Square D Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 693 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of SQUARE D COMPANY, A CORPORATION and LOCAL 1227,
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. C-2063.Decided June 4, 1942
, Jurisdiction : aircraft instrument manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices -
Company-Dominated Unions; Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: first or-
ganization; impetus given to "inside" union by action of supervisory employees
in signing and circulating petitions, and by their acquiescence to "inside"
union's open conduct of an election on company time and property-assistance
and support : by assisting it establish its majority status ; acquiescing and
aiding in open conduct of election in plant; suggesting and presenting unre-
quested contract; anxiety displayed by pressing negotiations with "inside"
union in sharp contrast to employer's attitude toward "outside" union, to which
it denied privileges, readily granted to "inside" union; permitting organizer of
"inside" union to--continue. his'-activities after employer promoted him to a
supervisory position-indicia : absence of constitution or bylaws ; no collec-
tion of dues-interference: threatening to withhold promotion from ",inside"
union officer unless he changed his attitude, after he had refused to assist
employer in influencing employees to accept the contract-second organiza-
tion : held to be a direct successor of and in substance the same as first "inside"
organization under a different name ; similarity of officers ; announcement by
supervisory employee, who held office in both unions concurrently, of organiza-
tion's successorship to predecessor and to predecessor's contracts and duties;
no formal dissolution of predecessor ; failure of employer to mark separation
between the two organizations; aid and support afforded by employer.
Remedial Orders: employer ordered to refuse recognition to predecessor-domi-
nated organization in event of its- revival, and to disestablish successor-
dominated organization; contract with successor-dominated organization
abrogated ; in view of provisions of contract, notices ordered posted, not only
in plants covered originally by contract, but to plants which employer may have
established and to which the contract may have been extended.
Mr. Will Maslow, for the Board.
Mr. Allan D: EmiiZ, Mr. Joel J. Weiner, and Mr., Lu_drwig Teller, all
of New York City; for the` respondent.
Mr. Frank Scheiner and Mrs. Ruth Roemer, of New York City, for
the Union.
Math and Glassman, by Mr. Richard R. Glassman, of New York
City, for the A. I. M.
Miss Mary E. Perkins, of counsel to the Board.
41 N L. R. B., No. 134.
693
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge 1 duly filed by Local 1227, United Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers of America, an affiliate of the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the,
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued'
its complaint dated July 11, 1941, against Square D Company, New'
York City, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of
hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, the Union,
Relation Board of Kollsman Employees, herein called the Relation
Board,2 and Aeronautical Instrument Makers of America, herein called
the A. I. M.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent, at its Queens plant, (1) about March
1940, initiated, formed, and sponsored the Relation Board, a labor
organization, and thereafter until January 1941 dominated and inter-
fered with the administration, and contributed to the support, of the
Relation Board; (2) about January 1941, initiated, formed, and spon-
sored.the A. I. M., a successor labor organization to the Relation Board,
and thereafter to date has dominated and-interfered= with 'the admin-
istration, and contributed to the support, of the A. I. M.; (3) urged,`
persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain from aiding, becoming,
or remaining members of the Union and threatened them with dis-
charge or other reprisals if they aided the Union or its members or if
they did not become or remain members of the Relation Board or its
successor, the A. I. M.; and (4) by the foregoing acts, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees.in the exercise of the rights guar-'
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. The hearing, originally set for
August 4, 1941, was postponed to August 18, 1941, and due notice of
postponement was given all parties. On or about August 5 the
respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars, which was furnished
1 The original charge was filed on - August 29 , 1940 . and the , amended,, charge on May 14,
1941.
2 The complaint and notice of bearing served upon the Relation Board were returned by
its former secretary , who stated that the Relation Board was no longer in existence
SQUARE D COMPANY 695
by counsel for the Board on or about August 7. On August 11, 1941,
the respondent filed its answer in which it denied that it had engaged
in any-unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York City from
August- 18 to September 8, 1941, before Henry J. Kent, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. On August
18 the A. I. M. filed a motion to intervene, which was granted by the
Trial Examiner.' The Board, the respondent, the Union, and the
A. I. M. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the close of the Board's case the respondent's counsel moved to
strike from the record the testimony of certain witnesses, which mo-
tions were denied. The respondent also moved to dismiss the allega-
tions set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint, which motion was
granted as to those allegations charging that the respondent urged,
persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain from aiding, becom-
ing, or remaining members of the Union and threatened them with
discharge or other reprisals if they became members of or aided the
Union. A general motion to dismiss the complaint was also made
by the respondent's counsel and a similar motion was made by counsel
for the A. I. M., insofar as the allegations pertained to it. These
motions were denied without prejudice, subject to renewal at the close
of the hearing. At the close of the Board's case and at the close of
the hearing, the Board's counsel moved to conform the pleadings to
the proof, which motions were granted. Counsel for the A. I. M. and
for the respondent renewed the motions made by them at the close
of the Board's case and the said motions were again denied. During
the course'of-the- hearing the Trial Examiner made 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. With the exception noted below,3
the rulings are hereby affirmed.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were afforded an oppor-
tunity to make oral argument, and brief arguments were made by,
counsel for the Board and the respondent. Counsel for the respond-
ent, the Union, and the A. 1. M. later filed briefs with the Trial Exam-
iner.
Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, dated
January 26, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon all the-parties..
He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices, affecting commerce, within the meaning of See—
See footnote 17, below.
,696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but recom-
mended dismissal of the allegations in the complaint that the respond-
ent had threatened its employees with discharge or other reprisals
if they did not become or remain members of the Relation Board and
its successor, the A. I. M. He recommended that the respondent cease
and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Exceptions to the I itermediate'Report and briefs in support of their
exceptions were filed by all the parties.
At the request of the respondent, and pursuant to notice duly
served on all parties, a hearing for the purposes of oral argument
was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on March 26, 1942.
The respondent, the Union, and the A. I. M. were represented by
counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has considered
the exceptions and briefs filed by the parties and, insofar as the ex-
-ceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set
.forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Square D Company, a corporation, was organized in 1910 under
the laws of the State of Michigan. Prior to January 1, 1940, the
Kollsman Instrument Company, Inc., was an independent corpora-
tion engaged in the business of manufacturing aeronautical instru-
ments. On or about January 1, 1940, it was absorbed by and merged
with Square D Company and is now operated as the Kollsman Instru-
ment Division of Square D Company.
The Kollsman Instrument Division of the respondent is the only
division of the respondent's business involved in the present proceed-
ing. The principal office and place of business of the Kollsman Di-
vision is maintained at Elmhurst, a suburb of New York City in the
County of Queens.' The principal raw materials used by the re-
spondent at this Division in the manufacture of aircraft instruments
are metals and bakelite. During the year 1940, about, 50 percent of
the raw materials used by the Kollsman Division, amounting to ap-
proximately $500,000 in value, was purchased by the respondent out-
side the State of New York and shipped to its plants in New York
State. During the same period, about 75 percent of the finished prod-
ucts manufactured by the Kollsman Division, having an approximate
4In August 1940 and thereafter , due to an increase in business, the Kollsman Division
acquned additional plants in the County of Queens
SQUARE D COMPANY 697
value of $2,500,000, was shipped by the respondent from its plant in
the State of New York to points outside of the State.5
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1227 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
Relation Board of Kollsman Employees was an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Aeronautical Instrument Makers of America, an affiliate of Brother-
hood of Scientific Instrument Makers of America, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of and interference with the Relation Board; inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion
On January 13, 1938, Erwin Riess, an employee in the assembly
department of the Kollsman Instrument Company, Inc., herein called
the Company, dropped a suggestion in the suggestion' box installed in
the plant, recommending that something be done to bring about "a
closer relationship between employer and employees." Sometime after
Riess had made this suggestion, a notice appeared on the Company's
bulletin board that Charles H. Colvin, one of the executives of the
Company, would discuss the suggestion with the employee who had
made it. Riess subsequently had a conversation with Colvin regard=
ing this.suggestion. Colvin told Riess that he`thought'the suggestion
was a good one, but that neither the Company,nor its officials could
suggest or advise its employees concerning the formation of a com-
mittee such as suggested by Riess, and that such organizations were
entirely the concern of employees.
In July 1938, Riess sent a memorandum to Colvin further elaborat-
ing on his idea and suggesting that the Company set up ' a Relation
Board consisting of two or three representatives of the employees and
one of the management, which should "act as a neutral body for the
good of the company as a whole." Riess at the time did nothing
further to develop his idea, however, and the matter was dropped.
