Northwestern Cabinet Co.

In the Matter Of NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY arul FURNITURE WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 1860 OF THE UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L., SUCCESSOR TO NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT COUNCIL OF FURNITURE AND WOODENWARE WORKERS OF U. B. OF C. AND J. OF A., A. F. OF L. a'nd UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS LOCAL No. 756, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT Case No. C-1876.-Decided January 17, 191 Jurisdiction : furniture manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices In General: employer held responsible for acts of supervisors and of non- supervisory employees who had been designated by supervisors as the persons employees should consult about forming a "shop union". Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements and activities of supervisory employees; disparaging outside union; declaration of union preference; sponsorship of Company union and participation therein by man- agement representatives ; formation of local of outside union by leaders of Company union; employer assistance to outside union ; signing closed-shop contract with employer-assisted union not representing majority of employees in appropriate unit covered by contract when made. Discrimination: refusal to continue in employment persons who would not join labor organization having invalid closed-shop contract ; application for reinstatement unnecessary where unlawful condition is imposed upon reinstatement. Remedial Orders : order to bargain collectively; abrogation of contract with employer-assisted organization ; employer ordered to cease and desist from reorganizing assisted organization unless and until certified by Board ; rein- statement ordered unfair labor practice strikers who had previously applied for reinstatement and upon application to those who had not made previous application; back pay awarded unfair labor practice strikers during period from five days after date they applied or apply for reinstatement to offer of reinstatement, and also during period of discrimination. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em- ployees excluding supervisors and office and clerical employees. Mr. Lee Loevinger, for the Board. Lane cC Waterman, by Mr. Wayne G. Cook, and Mr. F. J. Mac- Laughlin, of Davenport, Iowa, for the respondent. Leonard, Street d) Dien hard, by Mr. H. C. Edelman, of Minne- apolis, Minn., for Local 1860. Mr. H. J. Burbach, of Burlington, Iowa, and Mr. M. H. Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Upholsterers. 38 N. L. R. B., No. 77. 357 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. R. G. Ita, of Burlington, Iowa, and Mr. Joseph O. Carson, of Indianapolis, Ind., for Local 786. Mr. Sidney L. Davis of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a third amended charge, dated January 27, 1941,1 filed by Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860, herein called Local 1860, of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. of L., herein called the Upholsterers, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint, dated February 1, 1941, against Northwestern Cabinet Company, Burlington, Iowa, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices effecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) 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 notices of hearing, were duly-served upon the re- spondent, Local 1860, the Upholsterers, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 786, herein called Local 786. The complaint, as amended, alleged in substance, that the respond- ent at its Burlington, Iowa, plant: (1) since on or about August 1, 1940, advised and warned its employees not to become or remain members of Local 1860 or of North Central District Council of Furni- ture and Woodenware Workers, herein called the Carpenters Council, of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Carpenters, and not to engage in other activities for the purpose of collective bargaining; (2) on or about September 10, 1940, instigated the formation of Northwestern Cabinet Company Shop Union, herein called the Shop Union, contributed support to it, and advised and warned its employees to join it; (3) from on or about November 29, 1940, advised and warned its employees to join Local 786 and otherwise lent support to that organization, a successor to the Shop 1 The original charge was filed on September 28, 1940 , and amended charges were there- after filed on December 4 and December 7, 1940, and January 27, ' 1941. On February 13, 1941, a supplemental charge was filed. 3 In the third amended charge , Local 1860 further describes itself as "successor" to "North Central District Council of Furniture and Woodenware Workers of U. B. of C. & J. of A, A. F. of L" NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 359 Union; (4) on. or about January 13, 1941, entered into a contract with Local 786, recognizing 'that organization as the exclusive rep- resentative of the respondent's employees, and requiring member- ship in Local 786 as a condition of employment, although Local 786 did not at that or any time prior thereto represent a majority of the respondent's employees within an appropriate collective' bargaining unit; (5) entered into such contract for the purpose of encouraging its employees to designate Local 786 as their representative, and of discouraging membership in Local 1860, and agreed to give wage increases to those of its employees who ceased to strike and who returned to work within 15 days from the date of such contract; (6) at various times between August 19, 1940, and December 10, 1940, refused to bargain collectively with the Carpenters Council, and on or about December 10, 1940, and thereafter, with Local 1860, the successor to the Carpenters Council; and (7) on or about Febru- ary 6, 1941, threatened to discharge, and on or about February 10, discharged 208 named employees because they joined or assisted Local 1860 and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. The unfair labor practices which occurred prior to Sep- tember 23, 1940, were.alleged to have caused, and those which oc- curred after September 23, 1940, were alleged to have prolonged, a strike which began on that date. On February 13, 1941, the respondent filed its answer and on February 20 and March 5, 1941, amended answers. The respondent's answer, as finally amended, admitted certain allegations of the com- plaint with respect to the respondent's business, but denied that the Carpenters Council was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, or that the respondent had engaged in any unfair labor practices. It alleged, affirmatively, that the respondent's contract with Local 786 had been amended by striking the closed-shop provi- sion therefrom, and that on March 4, 1941, during the course of the hearing, it gave notice to all of its "employees and former employees" that they might return to work for the respondent without joining Local 786 or any union and without withdrawing from any union. On February 14, 1941, Local 786 filed its answer in which it denied that the Carpenters Council was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act or that the respondent had instigated the forma- tion of Local 786. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, March 3, 4, and 5, 1941, at Burlington, Iowa, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent,, Local 1860, the Upholsterers, and Local 786 were represented and participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cross-examine witnesses, .and to introduce- evidence bearing on the Issues. During the" course- of the hearing, counsel fof the,, Board moved to strike from the complaint, as amended, ,the names of, 21 employee's alleged to have ' been discriminatorily discharged by the respondent. The Trial Examiner granted this, motion. During the course of the hearing, the, Trial, Examiner made various rulings on other 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 committed'.. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The 'Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report; dated May 7, 1941, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in which he found that the respondent' had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and, (7) of the Act. 'He recommended that' the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain specified affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the 'Act. The Trial Examiner- further.rec- ommended that the complaint' be dismissed in so' far as it alleged that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices' within the meaning of'Section, 8 (3) of the Act. , On June 9; 1941, the re- spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Upon the request of the respondent and pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argu- ment was held before the Board on September 18, 1941, at Washing' ton,' D.' C., Local 1860 and Local 786' were represented' by counsel and presented argument.3 • The respondent ' did : not appear. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and; save as the, exceptions are consistent. with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be 'withoutI merit. Upon the entire record in the case`, the Board"makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Northwestern Cabinet Company is an ,Iowa corporation having its principal office and plant in Burlington, Iowa., The ,respondent's plant at Burlington consists of two buildings, called Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, situated, within a block of one another. The re- spondent is engaged in manufacturing and selling wooden furniture, ' At the oral argument, Local 1860 stated that it excepted to the recommendations of the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report with respect to the alleged discriminatory dis- charges and moved that the Board consider such, exceptions,., Local 786 moved to join in the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report with respect to the finding therein that Local 786 was a successor to the 'Shop Union: ' . The` motiums'of' Local 1860 and'Local 786 to consider these exceptions to the Intermediate Report aie hereby granted. NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 361 including secretaries and other household desks. ,The-principal .raw and semi-finished,.materials used by the respondent are lumber,, fin- ishing materials such as lacquers, stains and fillers, furniture hard- ware, and crating lumber, and cartons. During the year 1939, the total dollar value of all raw materials purchased by the respondent amounted to, $389,319.27. Approximately,'90 per cent of the, raw materials purchased by the respondent was shipped to its plant in Burlington, Iowa, from points outside the State of Iowa.. During the same period, the respondent's total sales amounted to ' $837,727.09. Of this total, sales amounting to $822,700.09 were made to customers outside the State of 'Iowa.'. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED,, Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 is a labor organization affiliated with the Upholsterers' International Union of North Amer- ica, which in turn is affiliated with the ,American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. North Central District Council of Furniture and Woodenware Workers is a labor organization chartered by ,the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , which in turn is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Northwestern Cabinet Company Shop Union was a labor organiza- tion admitting to membership employees of,the respondent. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ,, Local No. 786, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference , restraint, and ' coercion; ' formation 61, the' Shdp Uhiion -In May 1940 , John Janosco, secretary and treasurer , of • the Car- penteis Council , came to Burlington for the purpose of organizing employees in the furniture industry in that city. Janosco was acting on instructions from the Carpenters Council -which was formed,-as provided in its bylaws, in order to "more completely organize 'the furniture and, woodenware industry" in -Northern Michigan, Wis- consin, Minnesota, and Iowa. Its bylaws also provide that it shall be composed of regularly elected delegates of local unions and that all local unions affiliated' with the Carpenters Council "must be char- tered by the United Brotherhood ' of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica." At this time there were , five local unions connected with the Carpenters Council . In accordance with "his instructions, Janosco solicited employees of the respondent , among others , to join the Car- 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD penters. By the middle of August a number of the respondent's employees had joined the Carpenters and a negotiating committee consisting of 20 employees was formed . On August 17 a special meeting was held of the employees of the respondent who had joined the Carpenters . A proposed contract, drafted at this meeting, was mailed on August 19'to the respondent along with a letter requesting a conference for the purpose of discussing the proposed contract. Receiving no reply to this letter , Janosco, on September 2, 1940, ad- dressed another letter to the respondent requesting a meeting . There- after Janosco and other representatives of the Carpenters met with representatives of the respondent on September 6, 13, and 20. The parties were unable to reach an agreement and on September 23 the respondent's employees went on strike . The strike was still in prog- ress at the time of the hearing. The efforts of the Carpenters to organize the respondent 's employ- ees evoked the immediate opposition of the respondent. Alfred Marsh, who worked 'in the lumber yard , testified that on several occasions Oscar Coons, lumber-yard foreman, declared that it would be a "bad move" if the employees joined the Carpenters and went on strike. He stated that E. A. Starker, the respondent's secretary- treasurer , "was going to figure on selling out to St. Louis and they would close the plant down." John Stiefel, employed in the finish- ing department, testified that Adolph Huppenbauer, a foreman, talked to him on several occasions in opposition to the Carpenters, stating that it was foolish for employees to go on strike because strikes never accomplished anything and that, as for himself, he would never join a -union. Jess Parrish, another lumber-yard em- ployee, testified that 2 or 3 weeks prior to the strike Coons told him that he and others interested in the Carpenters were "a bunch of damn fools to give money to any outside organizer ." Lee Dameron, an employee in the machine room, testified that about a week prior to the strike , William Wolf, a shop foreman, and Robert Miller, foreman of the machine room, told him that if the Carpenters calve into the plant or if there was a strike, the respondent would have to shut down the plant , that the respondent could not recognize the Carpenters, and that it "wouldn't let some outsider come in and tell them how to run the plant." Lloyd Titus testified that his immedi- ate superior, Charles Hartman, a working foreman ,4 advised him 6 The respondent denied that Hartman was a supervisory employee . Robert wolf, the respondent's superintendent; testified that while Hartman did work as a sprayer he was also in charge of a separate spray booth which was a part of the finishing department under the supervision of C. Bawman , foreman of that department . , Hartman testified that he did work as a sprayer but that he had six helpers under him to whom he gave directions whereas other sprayers had but one or two helpers Of nine sprayers in'Hartman 's department, in- cluding Hartnian,hrmself, Hartman was the oldest employee , having been with the respond- ent for 15 years while other sprayers received from 44 to 49 cents an hour with the NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 363 that Robert Wolf, the respondent 's vice president and general super- intendent, had stated that no outsider would ever run the plant, that the respondent would never sign an agreement, with the Carpenters, and if the Carpenters ever got into the plant, the, respondent might move its -plant to Georgia . Max Jones, who also worked directly under Hartman, alleged that a day or so before the strike , Hartman urged him not to join the Carpenters until Superintendent Wolf heard from his lawyer in St. Louis. On this occasion , Hartman characterized Janosco as a "damned liar , just an agitator." Jones also testified that on another occasion Hartman stated that Jews were running the furniture industry , that Hitler should come over and drive them out, and that "if you don 't sign up with the Jews you was out." Neither Coons, Miller , Bawman, nor William Wolf testified , and although Huppenbauer testified he did not deny the statement attributed to him by Stiefel . While Hartman denied the statements attributed to him, we find , as did 'the Trial Examiner, that he was an evasive and unreliable witness , and -therefore do not credit his denials. ',We further find, as did the Trial Examiner; that Hartman as well as Coons , Miller, Bawman, William Wolf, and Huppenbauer made the statements attributed to them substantially as set forth above. As indicated above, the respondent opposed the Carpenters by the coercive statements of its foremen: This was done while the Carpenters was attempting to negotiate a contract with the respond- ent. During the same period of time (latter August until September 23), efforts were made to form a "shop" union. These efforts crys- tallized in a meeting in the packing room of the respondent's plant, about a week prior to the strike. James L. Davies, who was subsequently elected secretary of the Shop Union, testified that for "two or three weeks, maybe a month" before the strike there was "talk" throughout the plant concerning the organization of a "shop " union. It is clear from the record that' this "talk" stemmed directly from the respondent. Harold C. Tucker, an employee, testified that about 3 weeks before the strike, Foreman Robert Miller asked him and liis fellow employee, Walter Springsteen , why they "could not start a company union" and told then to shut their machines off and see Davies in the fitting room. Orville Wooldridge testified that about a week before the strike , Miller asked him, during working hours , to sign up "with the company" exception of one who received 58 cents, Hartman received 63 cents Hartman also testified that although he had no power to hue or dischar ge, he sometimes laid off or discharged an employee at the direction of BaNxman we find that Hartman supervised the work of the employees under him and that his acts are attributable to the respondent International Association of Maclnnists v. National Labor Relations Board , 311 U S 73. H J Heinz Co v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U. S 514 ; National Labor Relations Board v . Linl,- Belt Co, 311 U. S 584. 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD because' it "would give us insurance and things 'like that and we will get to work steady, we will,get unemployment compensation by",doing that." Carl Enhorning, an employee in the machine shop, testified that about, 2 weeks before the, strike, Miller asked him if, he did not. think that "we was better "off if we had a union of our own." Jess Parrish, who worked, under Coons, testified that 2 or 3 ,weeks before the strike, Coons told him that he and others who were interested" in the Car- penters were a "bunch, of damn fools to give money to any outside organizer" and that he thought that they "would be smarter if [They] would have , a union of [their] own." James Blessing, an employee, testified that, about 2 weeks prior to the strike, Coons told him that those joining the Carpenters would lose their jobs and that "the company union was the one that would be worthwhile." Coons then told Blessing to see Ray, Hightower who "would sign [him] up in the company :union." , Neither. Miller nor Coons testified. We find, as did the Trial Examiner„that they, made, in substance, the statements attributed,to them as set forth above., , The respondent's opposition to the Carpenters, coupled with posi- tive suggestions, as,cited above, that a "shop" union should be formed, provided the impetus for, the creation of the Shop Union. The employees who took up and carried out the suggestion to form- the "shop" union were Hartman, Hightower, and Davies. Hartman was, as found above, a working foreman ; Davies and Hightower, although non-supervisory employees, "had, been designated by Foremen Miller, and ,Coons as ,the persons employees should ,consult about forming a 'shop".union and, as set forth below, they y^ere, mainly instrumental in its organization. We, find, as, did the Trial,, Examiner, that,the acts of Hightower, Davies, and Hartman are attributable to the respondent.5 , About a week prior to the strike, Hightower, Hartman, and Davies called a meeting to be held at 4: 30 p. m., in, the packing room when the evening shift reported,, for" work. Word, of the meeting, was circulated throughout the plant. Hartinan admitted and we, find, that, he, asked his helpers and others to attend the meeting, and at the same time expressed opposition to the Carpenters. Attendance at the packing-room meeting was also directly encouraged by Fore- man Coons. , Clarence Millizer, a lumber-yard worker, was, informed of the meeting by Coons, who.told him that "you" ,probably better be there if you want to keep your job." About 20 employees, includ- ing both day- and evening-shift workers, gathered in the packing room at the appointed hour. Hightower addressed the group and told them that he believed it was illegal to hold a meeting in the plant; the group then .dispersed.. Hightower testified that 'he came 'See cases cited in footnote -I, supr'n. 9 As noted above Coon did not testify NORTHWESTERN 'CABINET COMPAN_ 365 to this conclusion before arriving at the packing roonf: 'He'could not recall what had given him :the idea that'such a meeting 'might be illegal ;' he insisted that it was his own. A few day's after this' meeting, Hightower retained 'R. 