- look at how much Morris [Morris Tarr, a foreman] done for Johnny Biss and then he joined the union. Weigolt did not deny this testimony. We find that the respondent by Weigolt's anti-union statements to Classic and Gilbert interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. At the conclusion of their investigation, the respondent's attorneys recommended that Classic be discharged on the ground that she had been ihsubordihate and had created jealousy, suspicion, and quarreling among the employees. Fraiicouer testified that he had also deter- mined to discharge Classic after he had laid her off because he had ascertained from an inquiry among the employees in the filing department that Classic continually caused dissatisfaction by quar- reling with her superior,.Mulqueen, criticizing her to the other em- ployees, using obscene language, and quarreling with the other employees in the department. Most 'of the employees in the depart- ment testified that Classic had been a cause of trouble for approxi- mately 2 years because she constantly caused quarrels, and created resentment and jealousy by accusing Mulqueen of favoritism in the distribution of work. Although her case is not free from doubt, particularly in view of Weigolt's anti-union statements, we are not convinced that the respondent's defense that Classic was discharged for insubordination was advanced in bad faith. We concur in the findings of the Trial Examiner, that the record does not support the allegation in the complaint that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Blanche Classic, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization. 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- 'PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. -229 gent described ,in Section I above, ' have a close, intimate, and substan- tial 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 Since we have found that the ,respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices we shall order it to. cease and desist therefrom and to take certain- affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with •tlie formation and administration of the Old Welfare Club and con- tributed support to it. Since the Old Welfare Club has become inac- tive, we shall not order the respondent to disestablish it, but we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices with respect to the Old Welfare Club and to withhold recognition from it. We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the, P. E. A. and contributed support to it. Its continued existence is a consequence of violation - of the Act, thwarting the purposes of the Act. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and to free the employees of the respondent from such domination and interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights' guaranteed in the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the P. E. A. as representative of any of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates 'of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment or other conditions of employment, and to disestablish the P. E. A. as such representative. Since .the contract between the respondent and the P. E. A. em- -bodies recognition of the P. E. A. as exclusive representative and represents the fruits of the respondent's unfair labor practices and a device to perpetuate their effects, we shall order the respondent specifically to cease and desist from giving effect to this or any other agreement it may 'have entered into with the P. E. A. with respect to rates of pay, wages,'hours of employment or other conditions of work and to send appropriate individual notices to the employees who signed the contract. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. National Association of Die Casting Workers, Local No. 5, affil- iated with C. I. 0., Precision Employees Association, and the Old Welfare Club, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of and contributing financial and other support to the Old Welfare Club and the Precision Employees Association the respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent . has-engaged in and is -engaging in unfair labor ,practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure and terms' and conditions of employment of Blanche Classic, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) 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, respond- ent, Precision Castings Company, Inc., and its officers, agents, suc- cessors and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra- tion of the Old Welfare Club or the Precision Employees Association or the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and contributing financial or other support to the Old Welfare Club or the Precision Employees Association or to any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) Recognizing the Old Welfare Club or the Precision Employees Association as the representative of any of the employees for the pur- pose of dealing with - the respondent , concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours , of employment, or conditions of employment; (c) Giving effect to any agreement which it may have entered into, with or through the Old Welfare Club or the Precision Employees Association in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in. PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 231 concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds `will -effectuate the, policies 'of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Precision Employees Associa- tion as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of employ- ment and completely disestablish Precision Employees Association as such representative; (b) Give separate written notice to each of its employees who has signed the contract between the Precision Employees Association and the respondent or any modification, continuation, or extension thereof that such contract is in violation of the National Labor Relations Act; and that the respondent will no longer offer, solicit, enter into, ,continue, enforce, or attempt to enforce such contracts with its em- ployees; but that this is without prejudice to the assertion by the employees of any legal rights they may have acquired under such contracts; - (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in 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), (c), and (d), of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in para- graphs 2 (a), and (b), of this Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to hire and.tenure ,of employment, hired strikebreakers, or employed guards and cooks to interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of Tights guaranteed in the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLIS took part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.