In October or November 1939 the Union, at the request of certain
employees of the Company, assigned an organizer to assist the em-
ployees in organizing as members of the Union. Some of the em-
At the hearing, it was stipulated that the respondent and its Foilsman Instrument
Division are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
698 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-ployees joined the Union in the latter part of October. Union meet-
ings were thereafter held and organizing efforts were carried on by
means of the weekly distribution of circulars at the gates of the plant
and by personal solicitation among the employees by union members.
By May 1, 1940, 62 employees had signed application cards of the
Union!,
On February 20, 1940, Riess dropped into the suggestion box an-
other suggestion reading as follows:
I SUGGEST that the company elect a. labor board (relations board)
which attends to the claims, grievances, and other matters con-
cerning the labor force, in a fair and square manner, upholding
the democratic spirit.
I BELIEVE THE ADOPTION OF THIS SUGGESTION WILL ACCOMPLISH a
closer cooperation and relationship between employer and em-
ployees. Self-respect, ambition, good-will, and keener interest
in all matters will be improved. Labor trouble will be avoided
and a greater harmony obtained, influencing the efficiency' con-
siderably.
At the hearing, Riess gave as his reason for again pressing his earlier
suggestion the fact that he had talked with a group of employees who
were satisfied with existing conditions in the plant, but were being
"molested every Saturday with pamphlets to join the CIO," and who
did not want "outsiders" to represent the employees. A short time
after he filed this last suggestion, Riess and several other employees
who had currently filed suggestions were called to the office of the plant
manager, Victor Carbonara, who discussed their respective sugges-
tions with them separately. Riess testified without contradiction, and
we find, that Carbonara told- him, in their ensuing conversation, that
"[the suggestion] is a good idea, but there is nothing I can do about it
because it is against the Labor Law." 7 .
On March 26,1940, shortly after Riess' conversation with Carbonara,
a meeting was held at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Elmhurst,
which was attended by 20 to 25 employees. An employee named Mig-
6 As described in Section I above, the Company merged with the respondent about January
1, 1940, as the Kollsman Instrument Division thereof . After the merger , Paul gollsman,
former president of the Company, became a vice president of the respondent and served in
the capacity of consulting engineer for the respondent. Victor Carbonara, who had been
chief engineer of the Company, since the merger has acted in addition as plant manager
of the Kolisman Division . The supervisors of the three main operating departments, and a
substantial number of the supervisory employees under them also continued to hold similar
positions in the new division . In February 1940, Paul S. Knowles , an assistant to the
president of the respondent, was assigned to duty at the Kolisman Instrument Division to
assist generally in the operation of the plant.
- 7 Carbonara testified only that he told Riess "the style of the solution rested entirely with
them, and there was nothing we could suggest, or no help we could give It was their right
to organize a union of their own choice, and I could not even go any further in discussing
this matter with him except to listen to what he had to say "
SQUARE D COMPANY 699
gees, chairman of the-meeting, announced that the meeting had been
called to,form an organization to represent the respondent's employees
and that he would call upon some speakers to discuss the problem.
Riess spoke and said that there were C. I. O. activities going on in the
plant and that he believed that some of the employees were opposed
to that union. He suggested they, form an organization of their own
to deal with the respondent and obtain what he called a "gentlemen's
,agreement." Riess further stated that he and a group of some of those
present had drawn up papers setting forth a policy that might be
adopted by such an organization. Those present at the meeting were
given copies of 2 mimeographed papers drafted by Riess, and were
requested to pass out additional copies throughout the plant on the
following morning. One of, these documents stated in substance that
a Relation Board was proposed "to, promote closer cooperation within
the company, its fundamental principle and strength lies in mutual
respect and mutual understanding between employees and employer,"
and that the "main object is to straighten out all problems concerning
labor in an impartial and-reasonable manner." The other circular an-
nounced that-there would be a meeting of employees at the Knights of
Columbus Hall immediately after work on Saturday, March 30, 1940,
to select a temporary committee to approach the management "with
the purpose of securing recognition of the Relation Board as the rep-
resentative of the shop employees,regarding future relations between
employees and management." Both documents stated in the opening
sentence that the proposed Relation Board was "not a company union"
nor connected with .any "outside union." On March 27, before work
had begun, copies of the above circulars were placed on the machines
or work benches of the employees in the plant by members of the group
who had attended the meeting of March 26.
In addition, following the March 26 meeting, a petition was circu-
lated throughout the plant bearing a caption as follows:
It had been suggested that we form a Relation Board within the
Company, which will take care of grievances, claims and matters
concerning the welfare of the employees, and to foster a closer
cooperation.
As such an undertaking has become a general desire, your ap-
proval will be appreciated.
Temporary committee : Erwin Riess, Otto Hugel, Richard -
Bruning, Henry Noll."
It does not appear from the record how or by whom this committee was
appointed. The petitions were circulated throughout the plant before
8 The petition consisted of 10 sheets which were circulated separately , each bearing the
same text at the top. The names of the "temporary committee" members appeared only
on 7 of these sheets , 1 of which in addition also bore the name of Max Heiler.
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and after work and in some departments during working hours. Wil-
liam Treuber, the foreman of the drill-press department 9 of the ma-
chine shop, was the first to sign a copy of the petition which was there-
after circulated in the shop. Adolph Martucci and,Ernst,Steiglehner,
2 of the 3 set-up men" under Treuber, in the drill=press department,
also signed the same sheet; Martucci's signature immediately follow-
ing Treuber's. Another copy of the petition, which was circulated
among the employees on the night shift of the machine shop, bore at the
top the signature of John Wetzel, then foreman of the shift." Paul
Uhl, who was at that time in charge of the special soldering section of
the diaphragm department, signed the petition and brought it during
working hours to James Byrum, an employee, at the latter's bench in
the burring department, to sign., Approximately 360 of the respond-
ent's employees signed the petition:. -
The meeting held on March 30 was attended by approximately 200
to 250 employees. An employee named Lang, chairman of the meeting,
called upon Riess to explain the purpose of the proposed organization.
Riess stated that it was contemplated to form a grievance committee to
negotiate with the management, and further stated, according to the
undenied testimony of employees Byrum and Leonard Garibaldi, re-
spectively, that they were "all members of the company and should
therefore work for the company's benefit," and that the employees
would not need any outside union since they could deal with the re-
spondent in "mutual understanding" through the proposed organiza-
tion. - Riess then offered a resolution to the group concerning the for-
mation of the proposed organization. After a short discussion the
following resolution was passed at this meeting :
Whereas the majority of the employees of the Kollsman Instru-
ment Division of the Square D-Company are in favor of the sug-
gestion that a bargaining agency to be called, "Relation Board of
Kollsman Employees" be created to represent the employees in
matters concerning their relationship with the Kollsman Instru-
ment Division of the Square D Company. Such matters as wage
adjustments, working conditions, and other grievances which arise
between the employees and the management should be settled by
the proposed Relation Board.
Be it resolved that a temporary committee consisting of a rep-
resentative from each department be elected to go before the man-
agement in order to secure recognition of the Relation Board of
At this time , the drill-press department contained about 30 employees.
io Martucci and Steiglehner , as set-up men , were minor supervisory,. employees They
assigned work to the regular employees, set up the machines, and instructed the other
employees in the performance of the work.
11 Neither Treuber nor Wetzel thereafter attended any meetings of the Relation Board,
or engaged in any further activities on its behalf
SQUARE D COMPANY 701
Kollsman Employees as the bargaining agency for the employees
of the Kollsman Instrument Division of the Square D Company.
After the. above resolution was passed at this meeting, Riess, Byrum,
and Walter Engel, an employee in the inspection department, were
elected as a committee to approach the respondent and request recogni-
tion of the Relation Board as the employees' representative. Riess'
made arrangements for the committee to meet with Vice-President
Kollsman about April 3, 1940. Riess, as spokesman for the committee,
presented to Kollsman the resolution and the petitions described above,
as•well as copies of the statements-of policy which had been circulated
throughout the plant, and requested that the respondent recognize the
Relation Board as the representative of the employees. Kollsman re-
plied that he would recognize anyone who came up to discuss griev-
ances. Byrum then told Kollsman that the committee wished to enter
into a written agreement with the respondent, but Riess interposed and
stated that they only desired a "gentleman's agreement." Kollsman
replied that there were many legal technicalities and suggested that
they await the return of Carbonara, the plant manager, and take the
matter up with him.
Shortly after the visit of this committee to Kollsman, a notice
appeared- on plant bulletin boards requesting the employees in the
various departments, to send delegates to a meeting of the Relation
Board at the Hofbrau House in Elmhurst on a designated date.