'G. Ita, a local attorney, to prepare Articles "of' Association for' the 'Shop Union.7 The Articles were signed oil. September 20 by Hartman, mployees s A meeting of the Davies, Hightower, and several other employees'."' officers of the organization was held ,at the Burlington Hotel on that. evening and beginning on the following day, printed membership- application cards'were distributed among the employees.' This mem- bership"drive was conducted during-the next- 2, days, prior to the strike called on September, 23, 1940, and also while, the strike was in progress. The Shop 'Union'was assisted in this membership cam- paign by various supervisors who solicited employees in the plant to join the Shop Union. " Hartnlalr admitted, and we- find,. that he asked Moyers; Titus, and Jones to join the Shop Union. ':In this connection Moyers' testified that, when solicited to join ' the Shop Union,' Hartman 'told him; "You had better sign this union card up. You }have been here' d long time and you are about to lose your home." Although Ha't'man 'denied making this statement, we find, 'as did the Trial Examiner, that he made the ' statement which Moyers attributed to him. In addition, Hartman and nine of the respondent's foremen joined the Shop Union. When asked at the hearing as to the next step taken by the Shop Union after the employees were "signed up," Hightower replied "I guess the [Shop Union] died, that was the next step." Davies testified that the Shop Union never functioned, "we just commenced and had the cards signed and that's as far as we got." 1 11 "1 1 11 ; It is clear that the respondent instigated and asslsted'iil'the organ- ization of the Shop Union, warned, advised, and solicited employees to join the Shop Union, and 'vigorously disparaged and denounced the Carpenters in order to obstruct and prevent the Carpenters .front organizing and bargaining for its employees.'', We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the' respondent dominated' and interfered with the formation and'admiliistratlon of the Shop Union arid cont'ribut'ed support to it and that thereby,' and by' advising and warning em- ° This union was designated as the Northwesteui Cabinet Company Shop IInion in the Articles of Association , , , s The Articles prodded that membership in the Association should be confined to the em- ployees of the respondent , for an annual meeting of the membership, for the'creation'of'an executive board to draw up bylaws , ' and' that the first executive board should consist, of Ruscum , Jaeger, Hartman , Dodge, and Hunter , and the officers of Wilson . Rehm , Hightower, and Davies, president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary , respectively The existence of the Association was declared to be for a term of 50, years "from the date of 'filing these Articles Huth the recorder of DeMbines County, Ohio,' until soonec ' dissolved by a'three- fourths ('%) vote of all members thereof or by act'of general hssembly or by operation of law." . , ' - r , 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees not to join or assist the Carpenters, by threatening employees with discharge if they joined the Carpenters; by threatening to close the plant if the Carpenters succeeded in organizing its employees, it has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranted in Section 7 of the Act. B. The refusal to bargain collectively before the strike 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that all the production and maintenance em- ployees of the respondent, excluding supervisors and office and cler- ical employees, constitute 'a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The respondent, in its answer, admitted the appropriateness of this unit. We find that all the production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding supervisors and office and clerical employees, at all times material herein constituted, and that they now constitute, a unit appropriate for -the purposes of collective bargaining and that said ' unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Carpenters of a majority in the appropriate unit Counsel for the Board introduced into evidence 166 membership applications signed prior to September 20, 1940, by employees in the appropriate unit. The respondent did not question the genuineness of the signatures on any of the applications. The applications are of three kinds: one group bears the printed heading, "Application for membership in the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America"; another group bears the printed heading, "Application for Membership Woodenware Workers Union Local 20481 affiliated with A. F. of L."; the third group consists of mimeographed sheets of paper with the following heading, "Appli- cation for Membership Woodenware Workers , Local 20481 affiliated with A. F. of L." 9 Janosco testified that the second group of -cards was used after he had exhausted his supply of "Carpenters and Joiner's" cards. Janosco and Joseph Leib, an employee, testified and we find ' that applicants who signed the "Woodenware" cards were told that they were applying for membership in the Carpenters. It 9 Local 20481 was a Federal Union chartered by the A. F. of L. It held joint meetings with Local 1859, the Minneapolis , Minnesota , local of the Carpenters, of which Janosco was business agent. Local 1859 was a member of the Carpenters ' Council . It does not appear whether Local 20481 was a member thereof. NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 367 is clear that these applicants as well as those who signed the "Carpen- ters and Joiners" cards intended to and did designate the Carpenters as their bargaining representative."0 The respondent's pay roll for the period ending September 20, 1940, indicates that there,were then 271 employees within the appropriate unit." The 166 employees who had designated the Carpenters are all listed on the pay roll. We find that on September 20, 1940, and at all times up to November 29, 1940, when, under circumstances discussed below, employees aban- cloned the Carpenters and joined Local 1860, the Carpenters was the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and that during such period, by virtue of Section 9 (c) of the Act, it was the,exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. 3. The refusal to bargain with the Carpenters before the strike As noted above, the Carpenters mailed a proposed contract to the respondent on August 19 with a letter asking'for a meeting ,to discuss the proposal.12 The respondent made no reply to this letter and offered no explanation at the hearing for its failure to do so. On September 2, 1940, the Carpenters again wrote the respondent requesting a conference. On September 5, the respondent replied stating it would meet the Carpenters on the following day. On Sep- tember 6, Janosco met with E. A. Starker, the respondent's secretary- treasurer, Henry Starker, its sales manager, and Robert Wolf, its vice president and general superintendent, and told them that the Carpenters desired to bargain for the respondent's employees. The meeting, described by both Henry Starker and Janosco as preliminary and introductory in character, consisted mainly of a general discussion of the contract and of the furniture business. The respondent and the Carpenters conferred again on September 13 at Janosco's request. Paul Richardson, editor of a local labor paper, in addition to Janosco, was present for the Carpenters, and the Starkers and Wolf on behalf of the respondent. Janosco claimed '0 In soliciting employees to join the Carpenter s, Janosco explained to them that a charter for a local to which they would belong would he issued "as soon as the organization took shape." A charter was in fact issued to Local 786, on November 27, 1940, under circum- stances discussed below. 11 The parties were in agreement that of the total of 292 employees on the pay roll of Sep- tember 20, 21 should be excluded from the appropriate unit as clerical or supervisory em- ployees. Counsel for the Board contended that an additional five employees should be excluded as being supervisory employees Counsel for the respondent contended that they should be included . We have accepted the contention of the respondent 's counsel , for the purpose of arriving at the number of employees to be included in the appropriate unit 12 The negotiations with the respondent were conducted in the name of the Carpenters' Council on behalf of the Caipenters . Janosco, as an official of the Carpenters' Council, acted as spokesman for the Carpenters during these negotiations. 