Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corp.

In the Matter of TRANSUE & WILLIAMS STEEL FORGING CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS, DROP FORGERS, WELDERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 603 (A. F. L.) Case No. C-1951.,-Decided October 11, 1941 Jurisdiction : steel drop forgings industry. Unfair Labor Practices Company-Dominated Union: employee -representation plan: formed by em- ployer prior to effective date of Act ; employer participated in plan admin- istration prior and subsequent to effective date of Act by representation on plan executive committee ; employer contributed financial support to plan and the use of its time and property. Remedial Orders : disestablishment of dominated plan ordered. Mr. Max W. Johnstone, for the Board. Mr. F. W. Andrews, of Alliance, Ohio, for the respondent. Mr. Roman Beck, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on June 16, 1941, in the name of Inter- national Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, Welders and Helpers, Local 603, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 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 July 14, 1941, against Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation, Alliance, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation Works Council, herein called the Plan. 36 N. L. R. B., No. 13. 86 TRANSUE & WILLIAMS STEEL FORGING' 'CORPORATION 87 With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1)-that since 1933 the respondent engaged in. a con- tinuous plan and course of conduct to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in -Section 7 of-the Act; (2) that the respondent dominated and inter- `fered with the formation and administration of the Plan, a labor 'organization (a) by initiating conferences during June and July 1933, for the purpose of formulating a plan of employee,representa- tion, which later became the Plan, (b) by having the plan type- written and printed at its expense, by posting copies of the plan on the plant bulletin boards and in other ways seeking to persuade its employees to accept the plan, (c) by permitting elections for employee representatives to be held in the plant during regular working hours, by furnishing without cost all facilities- used by the Plan in the conduct of its business, including among others ballots and ballot boxes for use in Plan elections, stenographic services, and a meeting place for the use of the Plan committees; (d) by compensating its employees for time spent in voting for Plan rep- resentatives and employee representatives for time spent in the con- duct of Plan business; and (e) by participating directly in the management and administration of the Plan through representa- tives whom it appointed to the Plan's governing body. - - - Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Alliance, Ohio, on July 28, 1941, before William B. Barton, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Union and the Plan were not represented.' The respondent did not file an answer to the complaint, but its counsel entered .into a stip- ulation admitting that it had engaged in certain of the activities alleged in the complaint to be unfair labor practices; at the hearing, however, the respondent denied that its acts constituted unfair labor practices. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be amended to conform to the proof. The motion was granted without objection. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled on other 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.. At the close of the hearing, counsel both for the Board and for the respond- -ent were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Trial Exam- iner and to argue orally before: him; but neither availed himself of these privileges. . 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL'.LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated August 14, 1941, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom- mended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, and disestablish the Plan. Although the parties were afforded an opportunity to file exceptions to the Intermediate Report, to submit a brief in their support, and to request oral argument before the Board, they did not avail themselves of that opportunity. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a Delaware corporation having its main office and plant at Alliance, Ohio, where it is engaged in the production of .steel drop forgings, steel stampings, and steel scrap. The raw ma- terials which it uses for production consist in part of bar and sheet steel, coal, and fuel oil. During 1940, the respondent's purchases of these materials exceeded in value $1,500,000, and approximately 30 per cent of the materials so purchased were obtained from points oilt- side the State of Ohio. Its finished products during that year ex- ceeded in value $3,000,000, and approximately 80 per cent of these products were sold and transported outside the State of Ohio.,, II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, Welders, and Helpers, Local 603,. is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor ; it admits to membership employees of the respondent. Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation Works Council is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership em- ployees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The formation and structure of the Plan In 1933, soon after the enactment of the National Industrial Re- covery Act,, Joseph R. Gorman, the respondent's president, examined IThe respondent concedes that it is engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (6) of the Act. 2The National Industrial Recovery Act (U. S'.' C., Title' 15, Sec . 