About 40 or 45 employees appeared at the meeting subsequently held
as a result of this notice. Joseph Walsh, an employee, opened the
meeting, and called upon Riess to report for the committee. Riess
stated that the committee had met with Kollsman, and that the latter
had agreed to recognize the Relation Board as a bargaining agent.
'He then described the structure he proposed for the Relation Board:
that delegates should be elected from each department, who should
in turn nominate men from their respective departments, on a basis
of 1 for each 55 employees, to act as members of a 9-man Relation
Board.— The 9 •menibers of the Board were to be elected by the em-
ployees themselves, from the list of men so nominated.
Pursuant to Riess' proposal, elections of delegates were held the
next day in the various departments of the plant. Ballots were openly
passed out, marked, and collected during working hours. Byrum, who .
distributed and collected the ballots in the burring department, gave
his supervisor a ballot, and explained the purpose of the election to
him without being reprimanded or instructed to return to his work.
Some 45 delegates were elected.
Pursuant to a second notice, appearing on the plant bulletin boards,
the delegates met at,,the Hofbrau House on April 18, 1940, and can-
didates were nominated at the meeting for places on the 9-man Board.
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Without waiting for the final selection of members of the Board, how-
ever, a committee was chosen at the meeting , consisting of Riess,
Byrum, Walsh, and John Kenny, a machine-shop employee, to call
upon Carbonara, the plant manager, and request that the employees,
be given a general increase, 2 weeks' vacation with pay, and certain
paid holidays.
On April 19,1940, the committee met with Plant Manager Carbonara
and Paul S. Knowles, assistant to, the president of the respondent:
The committee informed the management representatives" that it had
been selected by the recently elected delegates of the proposed Relation
Board, then in the process of organization, and that it was expected
to complete the organization in May. According to the minutes of
this meeting kept by Carbonara'12 the committee added that the "pur-
pose of this Board is merely to foster greater cooperation between
the employer and employees." The committee then stated that, al-
though the Relation Board was "not fully organized yet," on behalf
of the employees the committee was requesting the respondent to grant
employees a 2 weeks' vacation with pay, a general increase in wages,
and pay for holidays. The committee further explained I that it was,
merely, stating the expressed desires of the employee group for man-
agement's consideration and that they should not be regarded as.
"demands." Carbonara replied that before management could act on,
such a request, proof should be furnished that the committee repre-
sented a majority of its employees. Carbonara, and Knowles pro-
ceeded, however, to discuss at length with the committee the merits
of the requests. Carbonara further stated, according to the minutes,
that he "thought that it would be a help if these meetings were held
every now and then, so that matters could be discussed that the men
were troubled about. Any time the committee felt they wished to
call a meeting, all they had td do would be get in touch with Mr. Car-
bonara, and a meeting would be arranged. After each meeting called
by the committee, there will be another a short time later called by
Mr. Carbonara, at which time the decisions of the management will be
given to the committee." Carbonara also stated that the respondent
could furnish no assistance to the Relation Board other than permis-
sion to use the company bulletin boards to post notices. The meeting
terminated with Carbonara's statement that he would call the com-
mittee back to inform it of management's position on the requests
made.
12 Minutes were kept by the respondent for most of the meetings held by its iepresenta-
tives with representatives of the Relation Boaid and , later, of the A I M Carbonara
testified that the minutes were taken down and transcubed by his secretar y , who attended
the meetings , and that after he had read them over and corrected any errors lie gave copies
to the members of the Relation Board. The minutes of most of the meetings were intro-
duced into evidence.
SQUARE D COMPANY 703
About April 26, 1940, the election of the nine men to constitute the
Relation Board's representative committee was held in the plant, the
list of candidates nominated for these positions at the delegates' meet-
ing on April 18 having been previously posted on the plant bulletin
boards. The record does not show the procedure followed in all
departments, but Riess, the instigator and promoter of the Relation
Board, testified that in the assembly department he removed the time
cards of employees from the racks, during the lunch hour, and attached
a prepared ballot to each card. Harold Muller, later secretary, of the
Relation Board and also an employee in the assembly department,-
likewise testified that the ballots in this election were attached to
the time cards. John^Kenny, Leonard Garibaldi, and Otto Meyer, all
employed in the machine shop, testified that the ballots were similarly
attached to the employees' time cards in that department. Ballot
boxes to receive the ballots cast were prepared and placed on the time-
keepers' desks, which are located only a few feet from the time-card
racks. The evidence indicates that many employees voted during the
afternoon working period, and others at the end of the shift 13 Later
the same day, the ballot boxes were taken to a room in the plant and
the ballots were counted.
Carbonara and the, various departmental foremen testified that
they had not been requested to grant permission to hold the election
in the plant and were not aware that it had been conducted as above set
forth. John Eisler, timekeeper in the machine shop, testified that,
while employees were not ordinarily permitted to handle any time
cards except their own, he had no recollection of the circumstances
described above or of any such election baring been conducted in the
plant. It was stipulated by counsel for the Board and the respondent
-that'if the other timekeepers were called to testify their testimony
would in substance agree with that given by Eisler. Upon considera-
tion of all the evidence in the record and his observation of the wit-
nesses, the Trial Examiner found that the election was conducted
openly in the plant in the manner testified to by Riess, Muller, Kenny,
Meyer, and Garibaldi, and we also so find. Moreover, because of the
manner in which the election was conducted, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the officials of the respondent were aware of and made
no effort to stop the conduct of this election on company time and
property.
In a notice dated April 26, 1940, and posted on the bulletin boards
in the plant, the names of nine men were listed as constituting the
.'3 The testimony details the method of election only for the assembly department and the
machine shop . These, however, were the largest departments in the plant and we infer
that the procedure for election of Board members described above was followed throughout
the plant.
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"members" of "the Relation Board of Kollsman Employees." 1} The
notice was signed by J. T. Walsh as chairman and Henry Anderer as
secretary. These men had been elected at one of the meetings preceding
the election of the Relation Board members, and continued to serve
as temporary officers until they were succeeded sometime during the
summer by Henry Schwartz and Harold Muller, respectively. Neither
the chairman nor the secretary was treated as a member of the 9-'man
Board and they did not participate in bargaining with the respondent.
No constitution or bylaws were ever adopted by the Relation Board
-to define its scope and purpose and the respective duties and authority
of the delegates, the 9-man Board, or the officers. No provision was
made for the payment of dues, and none were ever collected. The
expenses of the organization were met by collections taken up among
the employees under the direction of Riess, who kept the money in his
personal account at his bank and expended it as it was needed 15
On April 30, 1940, following the election of the nine Board mem-
bers, the committee that had previously conferred with Carbonara
and Knowles on April 19 again met with the management representa-
tives, to ascertain the management's position regarding the earlier
requests submitted. The minutes of this meeting read as follows :
Mr. Carbonara informed the Committee that he and Mr.
Knowles had tried, since the last meeting, to inform themselves
as completely as possible so that in handling these matters they
would be abiding by all existing laws. As -a result of their study,
it was found that the first action by the committee must be that
of providing proof that they represent"the majority of the em-
ployees. It was suggested that each member sign a card, the
wording on which could be something like the following :
The undersigned, being a member of (insert the name of
the organization), authorizes the Bargaining Committee to deal
with the Management on any matters of wages, hours, and
other employment conditions.
Signed ------------------------
After the signatures had been verified, these cards would be
placed in an envelope signed by the management and the Com-
mittee, and then filed by the Committee.
14 These names and the departments represented are as follows : 1 Tool room and experi-
mental-William Urbach ; 2 Watchmakers, gear cutters and night shift-Eric Werner ;
3. Machine shop I-L Garibaldi and 0 Meyer ; 4 Machine shop II-John Kenny ; 5. Ship-
ping department , Inspection and Maintenance--Carl Schlauch ; 6 Telegon and repair-
Franz Biederman ; 7 Assembly-Erwin Riess and Frank Dupree
i° This function Riess at first assumed on his own responsibility ; later , the functions and
title of -treasurer were given him by the Relation Board, although he continued to keep
Relation Board funds in his personal account.
SQUARE D COMPANY 705
As soon as proof has been obtained that the Committee repre-
sents the majority of employees, the best thing to do would be to
enter into a formal written agreement between the Management
and the Relation Board.
At the hearing, Carbonara denied that the respondent had suggested
the form of the cards, or even the use of the cards as proof'of majority.
Carbonara disputed the impression left by the minutes, that these
were the suggestions of the respondent, asserting that they were made
instead by the committee, which also, according to Carbonara, "in-
sisted" on a written agreement. We find, however, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Carbonara did in fact suggest the wording of the
cards; and-in view of the committee's previous attitude of indifference
as to these matters, the initiative taken by the respondent-in having
a draft contract prepared 2 days later, and the normal interpretation
of the minutes, we further find that the use of the cards, as well as
the entering into of a written agreement, were also suggested by the
respondent.