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at this meeting that the Carpenters represented a majority of the respondent's employees and demanded that. the respondent discuss the matter of a contract. F. A. Starker replied that the respondent would not negotiate with the Carpenters until its representative status had' been determined by the Board, preferably through an election. Janosco then proposed to bring in a shop committee of the respond- ent's employees to convince the respondent that the Carpenters rep- resented a majority. Starker rejoined that this "would not prove anything" whereupon Janosco stated that one way,of demonstrating that the Carpenters had a majority would be by calling: a strike. _ The respondent did not request any evidence,of ,the Carpenters' member- ship or other authority to represent, the employees and Janosco did not offer to produce such evidence. On the same date and subsequent to this meeting, the respondent sent a letter to the Carpenters stating that it would be willing to meet with its representatives or any rep- resentative 'of -a majority of the respondent's employees "when duly certified" by the Board. On September 18 the Carpenters filed a petition 'with the Board for an' investigation 'and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.13 ' The third meeting ' between the respondent and the Carpenters took, place on September 20. ' The two Starkers and Superintendent Wolf were again present on behalf of the respondent and Janosco, Fred Deitrich, president of Local 1859 of the Carpenters, and Gordon Hathaway, local representative of the Teamsters,'' were present for the Carpenters. The Carpenters reasserted that it represented a ma- jority of the respondent's employees and demanded that the respond- ent discuss the contract which had been previously `submitted. At the salve time, Janosco offered to produce application cards and to check them against the respondent's pay roll. As an alternative, he sug- gested that a consent election be held under the auspices of the Board or a "neutral party." These sugbestions were rejected by the re- spondent 15 ' Starker 'stated, however, that the iespondent would be willing to bargain with any organization which could show that it represented a majority of its employees. He-called Janosco's atten- tion to a letter dated September 18 ftom Robert J. Wiener, then Re- 18 The Carpenters withdrew this petition on September 23. On September 28, the Shop Union filed a petition for an investigation and certification of representatives The re- spondent, on December 12, filed a similar petition which the Board dismissed , without hearing, on January 7, 1941. 14 Local 218 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L. 15 Henry Starker admitted at the hearing that Janosco offered at this meeting to produce application cards for comparison with the respondent 's pay roll and that E . A. Starker rejected the offer. However, Henry Starker denied that Janosco offered as an alternative that a consent 'election be held the following day. E. A Starker did not testify. Janosco's testimony, upon which the above finding is based, was corroborated by that of Hathaway we agree with the Trial Examiner who credited Janosco 's testimony in this respect NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 369 gional Director of the Board for the Eighteenth Region, advising the respondent that the Carpenters had filed a petition for an investiga- tion and certification of representatives and that a representative of the Board would call on the respondent in Burlington on September 21. Starker suggested that the Board be "called in to certify who had the majority and that as he understood it an election was the usual method." He informed Janosco, however, that it would be "incon- venient" for him to meet with Wiener on September 21 and that he had requested Wiener to postpone his visit until September 24. Starker then suggested that the discussion of the Carpenters' claim to represent a majority be postponed until after he had met with Wiener. Janosco replied that such a delay was unwarranted and that he could not promise that there would not be a strike before that date since the employees were "hot and wanted action." He charged that "company union activities" were taking place in the plant and that employees were being permitted to take time off during work- ing hours in order to sign up members in the Shop Union. The respondent's conduct at the conferences with the Carpenters on September 6, 13, and 20, 1940, cannot be viewed apart from its open hostility to the Carpenters and its patent support of the Shop Union. While the respondent conferred and offered to bargain with the Carpenters if it established in an election conducted by the Board that it represented a majority, it was at the same time sponsoring a rival organization to compete for the employees who had designated or might have subsequently designated the Carpenters as their rep- resentative. While negotiations with the Carpenters were being con- ducted prior to the strike of September 23, the sponsors of the Shop Union, following the respondent's explicit suggestion that an inside union be formed, staged a meeting of employees in the packing room; thereafter Articles of Association for the Shop Union were prepared and a drive for members commenced. When the respondent's con- duct at its conferences with the, Carpenters is projected against this background, the conclusion is inescapable that it had no intention of bargaining with the Carpenters in good faith. It is equally clear that the respondent intended to and did use the Shop Union as a means of avoiding its obligation to deal with the Carpenters. Such conduct "is as patently a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act as a forthright refusal to meet with repre- sentatives of a labor organization clothed with the right to exclusive recognition." 7 e Under all the circumstances, we find that the re- 16 See Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company and Federation of Architects , Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 107, 12 N L R B . 1002, enf'd National Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Apparatus Co, 116 F. ( 2d) 753 ( C C A 7 ) ; Matter of New Era Die Co. and International Association of Machinists, Lodge 243 (A F of L ), 19 N L R . B. 227, enf'd as mod . National Labor Relations Board v. New Era Die Co., 118 F. (2d) 500 C. C. A. 3) 438861-42-25 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent refused on September 20, 1940, to bargain collectively with _the Carpenters as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit and that it has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. The strike On Saturday afternoon, September 21, Janosco held a meeting of --employees who had joined the Carpenters and discussed with them the results of the conference with the respondent on the previous day. The activities of the respondent 's foremen in assisting the Shop Union were also discussed at this meeting. The employees then voted to go on strike. This strike was called on Monday, September 23. A picket line was then thrown around the plant and all operations ceased. The plant remained closed until November 29 when it re- opened for 2 days. ' At the end of this period, it was again closed and remained closed until January 27, 1941, when it resumed oper- ations under circumstances discussed below . The strike , however, was still in effect at - the time of the hearing. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the strike was caused by the respondent's unfair labor practices. D. The refusal to bargain with. the Carpenters during the strike During the strike, the Carpenters attempted to bargain with the respondent. On October 10, 1940, the Carpenters and the respondent met at the courthouse in Burlington . E. A. Starker , Superintendent Wolf, Lynn Beman, the respondent's labor advisor, and Cromwell, a local attorney, were present on behalf of the respondent, and Janosco and a committee of employees for the Carpenters. After some preliminary discussion, Janosco asked Beman, who acted as spokesman for the respondent ; whether he had authority to represent the respondent and to negotiate a contract on its behalf . Beman re- plied that he was authorized to represent the respondent , but not to negotiate a contract. Janosco then stated that there was nothing further to discuss. The respondent then announced that it intended to meet with representatives of "the other union." To this Janosco replied that : "We have preferred charges against them as a company union and therefore it is up, to the National Labor Relations Board to decide whether or not it is a company union and we are not recognizing the company union against which we have already filed unfair labor practices that it [is] a company union." 17 Later the same day, the respondent sent a letter to the Carpenters "to confirm the proposal made to your union and to the other union 17 Charges were filed on tSeptember 28, 1940 NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 371 today." The respondent then proposed in this letter: (1) that the Carpenters immediately petition the. Board for an election ; (2) that the respondent agree to a consent election; (3) that the respondent agree to recognize "the union which receives a majority of the votes that are cast as the sole bargaining agency for all of the employees"; (4) that thereafter the respondent endeavor "to negotiate a-fair labor agreement" to be reduced to writing; (5) that the respondent do nothing to discourage or encourage membership in either union after the election; (6) that the respondent show its record of profit and loss to-representatives of the Carpenters; and (7) that the plant be im- mediately reopened. The latter added that "we made it very clear that we will not sign any variation of a closed shop." The Carpenters did not reply to the respondent's letter of October 10, and on October 17 the respondent again wrote to the Carpenters enclosing a copy of the letter of October 10 and requesting an answer thereto. On October 19, the Carpenters wrote to the respondent, re- asserting its desire to enter into a contract "so that the plant may be reopened and our men return to work" but adding that the re'- spondent's attitude at the October 10 meeting "left the Carpenters "no alternative except to adjourn the meeting until such time as your representatives are willing to meet with our committee and enter into a signed agreement covering wages, hours of work, and seniority." It is patent from the letter sent by the respondent to the Carpenters on October 10, in which it proposed that an election be held with the Shop Union and the Carpenters on the ballot, that it was attempting to use the Shop Union, which it had supported and initiated, as a buffer against the Carpenters. It was, by its proposal for an election, seeking to take advantage of its own unfair labor practices. The respondent did not relent during the strike in its expressed opposition to the Carpenters. Thus, Foreman Robert Miller told James Blessing, one of the 'respondent's firemen, that Janosco was "misleading the boys" and intended to "skip town" with the union dues. Foreman Coons told Blessing that the employees "would realize the mistake they made by following" Janosco, and also informed employee Millizer that Janosco was an "outlaw organizer" ,and that the' respondent would have him in jail before long.l$ We find, under the circumstances, that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Carpenters on October 10, 1940, as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit and that it has thereby, and by the above statements of Miller and Coons, interfered with, restrained; and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by such, conduct the respondent prolonged the strike commenced on September 23, 1940. is As noted above, neither Foreman Miller nor Coons testified. 