701) went into 'effect on June 16 , 1933. Section 7 (a) thereof secured to employees the right to self-organization and to collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. TRANSUE & WILLIAMS STEEL FORGING CORPORATION 89 five or six plans of employee representation which had been estab- lished in other plants and discussed certain of these plans with executives of the employers concerned.3 Thereafter Gorman met with C. T. Kingston, the respondent's works manager, Roy E. Hess, its superintendent of maintenance, and Ernest H. Meeks, its personnel director. Meeks described what this group did by saying ". . . we went through them all and picked out. what we thought was best." The management then discussed the matter further with several of the department heads and with certain of the subordinate employees. Thereafter Kingston prepared typewritten copies of a proposed Plan of Employees' Representation, herein called the Plan. About this time, Kingston wrote a letter to Meeks stating that the National Industrial Recovery Act provided for collective bargaining in industries which brought themselves under a Code of Fair Com- petition. ' Kingston went on to say in the letter that he had had conferences with many 'of the respondent's employees and that fol- lowing these conferences he had had typewritten a plan of employees'. representation the terms of which he briefly explained. The letter concluded as follows I am attaching hereto several copies of this Plan. These copies you are to spread on every Bulletin Board, where they can be readily seen and read by all employees. It is our plan to have the men themselves, (without assistance from the management, other than asked for) hold their nomina- tions and elections, this only however, after they shall have thoroughly read and become familiar with the Plan itself. The Plan set up seven divisions 4 of employees, and provided that .each division should elect annually a representative to serve on the Joint Committee described below. After the typewritten Plan had been prepared, executives of the respondent called the employees in each division together and read the Plan to them. Meeks described what took place at one of these meetings. 'The group, which included about 145 employees, assembled on the re- spondent's powerhouse lawn; Kingston, Hess, and Meeks were present. Kingston presided and "explained what the idea was, due to the fact of the National Recovery Act and the Government at that time thought there should be some type of collective bargaining." Hess also talked along similar lines. In the course of the meeting, Kingston read the Plan to the employees, some of whom asked s' Gorman testified that he obtained five or six sample plans , including those of The Bethlehem Steel Company and The J. H. Williams Drop Forge Company. Ernest H. Meeks, the respondent's personnel director , testified that the employee representation plan of the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation was also considered. * Various occupational groups were placed in each division. 90 DECISIONS,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD questions about it, but the employees "approved each paragraph as they went along." 5 After this had been done, the employees nomi- nated persons whom they wished to serve as employee representatives on the Joint Committee for their division. The same procedure with- respect to initiating the Plan was followed in the other six divisions.. Elections were thereafter held for employee representatives on the Joint Committee, after which" the Joint Committee voted its approval of the Plan. The respondent had approximately 500 copies of the Plan printed at this time at its own expense' and distributed these copies among the employees through its employment office. The Joint Committee consisted of seven employee representatives and management representatives "appointed by [the Company, whose number] shall not be less than three or more than the number of the Employee Representatives at the same time in office." 8 The Plan made no provision for the payment of dues; nor did it provide for meetings of the employees to instruct their representatives , and- no such meetings have ever been held.9 An employee representative's. term of office expired when he ceased working for the respondent, was transferred to another division , or became a supervisory em- ployee. The Plan also provided that the respondent should appoint "a special representative . . . who shall keep the Management in touch with the •Employee Representatives and shall represent the Management in negotiations with such Representatives." This special representative was entitled to attend meetings of the Joint Committee but could not vote. Meetings of the Joint Committee were held once a month. The Plan provided that: For the time necessarily occupied through actual attendance, at regular or special meetings or conferences held pursuant to the plan, the Employee Representatives shall receive from the Company, payment commensurate with their respective average rates. The testimony , of Meeks shows that the vote was not by written ballot. ° Under the Plan employees in a supervisory capacity were allowed neither to vote for employee , representative nor to serve in such capacity . With this exception employees for 60 days or more prior to nominations were entitled to vote at nominations and elec- tions and any employee for a year prior to the nominations who was 21 years of age or more and a United States citizen was eligibleto,election as an employee representative. Nominations and elections were to be held by secret ballot during July in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Joint Committee and with only such assistance from the Management as may be requested." 