Thereafter cards were prepared reading as follows:
I, the undersigned, agree that the Relation Board, as elected
shall represent me, in accordance with the policy originally
adopted.
At a meeting called by Riess and held in the plant during working
hours,ls these cards were handed out to some 15 or 20 delegates, who
in turn distributed them in the different departments. The cards were
openly circulated in the plant, and signatures on a substantial number
were obtained during working hours. On May 2, the committee again
met with the respondent and presented the signed cards, as proof of
majority. The cards were checked against the pay roll and signed
employment applications, the check disclosing that a majority of the
employees had signed the cards. Despite the fact that at least 1 mem-
ber of the committee, Byrum, told Carbonara at this meeting that the
committee had not been authorized to sign an agreement, the respond-
ent accepted the cards as granting full authority to execute a con-
tract, and Carbonara tendered to the committee a draft of a proposed
contract that had already been prepared by the respondent. No request
that the respondent present such a draft at this meeting had been
made by the committee.
After the proposed contract had been given to the committee, its -
provisions were discussed by the 9-man Board, and Riess and Kenny
1 Leonard Garibaldi, who worked in the machine shop and attended the meeting, testi-
fied that it was held around 12 20 p in during his own working hours, and that he was
paid for the time so spent. The assembly department appears to have been on lunch hour
at the time
463892-42-vOl'. 41-45
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
returned for a conference with Carbonara and Knowles on May -7 with
suggested revisions, which the respondent agreed to consider.17 On
May 16, for the first time, the full 9-man Board which had been elected
in April met with Carbonara and Knowles, and received copies of the
respondent's latest proposed draft of the agreement. The minutes of
the meeting state that "their comments are expected soon." On May
22 the 9-man Board returned to confer briefly 18 with Carbonara and
Knowles,' and, according to the minutes, "various changes to the draft
of the proposed agreement were discussed tnd adopted, ,thus bringing,
the'agreement to its final form." It was agreed that copies of the
agreement should be prepared by the respondent fordistribution to
each employee, and 2 days later about 500 copies were delivered to.the
Relation Board representatives for this purpose, the latter agreeing
not to distribute them or discuss their contents during working hours.
These copies of the contract, as yet unsigned, were to be returned
within a week so that a new last page, bearing the signatures of the
parties, might be added. There was some discussion at the meeting
concerning whether or not furnishing these copies at the respondent's'
expense might constitute a violation of the Act. The Relation Board
representatives requested the respondent- to assume the cost,-as it had
no funds; but it was finally agreed by the representatives that the Rela-
tion Board would bear one-half the expense. The respondent, how-
ever, was never reimbursed for this expenditure, nor has it ever
requested reimbursement. ,
On May 27, 1940, Robert Mintz, the organizer in charge of the
Union's activities at the respondent's Kollsman Division, who had
learned that the respondent was about to sign a contract with the Rela-
tion Board, called at the plant and, met with Carbonara and Knowles.
Mintz told them that the Union planned'to file charges with the Board
against the respondent if the respondent should sign a contract with
the Relation Board; and he requested its disestablishment, claiming
that it was a company-dominated organization. He -told Carbonara
that he had received information from the employees to the effect that
supervisory employees had been active in the Relation Board's organ-
ization while discouraging membership in the Union, that elections had
been held on company time and premises, that no dues or initiation
fees were provided for, and that the respondent was allowing the use
of other company facilities, such as the bulletin boards, for organiza-
17 The Trial Examiner excluded as immaterial the various drafts of the agreement which'
were exchanged by 'the respondent and 'the Relation Board , and which were offered in evi-
dence by the respondent The Board has considered the drafts and finds them material
as bearing on the course of dealings between the parties. we hereby, reverse the Trial
Examiner 's ruling on this matter , and admit the documents in question ( Respondent's
Rejected ' Exhibits ' 33, 34, and 35 ) into evidence as Respondent ' s Exhibits 33, 34, and 34a,
respectively' , ,
"The minutes show that the entire sheeting lasted 50 minutes
SQUARE D COMPANY 707'
tional purposes. Mintz testified that, upon his failure to secure from
the respondent a promise to disestablish the Relation Board, he
requested that the Union be accorded the privilege of campaigning for
members in the plant and using company facilities, including the bul-
letin boards, to the same extent permitted the Relation Board; and
that a grievance procedure be established under which the Union's
shop stewards should be recognized as representing its members for the
the handling of grievances. He further testified that Carbonara
refused both these requests, the first on the ground that the Union.
was an "outside organization," and the second on the ground that the
Union did' not represent the majority of the employees. Carbonara
and Knowles both testified that they had no recollection of Mintz's
having specifically requested the use of the bulletin boards, although
both recalled his general request that the Union be' allowed to cam-
paign in the plant; and both denied that Carbonara had .stated that
the Union was an "outside organization" and could not have the privi-
leges granted the Relation Board. Carbonara in addition denied that
Mintz requested that a grievance procedure be established for union
membersa° Upon a consideration of all the evidence, we find, as did
the,Trial Examiner, that Mintz requested, on behalf of the Unioii, and
was denied, the use of the bulletin boards to post union notices. We
further find that his -whole testimony, as set forth above, concerning
the requests made by him of the respondent and the reasons given by
Carbonara for their denial, is substantially correct. ' -
On the next day, May 28, when the representatives again met with
Carbonara and Knowles concerning the contract, Carbonara reported
to the Relation Board that he had had a conference with a C. I. O.
organizer who had charged that the Relation Board was company-
dominated. He reported Mintz's charges, that foremen had partici-
pated in the organization of the Relation Board, and that'the lack of
provision for dues tended to discredit the status of the organization.
Carbonara then stated that, while he did not want to have to litigate
the question of 'company-domination, the respondent would "like to
see this agreement go through . . . and he thought it could be put
through if the Relation Board is sure it could successfully refute the
charge." He was told by Francis Dupree, one of the Relation Board
members, that no "foremen" were involved in the organization, but
that some of the "group leaders," as to whose supervisory status under
the Act he was uncertain, had taken part in it.
At this point three of the Relation Board representatives, Garibaldi','
Urbach, and Meyer, stated that men in their respective departments
were complaining that the Relation Board was exceeding its authority_.
in negotiating a- contract.. A discussion then ensued between the-
"Knowles testified that he did not recall that such a request was made
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
representatives of the Board and those of the respondent concerning
the nature and organization of the Relation Board._ The minutes kept
by Carbonara recite the conversation at this meeting in part as follows :
Mr. Knowles then asked what was the purpose of the Relation
Board, whether it was formed merely to secure concessions from
the Management, or whether it was to be the equivalent of any
outside union. If the former was their purpose, what would
happen if some day they decided to form an independent union?
Such a move would surely be construed as company domination.
Mr. Dupree said that he suggested having each man in the shop
vote on the agreement. This could be done by secret ballot, if
-necessary. Mr. Carbonara, however, pointed out that voting by
secret ballot was always open to criticism. Why could not each
man write his decision on his copy of the agreement, and then
return it to his representative?
Mr. Meyer said too that the men in his department did not want
to sign the agreement. Their intention was merely to have a
"grievance committee."
Mr. Carbonara pointed out that the requests originally brought
up by the Board made it more than a "grievance committee." It
really is a bargaining committee.
Mr. Meyer said that the men also objected to the agreement
because they would be bound by it for two years .. .
Mr. Knowles suggested that the best thing for the Board to do
would be to find out just what is expected of it by the men in the
shop, and whether or not the men would like to have an agreement..
Mr: Garibaldi said that the men he represented also objected
to the agreement because it was not impartial.
Mr. Knowles pointed out that this agreement had been prepared
with the help of the Board. He suggested that the Board could
prepare another agreement and present it to the management for
approval.
The meeting concluded with the decision to postpone signing of the
agreement and to withdraw the copies of it until the Board had
"clarified its position." Notwithstanding the information which had
been presented to him by Mintz and by Dupree, that supervisory em-
ployees had participated in the formation of the Relation Board,
Carbonara took no steps to ascertain who the supervisors in question
were, or to see that supervisors did not in the future participate in
Relation Board activities; nor did he make any effort to inform the
employees that any such acts by its, supervisors in the past did not
represent the respondent's wishes.
SQUARE D COMPANY 709
, Following the May 28 meeting, the Relation Board prepared a new
card which was circulated among the employees for signature. Again,
the circulation of the cards took place in the plant at least partially
during working hours. The card, which was signed by approximately
70 percent of the employees, read as follows :
I the undersigned hereby reaffirm my desire to have the RELA-
TION BOARD OF KoLLSMAN EMPLOYEES represent me in all matters
that may arise between the management and me.