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD E. Atte'inpt to discredit Jonosco ; formation of Local 786 Having failed to induce the Carpenters to consent to an election with the Shop Union on the ballot , the respondent turned to other devices in an effort to destroy the Carpenters . As foreshadowed in Coons' remark to Blessing , the respondent proceeded with a plan to '`run Janosco out of town ." Toward the latter part of October 1940, Superintendent Wolf called upon employees Blessing and Moyers and drove them to the office of County Attorney Raymond Wright. Bless- ing testified that on the way Wolf told him that he was "going to run Janosco out of town because he was misleading the boys." Although Wolf testified at the hearing , he did not deny the statement attributed to him by Blessing . We agree with the Trial Examiner who found that Wolf made the above statement , and so find . Present at Wright's office were Wright, Superintendent Wolf, Beman, E. A. Starker, Peter Hoffman, and one Dunn, the last two of whom were represent- atives, of the Carpenters, as well as Louis Luetger, business agent of Local 534 of the Carpenters at Burlington . The meeting lasted from 2 to 3 hours. Beman, Dunn, and Hoffman asked to examine the mem- bership books of Moyers and Blessing , and when shown the books, stated that the books Were "no good" and not "regular" membership books. Beman and Hoffman charged that Janosco was an impostor Who was obtaining money under false pretenses and attempted to persuade Blessing and Moyers to file an information against Janosco and to, leave their books With Wright. Moyers and Blessing refused to file an information against Janosco and , without an information, Wright was unwilling to proceed against Janosco.19 Failing in this effort to get rid of Janosco , the respondent, on November 4, addressed a letter "To all Employees" in which, among other things, it flatly stated that "under no circumstances will we recognize or deal with John Janosco. " It also alleged that the re- spondent had been notified by three representatives of the Carpenters, "Mr. Dunn, Mr. Hoffman, and a State Representative sent here by the National President," that Janosco had "no authority" to organize for the Carpenters in Burlington . "Mr. Dunn, speaking as a direct representative of the National President ," the letter asserted , "stated that . . . the union membership books issued to these men by Mr. Janosco were not authorized." The letter further stated that the re- spondent had received "notification" that Janosco was not authorized to organize for the Carpenters in Burlington , "in the office and in the '9 The findings with respect to the meeting in Wright's office are based on the undenied testimony of Blessing and Moyers. NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 373 presence of County, Attorney, Raymond Wright." 20 It is evident that such information as the respondent obtained from Dunn con- cerning Janosco's authority was deliberately solicited by the respond- ent. Leutger, business agent of Local 534 of the Carpenters, testified that the meeting at Wright's office at which Blessing and Moyers were questioned about their membership books occurred shortly after Be- man, the respondent's labor advisor, had asked him for the names of the international officers of the Carpenters. Beman did not testify. In addition, as noted above, Blessing testified without contradiction, that Superintendent Wolf told him on the day of the meeting ill Wright's office that he was "going to run Janosco out of town." Upon the entire record we are convinced and find, as did the Trial Ex- aminer, that the respondent acting through Beman, invoked the as- sistance of certain leaders of the Carpenters for the purpose of denouncing and discrediting Janosco. The respondent's letter to its employees also stated that "if the Carpenters Union takes over the membership and wants an. election, Ave will, of course, agree." In its context, the letter constituted an open invitation to the employees to abandon Janosco and to align themselves with other leaders of the Carpenters. Following the issuance of this letter and its publication In the press, officers of the Shop Union took steps to affiliate that organization with the Carpenters. Davies, secretary of the Shop Union, proceeded to 20 Other portions of the letter stated lie [Dunn] reported no application for a charter had been received, no bond had been filed . . . He stated that he estimated that in the neighborhood of $2,000 had been taken from the citizens of the community in initiation fees and dues Ile also stated that although the dues collected were higher than the customary amount, they of course, being unofficial do not carry the usual insurance and other benefits that are always a part-of the membership in the United Brotherhood of Cal pen-' ters and Joiners Union He stated further that not a single employee holding one of these books is at the present time a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Union. We regret, very much, that this cruel injustice is being done to the employees They have lost weeks of employment for nothing and there is danger of their losing much more future employment If it was possible to notify our representatises today that the plant would be open soon, we could get at least a month's employment for the employees this week s e • r r We, of course, know that the National Union makes the rules under which locals can be created From what we are able to find out the United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America is one of the oldest as well as one of the best unions in America [Emphasis supplied] Under the circumstances we are helpless If the business is-to continue here there must be cooperation from the citizens and the employees In view of the questionable dealings, ender no circumstances will we recognize or deal with John Janosco [Em- phasis supplied] It is believed lie has created among the group of younger employees a sort of red hatred of the company by allegedly false statements x s e r ► a s In a free country it is remaikable that citizens will allow one alleged discredited man to cause such tremendous loss of wages There is also a very grave danger that he may permently close the-plant All of this irregular procedure is apparently for the purpose of getting an organization in his own hands. Could he not sell this organ- ization to some other plants of organized labor 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD apply to the Carpenters for a charter and subsequently Local 786 of the Carpenters was formed. With respect to his part in the forma- tion of Local 786, Davies testified as follows : Q. How did-you learn of this conference which Dunn and Hoffman and Wright and Beman and Starker and several others participated in? A. Well the first intimation I had was in the paper.21 Q. In what form was that intimation? A. Well it was-I would say it was a letter, a form of a letter. Q. And that was one of the things that moved you to apply for the charter of Local 786? A. It was. _ Q. Will you tell us how this change came about? A. Well, the shop union had a petition in with the Labor Board for recognition, and I believe asking for an election, for a month or-six weeks, and the Labor Board had taken no action either way, to refuse, or reject our petition. Then the United Brotherhood representatives, Mr. Dunn and Mr. Hoffman, were in Burlington investigating the other union, and when it was declared that Mr. Janosco didn't have any authorization under the United Brotherhood to organize in Burlington, Mr. Hightower and myself met with Mr. Ita, and talked this thing over, and I don't know, but it was suggested by one of us, just who I couldn't say, that perhaps the best thing we could do would be to affiliate with some legitimate A. F. of L. union, and Mr. Ita was authorized to go ahead and see what could be done, see if the United Brotherhood would grant us a charter. An application for a charter in the Carpenters was passed among the employees by Hartman, Wilson, Jaeger, Hunter, Davies, High- tower, and Roscom, all officers or directors of the Shop Union, who obtained the signatures of 110 employees. Ten of the respondent's 21 foremen signed the application for the charter. Nine of these sign- ers and four other foremen subsequently joined. On November 27 the Carpenters issued a charter creating Local 786. The charter was installed at a meeting held on January 7, 1941, by Thomas Kirkwood, a representative of the Carpenters. The officers of the Shop Union became officers of Local 786, inasmuch as they had "done the work" of forming the local. In addition, a new office of financial secretary was established. No general meeting of the membership of the Shop 21 The respondent's letter of November 4 was published in the local press at Burlington NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 375 Union was held to disband the Shop Union or to approve the merger with the Carpenters. On November 27, 1940, the respondent addressed a letter to its employees stating, in part, that "upon the urgent request of a majority of our employees , the plant will be opened on Friday, this week." There ,is no credible evidence that a majority of the respondent's em- ployees made such a request. The letter also stated : "This is your notice and invitation to report for work. Please be there on time." The plant was opened on November 29, remained open for 2 days, and then closed down again , since an insufficient number of employees, approximately 18, reported for work. It is clear that Local 786 was sponsored and assisted by the respond- ent. In its letter of November 4, the respondent vigorously attacked Janosco, emphatically stated that it would not deal with him, and openly suggested that the employees and the Carpenters oust Janosco. "If the Carpenters Union takes over the membership and wants an election," the letter added , "we well, of course, agree." Acting imme- diately upon this suggestion, the Shop Union, which the respondent had originally created in opposition to the Carpenters , associated itself with this drive to oust Janosco and , through its leaders, circulated a charter application among the employees and subsequently applied for and obtained ' a, charter from the Carpenters . The officers of the Shop Union were installed as the officers of Local 786. We find that the respondent sponsored the formation of Local 786 and aided and assisted in its organization and that it has thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by such conduct the respondent pro- longed the strike which commenced on September 23, 1940. F. Formation of Local 1860; refusal to bargain with, Local 1860 As a result