4 Gorman estimated the cost of the printing between $10 and $15. ° In practice the respondent appointed seven management representatives. ° It appears ,^however , that certain employees in the various divisions have met irregularly to bring before their employee representatives "matters of mutual interest." TRANSUE. &- WILLIAMS STEEL-.FORGING- CORPORATION 911 The Company shall provide a suitable place " for meetings of the Joint Committee; and the Company "shall defray such expenses as necessarily shall be incident to the discharge of duties of Representatives under the Plan, when approved by a majority of the Joint Committee. The Plan 'stated that its purpose was "to give to the employees a voice equal with that of the management ... in consideration of all questions -relating to rates of pay, rules; working conditions, health, safety,- hours of labor and other similar matters of mutual interest ..." With respect to grievances, the' Plan provided that any employee could ultimately refer. "any matter which in [his] opinion requires adjustment" to the Joint Committee, either in per- son or through an employee representative of his voting division.lo In the-event that the Joint Committee failed to effect a settlement" of- the grievance, it could by 'majority vote "niake a decision as to what in its opinion such settlement should be." In case. it. failed to reach a decision, the dispute could be submitted to arbitration provided that -the • president of the respondent and a majority, of the -employee representatives consented thereto. . -The respondent was.at 'all times entitled under the terms of the, Plan to cast as many votes at meetings of the Joint Committee, as there were employee - representatives in office, irrespective of the, number "of its. representatives present at a meeting.'1 Amendments to the Plan could be made "at any meeting- of the Joint Committee by two-thirds vote of all the votes which under the Plan could, be cast at such meeting, if the entire number of Employee Represents-. tives whom ^ the employees shall then be entitled -under the plan to have were present- thereat." -B. The 1934 amendments to the Plan and its operation About June 1934,12 the name of the Joint Committee was changed to the Works Council and the name of the organization under the Plan was changed to Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation io Such matters,. according to the Plan , were to be taken up, first, with the Department Head, second,'. With the Management's Special Representative, and third, "with the works Manager,."who shall endeavor to effect a settlement or, with the approval of such employee or Employee Representative, as.the case maybe, refer the matter to the Joint Committee.": "The Plan provided that each representative should be free to discharge his duties in an independent manner without fear that his relations with the respondent "may be affected in the least degree . As a, protection against possible discrimination for such independent action each representatives - was given the right to take the question "to any of the superior officers , to the Joint Committee - and to the President of'the Company." If no satisfactory remedy ' Was thus obtained the representative then had a right to appeal to the State " Department of Labor or to the Secretary of Labor of the United States. " '-The printed copies of this amended plan were dated 'June 25, 1434'. " 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Works Council.13 The Plan, was also amended at this time to delete the :provisions whereby (a) the respondent was to "pay employee representatives for time' spent in Plan meetings, (b) provide a meeting place for the Joint Committee, and (c) defray whatever expenses representatives incurred in the discharge of their duties, "when approved by a majority of the Joint Committee." 14 At the same time the following provisions were added to the Plan : A majority. of Employee Representatives together with a majority of Management Representatives shall- constitute a ..: quorum at meetings of the Council and its committees. Employee ' Representatives and Management Representatives shall have. equal voting power and [a] two-third vote shall be necessary to decide any' question. The respondent had approximately 500 copies of the Plan, as iznended, printed at its expense and distributed the printed copies among ,its employees until some time in 1935 when the supply was exhausted. The Plan, as amended, has continued to function' in substantially the same manner that it did when it was originally adopted. The annual. elections of employee representatives have continued to be held ' on the respondent's property during working hours. The re- spondent has continued to furnish the Plan with the necessary space and•the stationery and supplies used in conducting the elections. If an employee is on duty when an election is held, the respondent has continued to permit him to leave his work long enough to vote without a deduction in pay. Under the provision in the Plan that "the Works Council shall elect its own officers," Hess, the respondent's maintenance superin- tendent, was elected chairman of the Joint Committee at its inception and has continued in that office until the present time. Meeks, the respondent's personnel director, was appointed by the respondent at the inception of the Plan as its special representative, and has con- tinued in that capacity until the present time. Meeks has also acted as the secretary of the Joint Committee at all times and has kept minutes of its meetings, which are typewritten by his stenographer during regular working hours. The minutes thus prepared have been posted regularly on the plant bulletin boards.15 's For the sake of clarity; we adhere throughout this Decision to the original designa- tions, namely , the Joint Committee and the Plan. 1+ The 60-day and 1-year provisions regarding respectively eligibility to vote and to hold office as employee representative , mentioned in footnote 6 supra, were also deleted at this time. 15 Meeks testified that one copy of the minutes was posted on the bulletin board at the forge plant in the main entrance and another at the clock room at-the-stamping plant. In the stipulation regarding the respondent 's business these plants are referred to collectively as the plant. TRANSUE & WILLIAMS:STEEL' FORGING -CORPORATION .93 Although'by one of the amendments 'to the Plan noted abo'e:the provision that the respondent would furnish a meeting place for 'the Joint Committee was deleted, the respondent has nevertheless per- mitted