Further, I agree that the BOARD is empowered to negotiate and
sign an Agreement with the management on my behalf, provided
a majority of the BOARD place their signatures on such an'Agree-
ment, and the BOARD may, if they desire, obtain certification as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agency for me.
I sign, this of my own free will.
On June 11, Dupree, Riess, and Kenny of the 9-man Board met
with Carbonara and Knowles and presented the cards to them. The
cards were left with the management "so they could verify the signa-
tures and prove to their satisfaction that the Board represented the
majority of the employees."
On June 25, while discussion was still going on among the em-
ployees as to whether or not the proposed contract with the respond-
ent should be signed, Carbonara called to his office Leonard Garibaldi,
one of the nine members of the Relation Board .211 Garibaldi had
previously, at the first meeting of the full 9-man Board with Car-
bonara on May 16, expressed the opinion that the Relation Board was
not authorized by its earlier statements of policy to enter into a
written agreement with the respondent; and had been one of the
three Relation Board representatives who had raised this objection
to signing the contract at the May 28 meeting. Garibaldi testified
without contradiction, and we find, that Carbonara questioned Gari-
baldi about his objections to various provisions in the proposed con-
tract then under discussion, and asked him why he "gave so many
opinions" about these matters.21 To this, Garibaldi replied that he
was merely expressing the opinions of the men whom he represented.
Carbonara then entered into a discussion with Garibaldi of the merits
of seniority and minimum wage clauses, which Garibaldi defended,
saying that the men in the shop wanted them. At the conclusion of
their discussion, Carbonara said, "Well, you seem to be pretty in-
telligent and know about these things. You can go back to these
fellows and explain to them why you shouldn't have these things."
Again Garibaldi pointed out that he was merely a delegate for the
20 Garibaldi was also an active member of the Union at this time
a A few days after the May 2S meeting Garibaldi had conducted a special meeting
of machine-shop employees to discuss the provisions of the contract.
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men, and that he did-not think that he ought to try to change their
minds. Carbonara then remarked that Garibaldi was interested in
engineering and probably hoped to get a job later on as an engineer;
but went on to say that if he expected to do so, he (Garibaldi) would
have to adopt a "certain attitude and responsibility toward the Com-
pany," because the way he now looked at things he "would never get
to the head and would only make trouble for the Company if [he]
had a chance." 22
On July 3 eight members of the Relation Board 23 met •with,Car-
bonara and Knowles for the purpose, according to the minutes, of
signing the contract. Some of the representatives,24 however, still
refused to sign the agreement before' securing the final approval of
the men in their departments, although Knowles stated in the meet-
ing that the signing of the authorization cards set out above gave
the Board "the right to sign the agreement" if it met with their
personal approval. It was agreed to postpone signing the agreement,
however; and not until July 19, 1940, was the contract finally signed,
by Carbonara and Knowles for the respondent and by Riess, Bieder-
man, Schlauch, Dupree,-Kenny, and Werner for the Board. Gari-
baldi and Meyer, who were present at the meeting, refused to sign.
The contract recognized the Relation Board as the exclusive bar-
gaining agency for the hourly employees of the respondent. It pro-
vided for maintenance of the existing wage scale, a 40-hour week, 4
paid holidays, up to 10 days paid vacation, a seniority policy, and a
proscription against discharge for union activities. The contract fur-
ther provided for arbitration in the case of discharges and other griev-
ances, granted the Relation Board the right to use bulletin boards in
the plant, and provided that the Relation Board would not solicit or
carry on other. union activity during working hours, and would limit
its "Committee of representation" to four members. The contract
contained a provision against lock-outs, strikes, or any other stoppages
of work. It was for a yearly term from June, 30, 1940, and provided
for automatic renewal for 1 year unless notice as given 30 days prior
22 Carbonara , in his testimony about this conversation , stated that he consulted Gari-
baldi in order to find out what his plans were, since he had learned that Garibaldi had
just received a degree in engineering ; that Garibaldi told him he ultimately wished to be a
tool designer , but preferred for the time being to "drift around" and diversify his experi-
ence; and that he (Carbonara ) told Garibaldi that some day he must try to hold a steady
course . Other than this he did not deny or explain the remarks attributed to him by
Garibaldi to the effect that the latter must "change his attitude " ; nor did Carbonara deny
having discussed the seniority and minimum wage provisions of the contract , or having
urged Garibaldi to gc back and attempt to persuade the men to change, their position on
these matters We find that Garibaldi ' s account of the conversation , as set forth in the
text , is substantially correct
23 William Pibach , representative of the toolroom and experimental department, had
withdrawn from his position as a member of the 9-mad Board , and was not present at
this or any later meetings . Richard Scblianz was elected to replace him sometime during
the summer of 1940.
24 These appear to have been Biederman , Garibaldi , and Schlauch
SQUARE D COMPANY 711
to the expiration date. Although for a yearly term, negotiation for
revision of the provision on wages and hours could be had on 30 days'
notice prior to December 30, 1940. The agreement further provided
that it was binding on the successors and assigns of the Relation Board
and all members of the Relation Board, even if they became affiliated
with any other labor organization, "it being the intention of the parties
hereto that during the term of this agreement, irrespective of the name
of the organization to which the said members, officers, agents, repre-
sentatives or business managers shall belong, that they shall be bound
by this agreement." No general meeting of the employees was ever
held to consider or ratify the provisions of the contract, either prior
or subsequent to its being signed by the Relation Board members.
Copies of the final agreement were not distributed until September or
October.
About July 15, 1940, Riess was made a subforeman, supervising the
work of about 30 men in the assembly of sensitive, altimeters, one of
the respondent's most important and largest selling products. The
record does not show that the respondent thereafter instructed him'to
cease his activities on behalf of the Relation Board, or notified- the
employees that he was not acting as a representative of the respondent
in these activities; and he continued them as before.
B. Concluding findings as to the Halation Board
The circumstances related above convince us that the respondent
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Relation Board and contributed support to it in violation of the
Act. Impetus was given to the new organization, from the very begin-
ning, by the lead taken by supervisory employees in signing and cir-
culating the March 27 petitions, which first established the Relation
Board on a firm footing, and by the acquiescence of supervisors in the
open conduct of the election of delegates in the plant during working
hours. By permitting the first election to be conducted openly in the
plant during working hours, the respondent accorded its approval to
an organizational project requiring participation by all the employees
by virtue of their employee status. Thus it is clear that the initial step
in the formal organization- of the Relation Board was foisted on the
employees at large through employer sponsorship. The election was
not therefore an activity pursued by the employees themselves. It was
rather an adoption by the respondent of Riess' plan that the respond-
ent participate in the organization of the employees. On April 19,-
1940, Carbonara and Knowles entered into preliminary bargaining
negotiations with the new organization, granted it the privilege of
using the plant bulletin boards, and made plans for the future meet-
ings of the parties, although the Relation Board at this time had not
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
yet presented any proof that it had been designated by a majority' of
the employees to bargain with the respondent. This action was clearly
an invaluable assistance to its successful organization. The Relation
Board was further assisted by the respondent's acquiescence and aid
in the open conduct of the election of the 9-man Board, and by the
manner in which the respondent advised and assisted the Relation
Board in securing the signing of cards to establish its majority. As
we have found, the activities carried on in the plant in connection with
the circulation of the, petitions, the conduct of the elections, and, the
signing of the two sets of cards, were conducted with the knowledge
and acquiescence of supervisory employees. Although the respondent
was informed on May 27 by Mintz, and a day later by Dupree, that
supervisory employees had participated in the activities of the Rela-
tion Board, it did not then investigate or, take action to prevent fur-
ther unlawful activity or to attempt to remedy the inevitable effect of
such participation on the minds of the employees. Moreover, the re-
spondent permitted Riess to continue his activity on behalf of the Rela-
tion Board after the respondent had promoted him to a supervisory
position.