of the campaign • to oust Janosco in which Dunn and other leaders of the Carpenters joined with the respondent ,_ two of the five local unions which then composed the membership of the Carpenters Council abandoned the Carpenters and the Carpenters Council and became affiliated with the Upholsterers." A new North Central District Council, which these locals joined, was then formed by the Upholsterers. The Upholsterers also chartered a new local, Local 1860, on November 22, 1940, to accept employees of the respond- ent as members. Janosco became the leader of Local 1860. .On No- vember 27, 1940, a meeting was held of employees of the respondent who, under Janosco's leadership, had previously designated the Car-_ penters to act for them. In protest against the respondent's spon- n Another of these five local unions became defunct 376 DE'CISTONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sorship of Local 786 and its efforts to oust Janosco, the employees present at this meeting voted to "affiliate" with the Upholsterers. On November 29, the charter of Local 1860 was installed and application cards for membership in Local 1860 were distributed. Sixty-two employees who had previously applied for membership in the Car- penters under Janosco's leadership , signed applications for membership that night in Local 1860. During the following few days and prior to December 10, 84 other employees in the appropriate unit signed membership cards in the new local, so that by December 10, 146 of the 271 employees in the appropriate unit had designated Local 1860 to represent, them for the purposes of collective bargaining . Of these 146 employees, 139 had previously designated the Carpenters as their representative. We find that on December 10, 1940, and at all times thereafter, Local 1860 was and now is the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. On December 10, Janosco wrote the respondent advising it of the "change in affiliation" of its striking employees and asked recogni- toin of Local 1860 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's employees. A copy of the contract originally submitted to the respondent on behalf of the Carpenters was enclosed, with practically no change except for the name of the union. No reply was received to this communication. Local 1860 was able, however, to secure a meeting with Super- intendent Wolf on December 23. The meeting disbanded with nothing accomplished since Wolf stated, when asked by Janosco, that he- did not have any authority to negotiate a contract for the re- spondent.23 A suggestion by Janosco that the group meet with E. A. Starker was rejected. On January 7, 1941, Sal B. Hoffman, International President of the Upholsterers, wrote the respondent a letter in which he reviewed the strike situation in general and offered on behalf of the Upholsterers to agree to permit the Bureau of Conciliation of- the United States Department of Labor "to determine the truth of our local Union's statement that it represents a majority of the company's employees with the exception of the clerical force and the company's executives, by having a U. S. Commissioner of Conciliation assigned by the U. S. Department of Labor, check our membership cards against the com- pany's pay roll." The letter concluded by suggesting that the re- spondent advise Janosco "whether you are willing to agree to this '3 Wolf testified that he attended the meeting on his "own initiative" and was there in a "private capacity rather than as a representative " of the respondent NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 377 constructive and amicable method of adjusting your differences with our local Union." The respondent did not reply to this letter. In the early part of December, a committee of citizens had been or- ganized under the leadership of Doctors Smith and Buescher, local ]ministers, and Ross Burman, secretary of the local Chamber of Com- merce, in an effort to settle the strike and "adjust the dispute" be- tween the respondent and its employees. At a mass meeting of local manufacturers and professional men, a committee of 15 had been ap- pointed to make an investigation. The respondent did not have any representative on the committee and, so far as the record shows, did not directly participate in its formation. According to Burman, the committee, which immedi- ately began an investigation, did not communicate with the respond- ent until January 11, 1941, when a meeting was held under the auspices of the committee which E. A. Starker attended on behalf of the respondent. At this meeting, the committee advised Starker that Local 1860 had refused to submit to an election, that the com- mittee was convinced that Local 786 represented a majority of the respondent's employees, and that the plant should be reopened and a contract executed with Local 786. As a result of this meeting, another meeting was called for the following day, January 12, attended by representatives of Local 786 and the respondent. At the meeting on January 12, a contract was agreed upon and signed providing for small wage increases and a closed shop., The wage increases were made applicable to "all employees who were on the pay roll of the 20th day of September 1940, and who returned to work within fifteen (15) days after the reopening of the Northwest- ern Cabinet Company." The contract was subsequently modified in some minor particulars at the suggestion of the Carpenters, to whom the contract was forwarded, and reaffirmed on January 22, 1941. Neither at this meeting nor at any other time did the respondent re- quire or request evidence to establish that Local 786 represented a majority of its employees. Nor did Local 786 represent a majority.z" On March 3, 1941, toward the close of the hearing in this proceed- ing, Local 786 and the respondent modified the contract executed on January 22, by striking and eliminating therefrom the closed-shop provision and a provision relating to the use of the union label. On the following day, the respondent addressed a circular letter "To all Employees and the Former Employees of North Western Cabinet Company" informing them of the cancellation by mutual consent of the closed-shop provision of the contract and stating that "any em- ployee or former employee" who had not as yet returned to work might do so without joiningI "that or any other union and without 4 Approximately 100 of, the 271 employees in the appropriate unit applied for member- ship in Local 786 prior to January 22, 1941 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD abandoning or changing any affiliations they may now have." The employees were assured that the respondent would not discriminate against them because of their union membership or affiliations. The letter concluded by stating that the wage increases provided for in the original- contract between the respondent and Local 786 "will apply to any employee or former employee who was on the pay roll of the company on September 20, 1940,' and who returns to work pursuant thereto." As found above, Local 1860 represented a majority of the respond- ent's employees in the appropriate unit on December 10, 1940, and thereafter. The respondent failed to reply to the letter sent by Local 1860 on December 10. Although Local 1860 met with Superintendent Wolf on December 23, Wolf, like Beman, had no authority to enter into negotiations on behalf of the respondent. In addition, the re- spondent did not reply to Hoffman's letter of January 7, 1941. By neglecting to respond to the letters sent by Local 1860 and the Up- holsterers and by failing to provide an authorized representative to meet with Local 1860, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with Local 1860.25 As found above, the respondent recognized Local 786 as the exclusive representative of its employees and executed a closed-shop contract with that union although Local 1860 had been designated by a majority of its employees and was actively seeking to represent them. In recognizing and bargaining with Local 786, the respondent ignored its obligation to treat exclusively with Local 1860. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent, on Decem- ber 10 and December 23, 1940, and on January 7, 12, and 22, 1941, and at all times thereafter, refused and has continued to refuse to bargain collectively with Local 1860 as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and that the respondent has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find that the agreements entered into between the respondent and Local 786 and the contractual relationship exist- ing thereunder have been and are a means of utilizing an employer- assisted organization to frustrate the exercise by the respondent's employees of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We also 75 As noted below , the respondent on February 6, 1941 , sent a letter to all employees who had not returned to work upon the reopening of the plant on January 27, informing them that if they did not return to work by February 10, the respondent would "not be obligated to re-employ" them. We find that in thus seeking to deal directly with the individual em. ployees , the respondent violated its obligation to bargain exclusively with Local 1860, the designated representative of its employees . Cf Matter of Stewart Die Casting Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, Local 298, 14 N L R B, 872, enf'd as mod Stewart Die Casting Corp v. National Labor Relations Boeid, 114 F ( 2d) 849_(C. C. A 7), cert denied 312 U S. 680. E NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 379 find that by the above conduct the respondent prolonged the strike which commenced on September 23, 1940. G. Discrimination with respect to hire and tenure of employment The contract of January 22, 1941, between the respondent and Local 786 was published in full in the local newspaper. On February 6, the respondent sent the following letter to all employees who had not returned to work. NOTICE Dear Sir: In announcing the reopening of its plant the company an- nounced that all persons employed at the time of the strike would be re-employed without discrimination . The contract under which the plant was opened provided a 15 day period during which jobs of former employees would be kept open. As the plant opened January 27th this period will expire on Monday, February 10th. After that date the company will proceed to fill all remaining vacancies and thereafter will not be obligated to re-employ any of its former employees . As previously announced, all persons who were in the company 's employ on September 20th, 1940, will be reinstated it (sic ) they report for work on or before February 10. As stated in the notice , the plant reopened