the Joint Committee to meet regularly in the office of Roy E. Hess, its superintendent of maintenance. Moreover, employee repre- selitatives who attend meetings of the Joint Committee during work- ing hours have continued to receive their regular pay for the time so spent. The dominant role which the respondent plays in the administration of the Plan is likewise revealed by the manner in which grievances have been dealt with. Hess testified that certain grievances are settled at the meeting of the Joint Committee at which they are brought up, but he said, "when it is a matter of general interest, it is usually referred to the management." The way in which this was done was described in the following excerpt from Hess's testimony- Q. Tell me how that machinery works. How do you take it up with the management; do you do it, or does somebody else do it? _ A. Very often I do it, myself. Q. With whom do you confer? A. Mr. Gorman. C. Conclusions regarding the Plan It is clear that the Plan had its inception in employer action. The respondent's executives and supervisory employees conceived of the Plan, put the Plan into written, form, and then suggested its adoption to , the employees. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the respondent's employees ever considered such idea • until the respondent suggested it. Since, however, the Act did not become effective until July 5, 1935, the respondent's acts prior to that date do not constitute unfair labor practices. They give meaning, however, to the respondent's sub- sequent conduct and reveal its attitude with respect to the Plan.16 Since July 5, 1935, as has been noted, the Plan has undergone no substantial change in operation. The procedure under the Plan 'e For that purpose, the respondent's prior conduct is clearly material. 'See National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 272, 273; National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 261, 269; National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash d Chemical Corp., 98 F. (2d) 488, 494 (C. C. A. 9), cert. den., 306 U . S. 643; Cudahy Packing Co. v. National Labor Rela- tions Board, 102 F. (2d) 745, 747 (C. C. A. 8), cert. den ., 308 U. S. 565; National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 94 F. (2d) 138, 141 (C. C. A. 9), cert. den., 304 U. S. 579; Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 91 F. (2d ) 134, 135 (C. C. A. 4), cert. den., 302 U. S. 731 ; National Labor Relations Board Y. H. E. Fletcher Co., 108 F. (2d) 459, 461 (C. C. A. 1 ), cert. den ., 309 U. S. 678. '04 : =DECISIOATS OF :NATIONAL -LABOR-. -RELATIONS TOARP2 is such'as to make it incapable of functioning as a genuine collective bargaining agency. Under the Plan, the employees are limited to choosing fellow employees as employee representatives' on the Joint Committee and are therefore deprived of an opportunity to select expert outside representatives whom they might desire. Moreover, it is -always within the power of the respondent ; to terminate the services of an employee representative by discharging him, trans= ferring him to another division, or promoting him to a supervisory position. 'Furthermore, by having a number of votes equal to. the number of employee representatives on the Joint Committee, the respondent is at all times able to restrain any action which the employee representatives might desire to take, a restraint, moreover, which is absolute since under the Plan as amended in,1934 a two- thirds vote is required to decide- every question. By the same token, the. employees- (through their employee representatives) are power- less to amend the Plan since such action also requires. a -two-thirds vote- of the Joint Committee. Since, moreover, the employees have never been required to pay dues under the Plan, • its 'operation has been made possible only by the financial- and ,other support which the respondent gave it. Although the Plan purports- to,bestow upon the employees an equal voice with the management in the- consid- eration of questions concerning rates of pay, hours of worli, and other conditions of employment, the Plan does not in- fact afford such joint control. The respondent not only participates in considering any ac- tion which the governing body under the Plan may desire to take; but, as has been noted, it finally determines what that action should be. As might well be expected in these. circumstances, the respondent has never offered' its employees, and the Plan has never sought, a collective bargaining contract 17 In practice Gorman, the president of the respondent, and Hess, its superintendent of maintenance, have themselves determined matters of general concern relating to rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. Clearly therefore the Plan does not afford a basis for genuine collective bargaining.18 The respondent contends that its conduct with respect to the Plan does not violate the Act because -it has never shown an animus 17 No contention was made at the hearing that any such contract has ever been entered into. 18 Plans of 'employee representation in all essential respects similar to that here in- volved have been held to be in violation of the Act. See National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U. S. 241 ; National Labor Relations Board v. H. F. Fletcher Co. 108 F. (2d) .459 (C. C. A. 1), cert. denied, 309 U. S. 678 ; Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation , Ltd., v. National Labor Relations Board, 114 F. (2d) 930 (C. C. A. 1).' TRANSTJE & WILLIAMS STEEL: FORGING CORPORATION 95 toward-outside unions or collective bargaining."' There is,no merit in this contention since the structure of the • Plan is: itself. incom- patible with genuine collective bargaining, and the manner of the Plan's inception as well- as its . operation was such as to identify it with wholehearted sponsorship- and. support by the - management in the minds of the employees. We find that since July 5, 1935, . the respondent has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Plan, and