The respondent's assistance and support of the Relation Board are
further exemplified by the respondent's haste to sign a written con-
tract with the Relation Board. Although the Relation Board had not
requested a written agreement, the respondent on April 30 suggested
that "the best thing to do" would be to enter into a written contract ;
and 2 days later, although it had not been requested to do so, sub-
mitted to the Relation Board a draft of such an agreement. The
respondent did not hesitate to press negotiations to such an extent that,
after only one meeting with the full 9-man Board to discuss its pro-
visions, the contract was considered to be in its "final form," and
copies had been prepared by the respondent for distribution to the
employees. When the visit of Mintz to the plant on May 27 and the
growing doubts of some of the representatives as to their authority
threatened to obstruct the signing of the contract entirely, C trbonara,
after stating that he "would like to see this agreement go through,"
opposed a secret ballot by the-employees on the question, and sought
to convince the doubtful members that they were in fact entitled to
bargain for the employees. Later, shortly after new authorization
cards had been presented to the respondent but while the question of
signing the contract was still being debated, Carbonara called Gari-
baldi to his office and urged him to persuade the men in the shop to
adopt the view of the respondent as to minimum wage and seniority
provisions; and when Garibaldi refused to do so, threatened him
with the prospect of not being promoted unless he changed his atti-
tude. Again, at the July 3 meeting, when several of the representa-
SQUARE D COMPANY 713
tives still evinced a reluctance to sign the agreement without first
securing the final approval of the men in their departments, the re-
spondent sought to persuade them that their own personal approval'
was sufficient.
The anxiety thus displayed by the respondent to establish the Rela-
tion Bot rcl" as the exclusive bargaining agency of the employees con-
trasts sharply with the respondent's attitude toward the Union, as
disclosed by the May 27 meeting between Mintz, Carbonara, and
Knowles. At that meeting the respondent not only refused to allow
the establishment of a grievance procedure for union members
through their shop stewards, but denied to the Union the bulletin
board privileges which it had granted at once to the Relation Board,
on the ground that the Union was an outside organization. The
favored position thus granted by the respondent to the Relation Board
constitutes an additional instance of assistance and support to that
organization.
Upon all the evidence, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of the Relation Board, and contributed support to it.
We further find that thereby, and by Carbonara's action in threatening
to withhold promotion from Garibaldi unless he changed his attitude,
after the latter had refused to assist the respondent in influencing
the employees to accept the contract, the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and,coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.23 -
C. Disintegration of the Relation Board; Domination of and inter-'
I . ference with the A. I. M.
On November 20, 1940, the Relation Board requested a general wage
increase to meet increased living costs. This request the respondent,
at a meeting on December 6, 1940, refused to grant, suggesting that
compensation for increased costs be made by a periodic bonus. At a
meeting of the Relation Board grievance committee with the manage-
ment on December 11, 1940, the committee reported that the employees
wished to hold a mass meeting to discuss the matter of the wage
increase, and would like to stop work on the day in question before
2,1 We find no merit in the contention of the respondent that the Relation Board was
flee of the respondent's domination and interference by reason of the fact that memberts
of the Union participated in the activities of the Relation Board It is clear that this
circumstance does not in any way obviate the consequences of the respondent's proven
acts of domination and interference with the Relation Board , tinough the participation
of supervisory employees in its formation and administration ; through the support given
by the respondent's acquiescence in the conduct of Relation Board activities on company
time and property and by its hasty recognition and signing of the 1940 contract , and
through the respondent's interference with the policies and administiation of the Relation
Board.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the regular quitting time,26 in order that both day- and night-shift
employees might attend. Carbonara agreed to this proposal, and
later in the day a notice was posted oh the plant bulletin boards an-
nouncing that the mass meeting would be held at 3: 30 on December
16 at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Elmhurst. During the day
on December 16, Carbonara caused each employee to be questioned as
to whether or not he intended to attend the Relation Board meeting,
and had the plant shut down completely at 3: 30, with the result that
those employees who did not want to go to the meeting also lost the
opportunity for overtime work.27
Some 200 or 300 employees attended the December 16 meeting. A
motion was passed instructing the Relation Board representatives to
demand a general increase of 10 cents an hour, and to ask for arbitra-
tion of the question if the increase was denied. At a meeting on
December 30, requested by the Relation Board, the representatives
informed the management of the action taken at the mass meeting, and
again requested a general increase of 10 cents an hour. The request
was again refused; and discussion of arbitration was deferred upon
Carbonara's statement that it would be necessary to consult the Army
and the Navy.28
On January 2, 1941, at a special meeting of the 9-man Board, Gari-
baldi offered a motion that another mass meeting of employees be held
on January 4 to report on the current results of the wage negotiations.
The motion was defeated by a tie vote. Dupree offered a motion that
the representatives hold another conference with management on
January 3; this motion was also defeated by a tie vote. On January
3, however, a meeting with the management was held, at which Car-
2e At this time , although the 8-hour day ended at 3 : 30 'p in , most o8 the day-shift
employees regularly worked 2 hours overtime , to 5 30 : The overtime work , however, was
voluntary with the employees
27 when a protest by one of the Relation Board representatives was made , at the subse-
quent January 8 meeting with Carbonara , to the questioning of the employees , Carbonara
stated , according to the minutes : "Our intention in making that survey was to give those
men who did not intend to go to the meeting an opportunity to work if they wanted to
You apparently considered it an effort on our part to interfere with your attempts to
hold a mass meeting. When this was learned, we decided to close the entire plant at
3:30 p. in "
28 At the same meeting, Carbonara stated that the management wished to discharge an
employee , one Raimondi . Duiing the discussion that ensued , the members of the 9-man
Board took divergent positions on the matter , with Riess upholding the position of the
management . Schlauch and Garibaldi pointed out that the Relation Board had passed a
resolution at one of its meetings to the effect that employees whose dismissal was in question
should be present when their cases were discussed with the management , and urged that
there might be some explanation or excuse for Raunondi 's alleged misconduct Carbonara
stated that the management had not agreed to this procedure , and that Raimondi could not
be believed in any event The minutes continue as follows.
Mr Carbonara : Suggested the Board take a vote among themselves regarding this case
Mr Garibaldi : Replied that they did not have the power to make a decision in a matter
of this kind
Mr. Knowles : Said that it seemed strange that although the Board is duly authorized to
represent the shop, they cannot make decisions.
SQUARE, D COMPANY 715
bonara suggested that arbitration be deferred. He offered a new pro-
posal that employees receiving 60 cents an hour or less be granted a
10-cent increase, and those receiving 65 cents an hour or more a 5-cent
increase. This proposal was intended to supplant a general increase
which-the respondent had planned for March 1941.2° The representa-
tives stated that they could not accept or reject the respondent's pro-
posal but would have to call a meeting to consider it. Accordingly, a
meeting of the Relation Board delegates was held on January 6 to con-
sider the proposal. The delegates voted at this meeting to reject the
respondent's offer and to insist on the general 10-cent increase or arbi-
tration, on the ground that the 10-cent demand itself represented a
compromise, and that the general raise contemplated for March would
have liquidated 5 cents of it in any event. This decision was reported
to the management on January 8. Carbonara stated, however, that he
thought the respondent's proposal of January 3 was fair, and the
meeting adjourned with the understanding that a mass meeting would
be called for Monday, January 13, or Tuesday, January 14, to get the
final decision of the employees on the matter,30 the respondent agreeing
to shut down the plant at 3: 30 p. m. to allow both shifts to attend.
The mass meeting was never held. On January 8 and the succeed-
ing 2 or 3 days a petition was circulated in the plant urging acceptance
of the respondent's proposal, and expressing a hope for "a continu-
ance of cooperation and good will between the management and our-
selves." Some 400 of the employees signed the petition. Shortly
prior to January 13, Schwarz, the chairman of the Relation Board,
presented the petition to 8 members of the Relation Board 31 at a
meeting in the plant during lunch hour, and a vote was called for on
22
Carbonara stated in the meeting that enough copies of the proposal had been prepared
to give each employee a copy, and without further discussion the copies were distributed
throughout the plant by the respondent the same day The notice distributed by the respond-
ent read as follows :
JANUARY 3, 1941
Having given further consideration to the request for it 10¢ general increase in pay,
presented by the Relation Board of the Kollsman Employees, the Management hereby
announces their decision in favor of a general increase , distributed as follows
For all hourly employees, with the exceptions contained in para-
graph 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement, dated June 30, 1940
Those now receiving wages of 600 per hour or less ----------- 100 per hr. increase
Those receiving 65¢ or more------------------------------ 5¢ per hr increase
The Management is pleased in making this announcement as a continuance of the pleasant
relations existing between the Employees and the Employer.
THE MANAGEMENT
a^
Kenny stated at the January 8 meeting that "the Board feels very satisfied with the
negotiations They felt that in having the Delegates' Meeting, rather than rushing into a
mass ineeting, they were being fair to everyone However, according to the opinions
expressed at the Delegates' Meeting, he did not think the proposal would be accepted at the
mass meeting."
"'Garibaldi had left the employ of the respondent about the first of January, and was
not present at this or later meetings of the Relation Board. Soon after this meeting,
Meyer, after consulting with Schlienz, Schlauch, and Kenny, conducted an election in
Garibaldi's department to elect a successor to the vacancy thus created on the 9-man Board
An employee named Kruger was elected.