on January 27, 1941. Between that day and the day on which the notice was issued, February 6, 1941, approximately 85 employees in the appropriate unit returned to work. All of these employees were members of Local 786. Be- tween February 6 and February 10, 1941, the last day for "former" employees to return in accordance with the notice, an additional three employees reported for work. Two of these employees were members of Local 786 before the notice was issued; the other one joined on or before February 10, 1941. One hundred and eighty-seven em- ployees, named in the complaint , did not report for work by February 10,1941 .26 The complaint, as amended , alleges that the above notice constituted 'a threat to discharge the respondent's employees and that on February 10, 1941, the respondent did discharge , in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act, 187 named employees , that is those employees who failed to return to work by February 10, 1941 .27 We are of the opinion that the record supports this allegation of the complaint. ^ See footnote 27, nfra r Carl Saldeen, Charles Sclimieg, and warren Vogelgesang are included among the 187 employees , named in the complaint , as amended , who did not report for work on February 10, 194] These three individuals are not listed on the September 20, 1940 , pay roll of the iespondent's employees , and it is not clear whether they were employed by the respondent during the period herein involved In the event that they were striking employees prior to the reopening of the plant on January 27, 1941, and did not return to work by Felo nary 10, they are entitled to the same treatment accorded to the other employees named in the :omplaint - - 380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The notice which the respondent issued on February 6, 1941, must be viewed in conjunction with the contract with Local 786 under which the respondent was then operating. This contract provided that "all employees shall be members of Local No. 786." 'It was, however, an illegal agreement since Local 786 had been aided and assisted by the respondent and did -not represent a majority of the respondent's employees at the time the contract was executed. The rspondent and Local 786 continued, nonetheless, to operate under the terms of the agreement and gave employees to believe that they con- sidered the agreement legally enforceable. The provision making membership in Local 786 a condition of employment was continued in effect until March 3, 1941, when, as we have noted, the respondent and Local 786 deleted this provision from their agreement; on the following day, the respondent notified employees that such provision had been rescinded and that they "might" return to work without joining or abandoning their membership in any union.211 In the notice issued on February 6, 1941, the respondent advised that it would hold "open" the jobs of "former" employees until Feb- ruary 10, 1941, but that, thereafter, it would "proceed to fill all re- maining vacancies" and would not be "obligated" to rehire any of its "former" employees. This notice, coupled with the closed-shop agree- ment, presented the following alternatives to the strikers: either that they abandon the strike, return to work, and join Local 786, or that they lose their opportunity of future employment with the respondent. The 187 employees named in the complaint elected not to return under the unlawful condition that they join Local 786, which as herein- above found, had been assisted by the respondent's unfair labor prac- tices. They were, under the terms of the notice issued on February 6, 1941, thereby discharged. The Trial Examiner concluded, however, that the respondent "issued the notice only as a threat of the loss of jobs for the purpose of demoralizing the membership of Local 1860" and that the respondent did not intend thereby to discharge the em- ployees named in the complaint. In determining whether the dis- charge was tactical or real, we must look to the circumstances following as %^ ell as those surrounding the alleged discharge. In this case, the 28 The notification read as follows This is to infoim you that the provision in the agreement between the Company and Local Union 786 of the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America requiring employees of the company to be or become members of that Union, has been cancelled by mutual consent, and any employees or former employees of the Company who have not returned to work may do so without joining that or any other union and without abandoning or changing any affiliation they may now have The Company will operate under an open shop policy and all employees, or former employees, are assured that there will be no discrimination between employees as a result of union affiliation or activities or the want thereof. The wage inciease provided for in the agreement between the company and Local 786 will apply to any employee or former employee who was on the payroll of the company on September 30, 1940, and who retuius to work pursuant hereto. NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 381 respondent purported, prior to March 3, 1941, to be bound by an agree- ment which required employees to become members of Local 786 in order to retain their positions with the respondent. It did not at any time advise employees that this provision of the agreement would not be enforced. In fact, it impliedly affirmed, in rescinding the closed- shop provision on March 3, 1941, that the provision had been in oper- ation up to that time. On the basis of the entire record, we must con- clude that after February 10, 1941, and prior to March 4, 1941, the respondent would have reinstated employees, if at all, only on condition that they complied with the illegal requirement that they join Local 786.29 Under the circumstances, it was unnecessary for the employees to apply for reinstatement.30 We find, accordingly, that the respondent discriminatorily dis- charged the employees named in the complaint, as amended, who failed to abandon the strike and return to work by February 10, 1941, and join Local 786, and that the respondent has thereby discouraged membership in Local 1860, encouraged membership in Local 786, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in-the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. However, in view of the notice which the respondent sent, employees on March 4, 1941, we find that the respondent discriminated against the employees named in the complaint, as amended, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act only during the period from February-10, 1941, to March 4, 1941. ` 29 It should be noted that the notice which the respondent issued on February 6, 1941, stated that the jobs of "formei" employees would be held "open" until February 10, 1941, in accordance Mirth the contract with Local 786 The respondent theieby implied that, thereafter, it was legally precluded, under the terms of the contract, from hiring any of the strikers As a matter of fact, the contract provided merely that employees "who return to work vkithin fifteen (15) days after the reopening" of the plant should receive certain specified wage increases 30 Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and Lumber if Sanomill Workers' Union Local 2511, Onalaska, Washington, et at, 2 N L R B 248, enf d N. L. R. B v Carlisle Lumber Com- pany, 94 F (2d) 138 (C C A 9), cert denied 304 U. S 575; Matter of Sunshine Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, 7 N L R. B. 1252, enf'd N L. R B v Sunshine Mining Company, 110 F (2d) 780 (C C A 9) ; Matter of Eagle-Picker Mining if Smelting Company, et at and International-Union of Mine, Mill if Smelter Workers, Locals Nos 15, 17, 107, 103, and 111, 16 N. L R. B 727, ent'd as mod. Eagle- Eicher Mining if Smelting Co v N L. R B., 119 F (2d) 903 (C. C A 8) ; Matter of Jacob A. Hunlele, trading as Tri-State Towel Service and Local No 110, United Laundry Workers Union, 7 N L R B 1276, Matter of The Grace Company and United Garment Workers, 7 N. L. R B 766; Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union United Auto- mobile Workers of America, Local Union No 249, 31 N L R B., No 170. 382 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, 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. V. THE REMEDY Having 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 refused to bargain, with the Carpenters on September 20, 1940, and at various times thereafter. We have also found that the respondent opposed the Carpenters and John Janosco, who originally organized the respondent's employees; and sponsored and supported the Shop Union to weaken and obstruct the Carpenters in its efforts to bargain with the respondent. We have found, in addition, that the respondent invoked the assistance of various leaders of the Carpenters. for the purpose of denouncing and discrediting Janosco and that it indicated to employees that it would deal with the Carpenters if the employees deserted Janosco. As a result, the leaders of the Shop Union, which was sponsored by the respondent, applied to and obtained a charter from the Carpenters. The respondent then recognized and gnanted Local 786 a closed-shop contract despite the fact that this union had been unlawfully assisted' by the respondent and had not been designated by a majority of the respondent's employees. In protest against the respondent's support of Local 786 and its deliberate campaign against Janosco, the em- ployees who had previously designated the Carpenters as their rep- resentative abandoned the Carpenters and joined Local 1860 of the Upholsterers. Thereafter, on December 10 and 23, 1940, and on Jan- nary 7, 12, and 22, 1941, and at all times subsequent thereto, as we have found, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with Local 1860 as the duly designated representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. We shall, accordingly, order the respondent, upon request, to 'bargain collectively with Local 1860 as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. We have also found that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by entering into an agreement on January 22, 1941, with Local 786, granting to that union a closed shop, excluding the mem- bers of Local 1860 from employment, and recognizing Local 786 as NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 383 exclusive bargaining agent. Although on March 3, 1941, during the course of the hearing, the respondent repudiated the closed-shop provision of the contract, it left the contract otherwise in full force and effect. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to cease giving effect to such contract with Local 786, as well as to any extension, modification, or renewal thereof. Nothing in the order, however, shall be taken as requiring the respondent to vary those wage, hour, senior- ity, and other such substantive features of its relations with the employees themselves, which the respondent may have established in performance of such contract as extended, renewed,' modified, supple- mented, or superseded. We have found that'the respondent discriminated against the em- ployees named in the complaint, as amended, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act from February 10 to March 4, 1941. We shall, accordingly, order the respondent to make whole these em- ployees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have'earned as wages during the period from February 10 to March 4, 1941, less his net earnings,3' if any, during that period. We have further found that the strike of September 23, 1940, was caused and prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices. In order to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the time the, respondent committed the unfair labor practices, we shall order the respondent (1) to offer reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, to those employees who went on strike on Sep- tember 23, 1940, or thereafter, and who have applied for and have not been offered reinstatement, and (2) upon application to offer reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, to those employees who went on strike on said date, or thereafter, and'who have not previously applied for reinstatement. The rein- statement of employees in categories (1) and (2) above shall be effected by dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired by the re- spondent after September 23, 1940, the date of the strike, and not -in the employ of the respondent on said date. If thereupon, despite such reduction in force; there is not sufficient employment immedi- ai By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the respondent's discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else- where See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Bsotheshood of Caopenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work peifornied upon Federal , State, county , municipal, or other wtork- ichet projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N L. R B,311u. S.7 384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ately. available for the remaining employees, including those em- ployees in categories (1) and (2) above, who are to be offered rein- statement, all available positions shall be distributed among such employees without discrimination against any employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following such a system of seniority or other non-discriminatory practice to such extent as has hereto- fore been applied in the conduct of the respondent's business. Those employees, if any, remaining after such distribution, for whom no employment is immediately available, shall be placed upon a prefer- ential list and offered employment in their former or substantially equivalent positions, as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work, in accordance with such system of seniority or other non-discriminatory practice as has heretofore been followed by the respondent. We shall order the respondent to make whole those employees who went on strike September 23, 1940, or thereafter, and who have applied for and have not been offered reinstatement, for any loss of pay th6y may have suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, as provided above, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from five (5) clays after the date on which he applied for reinstatement to the date of the respond- ent's offer of reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list, less his net earnings, if any, during such period.32 We shall also order the respondent to make whole those employees who went out on strike on September 23, 1940, or thereafter, and who have not previously applied for reinstatement for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, as provided above, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from five (5) days after the date on which he applies for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement or placement on a preferential list, less his net earnings, if any, during such period. We have found that the respondent by acts other than by its dis- criminatory conduct and by its refusal to bargain, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. This course of conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization and its objects. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we believe that the unfair labor practices found are per- 32 This provision is not intended to confer on such strikers as might have applied for reinstatement during the period from February 10 to 'larch 4, 1941, any back pay for that period in addition to that which they aie entitled to receive under the provisions discussed above. NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 385 suasively related to the other unfair labor practices described and the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past.33 The pre- ventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In order therefore to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a re- currence of unfair labor practices and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 786, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and North Central Dis- trict Council of Furniture and Woodenware Workers of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations, and Northwestern Cabinet Company Shop Union was a labor organiza- tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of the employees named in the complaint, as amended, who failed to return to work by February 10, 1941, thereby discouraging membership in Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. of L., and encouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 786, A. F. of L., the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of-the Act. 3. All the respondent's production and maintenance employees excluding supervisors and office 'and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, was, on September 20, 1940, and at all times thereafter until November 29, 1940, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. See National Labor Relations Board v. Express Pisbhslnmg Company, 312 U S 426 438861-42-26 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. of L., was, on Decem- ber 10, 1940 , and at all times thereafter has-been , the exclusive repre- sentative of all the employees in the above -stated unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 6. By refusing on September 20 and October 10, 1940, to bargain collectively with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above -stated unit, the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of `the Act. 7. By refusing on December 10 and 23, 1940, and on January 7, 12, and 22, 1941, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-stated unit , the respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 8. 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. 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond- ent, Northwestern Cabinet Company, Burlington, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Furniture Workers Local Union No., 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America,' A. F. of L., or any other labor organization of its employees, or encouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 786, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment because of membership or ,activity in connection with any such labor organization; (b) Urging, persuading, warning, or coercing its employees to join or assist United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of NORTHWESTERN CABINET COMPANY 387 America, Local No. 786, affiliated with the A. F. of L., or to refrain from joining or assisting Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International-Union of North America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization of its employees; (c) Giving effect to its contract of January 22, 1941, with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 786, affiliated with the A. F. of L., or to any modification, extension, or renewal thereof ; (d) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 786, affiliated with the A. F. of L., as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, unless and until said labor organization is certified as such exclusive representative by the Board; (e) Refusing to bargain collectively with Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. 'of L., as the exclusive representative of all its pro- duction and maintenance employees, excluding supervisors and office and clerical employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (f) 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all the respondent's production and maintenance employees, excluding supervisors and office and clerical employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of _ employment, and other conditions of employment ; (b) Offer to those employees who went on strike on September '23, 1940, or thereafter, and who have applied for and have not been offered reinstatement, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, in the manner pro- vided in the section entitled "The remedy" above; and place those employees for whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in said section, and thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as it becomes available ; 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Upon application offer to those employees who went on strike on September 23, 1940, or thereafter, and who have not previously applied for reinstatement, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, in the manner provided in the section entitled "The remedy" above; and place those employees for whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferen- tial list in the manner set forth in said section, and thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as it becomes available; (d) Make whole the employees specified in paragraphs 2 (b) and (c) above, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" ; (e) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Burlington, Iowa, plants and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stat- ing: (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), (d), (e), and (f) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1860 of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. of L., and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above DECISION and ORDER. _