has con- tributed support to it. We find, further, that since the passage of the Act, the- respondent has interfered with, restrained,, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in-.Section 7 of the Act (1) by permitting the Plan to continue in operation with full- and never disavowed management support; (2) by permitting Plan elections and meetings to be held on company time and property and otherwise contributing the use of its property and facilities as well. -as the time of its employees to enable the -Plan to continue in operation; and (3) by continuing to participate in the management and- administration of the Plan and continuing to control its affairs through its executives and through- management representatives on the Joint Committee. - IV. TIIE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I above, have a 'close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade.' traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing .commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. More- over, we shall order the respondent to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that since July 5, 1935, the respondent has dom- inated and interfered with the administration of the Plan and con- tributed support to it. In order to free the employees of the respondent from the employer compulsions engendered by these un- fair labor practices and to eliminate the continuing obstacle which iu The record discloses , however , that three charges have been filed against the respond- ent, prior to the'instant case. In all three instances the charges were withdrawn. At the time of the first charge , the respondent posted a notice suggested by one of the Board's field examiners. The notice is still posted on the respondent 's bulletin board. None of these charges contained 8 (2) allegations. - 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Plan presents to the exercise by the: employees of the; rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the Plan as the representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. The respondent, as has been noted, has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Plan for a long period of time. This long-continued and never disavowed illegal sponsorship and support not only violates Section 8 (2) of the Act, but reveals a purpose to defeat the basic rights of self-organization and collective bargaining which the Act was designed to protect. The exercise of those rights was greatly impeded, if not altogether prevented, by the barrier which the Plan presented to bona fide self-organization on the part of -the respondent's employees; by the same token, the Plan necessarily in- terfered with the right of the employees to bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing. Because of the re- spondent's long-continued unlawful conduct and its underlying pur- pose, we are convinced that respondent may seek to accomplish its unlawful purpose by unfair labor practices other than those in which it has engaged and that the danger of the commission of such re- lated unfair labor practices in the future "is to be anticipated from the course of [the respondent's] conduct in the past." 20 The pre- ventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the terms of our order are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,21 and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, Weld- ers and Helpers, Local 603, affiliated with the American Federation 21 National Labor Relations Board v . Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426. 21 National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al. 303 U. S. 261, 266 . The Report of the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor on the National Labor Relations Bill stated, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Rep. No. 573 : Practically 70 percent of'the employer -promoted unions have sprung up since the passage of Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The testimony before the Committee has indicated that the active entry of some employers into a vigorous competitive race for the organization of workers is not conducive to peace in industry . It is the wish of the committee to prevent in so far as possible the perpetuation of bitterness or strife. TRANSUE & WILLIAMS STEEL- FORGING CORPORATION 97 of Labor and Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation Works Council are labor.organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act: 2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation Works Council, and contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section R. (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 re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of 'law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation, Works Council,' or with the formation' or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to said labor organization or to any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) 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 representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw all recognition from Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation Works Council as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con- cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment, or other conditions of employment, and completely dis- establish Transue & Williams Steel Forging Corporation Works Council as such representative; 433118-42-vol. 36-8 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -'BOARD_, (b).'Post immediately , in conspicuous places throughout its." plant at,Allian,ce, Ohio, and maintain 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 has been . ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (2) that it will•take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of.this Order; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within ten ' ( 10) -days from the date of this Order what 'steps, the respondent has taken to comply herewith.