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the question of whether to consider the petition as an instruction to
the Board to accept the respondent's proposal. The Board again split
equally on this question. Riess, Dupree, Werner, and Biederman
voted to accept the petition; Schlauch, Schlienz, Kenny, and Meyer
voted against the proposal, contending that a meeting of the employees
should be held to discuss the question.32 Schwarz, who as chairman
of the Relation Board was not a'member of the 9-man Board, did not
vote. No subsequent meeting of the Board members was ever held,
to consider acceptance of the respondent' s offer.33 Nevertheless, on,
January 13, Schwarz, Dupree, and Werner called on Carbonara and
Knowles, and told them that the Relation Board could reach no agree-
ment on the question ; however, they presented the petition as evidence
that the Relation Board was constrained to accept the respondent's
proposal. The respondent treated this as final acceptance by the
Relation- Board of its compromise offer.34 The following colloquy
then ensued, as recited in the minutes :
Mr. CARBONARA : Suggested that the Board be a little more in-
formal in their dealings with the Management. It is not neces-
sary to call a meeting for every little thing.
The Management wants the people in the shop to be satisfied
with what is being done. If they are not, it is the duty of the
Management to correct a situation that might exist, or expose
false statements. Any member of the Board can come up to the
Management, saying there is a group in the shop dissatisfied with
certain conditions. After all, it is the function of the Board to
foster amity between the Management and the shop.
Mr. DUPREE : Admitted that that was originally the intention
when the Board was founded.
At their Board meetings, they maintain that the Board must
do what the workers tell them to do.
Mr. CARBONARA : Said that was so. But the men should give
the Board a little margin. After all, if you are entrusted with
a mission, you must have a little leeway. Then, when the Man-
agement makes a proposal, you will know if it comes within the
scope of authority given you by the men. In this way, our meet-
ings could be cut short.
32 Meyer asserted at the meeting that the petition was not representative of the opinion
of the employees , and that the latter had- been persuaded to sign by being told that they
would not receive any raise at all unless they accepted the respondent's proposal.
3a Dupree informed Carbonara on January 13 that Schlauch had subsequently said that
he would vote in favor of acceptance of the offer Schlauch , however, whose testimony,
we credit, denied that he ever notified the Board that he would be willing to change his
position In any event , no further vote was taken.
94 The Board members generally were not notified to attend this meeting . Meyer testified
that he first learned of the acceptance of the respondent 's proposal through the notice to
that effect posted by the respondent in the plan
SQUARE D COMPANY 717
Mr. DUPREE : Said that they intend to hold another mass meet-
ing in the near future, probably right after the increase goes
through, for the purpose of coming to a ' clear understanding
with the men. The Board is going to ask for a little more
authority to act.
Mr. CARBONARA : Suggested that the Board tell the men what
they have accomplished in the past few months.
Mr. SCHWARZ: Said they did not have the means for getting
together such a statement.
Mr. CARBONARA : Said he thought they were wrong in not hav-
ing dues. After all, there should be a certain obligation on both-
parties-the delegates and the men. A small amount charged
as dues would foster this obligation.
Mr. SCHWARZ : Said that it was his opinion, too, that clues should
be charged.
Mr. CARBONARA : Said he thought that if our troubles could
be straightened out, leaving a sympathetic feeling on both sides,
then we have gained something. -
Mr. DUPREE: Said he thought that if the Board demanded too
much, the Management will be on the defensive.
Mr. CARBONARA : You cannot demand too much from the Man.
agement and expect them to like it. There are many things that
could be done to change some of the pleasant conditions that exist
in the shop.
Mr. DUPREE: These facts have been pointed out to the men.
They have been told that if they demand something, it can be
given to them in one way, and taken away in another. If com-
promises are made, friendly relations will be preserved.
This meeting of January 13 was the last meeting held between the
respondent and the Relation Board representatives, other than certain
meetings on specific grievances which are discussed below. Notices
were posted by the respondent in the plant soon after the meeting stat-
ing that, since the Relation Board had proved to the management that
a majority of the employees favored acceptance of the management's
offer, the increase proposed by the respondent would go into effect as
of January 1, 1941.35
Previously, on October 4, 1940, the Brotherhood of Scientific Instru-
ment Makers of America, herein called the Brotherhood, a labor organ-
ization, had written a letter to-the Relation Board suggesting that it
affiliate with the Brotherhood, and in the letter stated, in part:
u On January 27, 1941, after the increase had already gone into effect, a meeting at.
tended by about 100 of the employees was held to ratify the action of the Board members
who had undertaken to accept the respondent's offer A majority of those present favored
such ratification '
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Experience has definitely proved that it is not possible to obtain
the necessary results and proper representation with a loosely or-
ganized representation plan where employees pay no dues .. .
particularly one that does not conform to the standards accepted
by the National Labor Relations Board . . . In the event that the
A. F. of L. or the C. 1. 0. were to prefer charges at the Labor Board
of unfair, labor practices, your organization would be in a very
precarious and dangerous position. -
On November 5, 1940, the Relation Board, in replying to the above
letter, stated in part :
Our Contract, now in effect is fully binding to both Employer
and ourselves, for the period of One (1) year. It is possible that
your offer will be reconsidered at the expiration of our present
commitment.
Early in January 1941, when the dissension among the representa-
tives of the Relation Board was at its height, negotiations were resumed
between Herbert Scee, an organizer for the Brotherhood, and Dupree,
with whom Scee had conferred at the time of the October 4 letter.
Conferences were arranged at which Dupree, Riess, and Werner, all of
whom were then members of the 9-man Board; Muller, its secretary;
Joseph Gensler, a Relation Board delegate; and 1 or 2 others of the
respondent's employees," met with Frank Dyer, president of the
Brotherhood, and other Brotherhood representatives, to discuss affili-
ation with the Brotherhood. Dyer told Dupree, Muller, and the others
that they could set up their own organization and be free to conduct
their own affairs, and still affiliate with the Brotherhood. Dyer also
advised them that, in order to comply with the Act, there should be no
relationship between the new organization and the Relation Board and
suggested they organize with 20 or 30 employees who were in favor of
a new organization and he would arrange for the issuance of a charter
from the Brotherhood.
On February 3,1941, a meeting was held attended by approximately
25 employees of the respondent. Dupree, Riess, Werner, Gensler, and
Dupin, another employee, arranged the meeting, and notified the other
employees who attended that it was being held. Dupree read a pro-
posed constitution which he had received from Dyer and which was rat-
ified and adopted at the meeting. Thereafter an election of officers was
held and the following men were elected
President, Frank Dupree
Vice President, Erwin Riess ,
Recording Secretary, Joseph Gensler
as Dupree , after listing the names set forth above , referred to the other employees present
at the conferences as "other members ," without specifying what he meant by the term.
SQUARE D COMPANY -719
Secretary-Treasurer, Harold Muller
Sergeant at Arms, A. Diecidue, T. Delany
Trustees, E. Werner, H. Schwarz, E. Denton 37
On February 4,1941, the Brotherhood issued a charter to the A. I. M.
Later in February, application cards` were issued and were circulated at
the plant; and circulars were distributed urging the employees to join
the A. I. M.311
Toward the end of February, Meyer, one of the nine representatives
of the Relation Board, asked Riess when the next meeting of the
representatives, would be held, and was told that no further meetings
would be held. The rules of procedure previously agreed upon by the
'representatives provided that the chairman of the'Relation Board was
to call special meetings of the Board if requested to do so by three or
more of its members. After his conversation with Riess, Meyer, to-
gether with Schlienz, Schlauch, Kenny, and Kruger, the new repre-
sentative elected to replace Garibaldi, petitioned Schwarz, as chair-
man, to call such a meeting. On March 14, 1941, however, the follow-
ing notice, signed by Schwarz as chairman of the Relation Board, was
posted on the respondent's bulletin boards
The chairman received a request from several members of the
Relation Board; for a, special meeting on Monday, March 17, 1941.
Due to previous engagements of the secretary, chairman, and
the remaining members of the Relation Board, The chairman finds
it necessary to postpone calling such a meeting to some future
date."
Riess, When questioned about the failure of Schwarz to call the
meeting, told Schlienz that there would be no further Relation Board
meetings, and that "we are the successors to the Relation Board."
He later explained to Meyer that the Relation Board had gone out of
existence and that the A. I. M. was "taking over the contract and the
duties of the Relation Board." No formal action to dissolve the
Relation Board had in fact been taken, and none was ever taken sub-
sequent to these statements by Riess. None of the Relation Board
representatives and officers who participated in the formation of the
3 As stated above, Dupree , Riess, and Werner were at this time members of the 9-man
Board ; Schwarz and Muller were its chairman and secretary , respectively , and Gensler and
Diecidue were delegates.
38 Funds for printing some of the circulars were advanced by the Brotherhood since Dyer
had told Dupree and the others at their preliminary conferences that none of the funds of
the Relation Board should be used in the organization of the A . I M , and that the Brother-
hood would give them necessary assistance Representatives of the Brotherhood also par-
ticipated in the distribution' of A. I. M. circulars at the plant. The A I. M. collected dues
from its members to pay its other necessary expenses.
ae The "previous engagement" of Schwarz, and Muller, chairman and secretary of the
Relation Board, and Riess , Dupree and Werner, representatives , was a scheduled meeting
of the A. I. M. described below.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL: LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. I. M. ever resigned from the Relation Board. Thereafter a second
notice signed by Schwarz appeared on the bulletin boards:
The Regular Monthly meeting of the Relations Board, Sched-
uled for April 7th,'1941, has been cancelled, at the request of four
members of the Board.
On March 3rd 1941 the Chairman and the Secretary were at the
specified place of meeting, for the regular meeting of that month.
Inasmuch as no member of the Board attended, the Chairman
found it necessary to cancel that meeting. The Chairman found
insufficient reasons , in the petition of several members of the
Board, to call a special meeting of the Board on March 17th 1941.
He has tabled this petition until' the Board convenes at a Regular
meeting.
Any meetings held, and any decisions reached at such meetings,
in that period between the last official meeting of the Board and
the next tentative meeting (May 5th, 1941) are entirely unofficial
and without sanction of the Chairman.
On March 17, 1941, the second meeting of the A. I. M. was held.
According to the minutes of this meeting, a motion was offered and
carried "that as soon as a majority was reached, the Pres. and Sec.
be authorized to contact the management as to taking over the bar-
gaining agency, . . . and that the Pres. and Sec. submit a supple-
mentary agreement be made to the existing contract, that it be made
a condition of employment that all new employees become members
of the A. I. M. A." A day or two later, Dupree and Gensler called
on-Knowles and told him that the employees had organized the A. I. M.
and that they "were going to take over the bargaining agency," and
they "wanted to do the bargaining in place of the old Board."
Knowles replied that since Carbonara was not in the plant, he,
Knowles, could make no decision. He pointed out that the contract
betNreen the respondent and the Relation Board was still in existence,
stating that he did not "know what we can do to ignore that one and
recognize a new one," but that he would-"check up" and get in touch
with them again.
On March 21 and April 30, Carbonara and Knowles met with the
grievance committee of the Relation- Board. At neither of these
meetings was any question 'raised with regard to the request of the
A. I. M. to succeed the Relation Board as bargaining agency,40 nor was
4- No formal notice was ever given by the respondent to the Relation Board to the effect
that a new organization desiied to succeed it as barga ping agrncy , nor was any notice
given that the respondent desired or intended to'tei urinate the contract with the Relation
Boaid Knowles , at the bearing adopted the position that he had notified the Relation
Board of the A I M's request for recognition merely by discussing the matter with Dupree
at the same meeting at which Dupree first made the request on behalf of the 'A I M ,
shortly after March 17 , 1941. -
.SQUARE D COMPANY 721
any question raised with regard to Dupree 's acting in a dual role, as a
representative of both the A. I. M. and the Relation Board.
On about April 5 Dupree and Gensler met with Carbonara and
Knowles and informed them that the A. I. M. represented a majority
of the employees and wished "to act as the bargaining agency in the
place of the Relations Board." The respondent's officials replied that
the contract with the Relation Board was still effective and that after
it was terminated, the respondent would deal with any organization
having a majority; but that prior to its expiration it could deal with
the A. I. M. only if. the latter were certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining agent. Dupree there-
upon, on April 12, 1941, filed on behalf of the A. I. M., a Petition for
Investigation and Certification of Representatives 41 with the Regional
Office of the, Board. The petition stated in effect that the A. I. M.
represented 450 employees, and that other labor organizations claim-
ing to represent the respondent's employees were the Union and the
Relation Board. On May 20, however, Dupree and Gensler reported
to Carbonara and Knowles that the Board had received charges that
the A. I. M. was company dominated and that the Board would not
entertain the A. I. M. petition seeking certification until the charge
was disposed of. The minutes of the meeting recite that Dupree
continued as follows:
In view of this, and because it will probably take another
eighteen -months before hearing is obtained, the men want to
knew if the Management will recognize the Aeronautical Instru-
ment Makers, and then they will take over for the Relation Board.
They would like to do this around May 30, the renewal date of
the agreement.
Carbonara agreed to consider the matter. Three days later, he'called
in Dupree and Gensler and told them that the A. I. M. might submit
its proposals, although the respondent would not "recognize" the
organization until the Relation Board contract had `expired.
Accordingly, on June 9, Dupree and Gensler again met with Car-
bonara and Knowles and presented them with a letter containing pro-
posed revisions of the Relation Board contract. The first paragraph
of this letter submitting the proposed revisions read as follows :
The Aeronautical Instrument Makers of America, in accord-
ance with paragraph seventeen of the agreement under which the
Employer is presently operating , presents the following proposals
for its revision :.. .
Paragraph 17 of the Relation Board contract provided that the con-
tract was binding on the successors\and assigns of theRelation Board
41 Case No II-R-2188
463892-42-vol 41--46
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the respondent, whether or not the officers or representatives of
the former became affiliated with any other labor group ; and that the
agreement would automatically renew itself unless notice in writing
were given by either party to the other 30 days prior to its expiration
date 42 Carbonara promised to submit his answer to the proposed
revision shortly, adding that this would not constitute official recog-
nition of the A. I. M., but that the negotiations "were merely prelim-
inary negotiations carried on prior to the expiration of the existing
contract." When requested by Dupree, however, to submit the re-
spondent's answer by June 23, Carbonara replied, according to the
minutes, that "these revisions will be carefully considered and a meet-
ing called as soon as possible to begin negotiations, so that by June
23 things should be pretty well in hand." At this time, no proof, other
than the claim of its officers, had, been submitted by the A. I. M. to
show that a majority of the respondent's employees had designated it
as their bargaining representative.
The respondent posted the following notice on June 11:
TO THE EMPLOYEES or KOLLSMAN INSTRUMENT DIVISION OF SQUARE
D COMPANY :
The Company has been informed that the A. I. M. has posted
a notice on the bulletin board to the effect that they have been
recognized as the collective bargaining agent for the employees.
This notice was posted without the knowledge or consent of the
management.
The Company has not recognized the A. I. M. and cannot recog-
nize any group while the present existing contract is in force.
Upon the termination of that contract, the company will recog-
nize any group or organization which represents, the majority
of the employees.
On June 24, another.meeting was held between-the respondent and
representatives of the A. I. M. to discuss the proposed revisions sub-
mitted by the A. I. M._ Carbonara opened the meeting by stating :
It is understood that this is not to be considered a formal recog-
nition of the Aeronautical Instrument Makers of America.
The purpose of our gathering is to discuss the new agreement.
We understand that you have power to negotiate this contract,
so we shall not adjourn until we have done so.
At the conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed that the parties
would meet again on June 30, at which time the respondent would
have the completed new agreement ready. Carbonara told the repre-
sentatives of the A. I. M. that at the June 30 meeting they should have
42 Dupree testified that the revisions were offered pursuant to paragraph 17- "because we--
were officers of the Relation Board "
SQUARE D COMPANY 723
proof that the A. I. M. represented a majority, and assured them that
cards signed by the employees would be satisfactory.
On June 27, 1941, another meeting was held between the respondent
and the A. I. M. This meeting was held at the request of the repre-
sentatives of the A. I. M., who stated that they did not believe the em-
ployees would accept the terms of the agreement negotiated on June 24,
and accordingly the A. I. M. wished to reopen negotiations. The
minutes of this meeting recite the folloiying discussion :
Mr. DUPREE : The Committee has asked for this meeting be-
cause, with the developments that have taken place at Sperry,'.' it
does not look as if they can keep their- word about having the
agreement accepted by the men.
Mr. DUPREE : The Committee was satisfied with the concessions
made by the Management, but they do not think the men will be.
N Mr. CARBONARA : If the demands became too heavy, the only
thing the Management can do is to go to three shifts.
Mr. DENTON : We thought we could sell the agreement, but now,
because of what has happened at Sperry's, it does not look as if
the men will be satisfied.
Mr. DUPREE : When we left here on the 24th, we were going to
tell the men at-the meeting that we agreed with the proposal.
- -Mr. CARBONARA : I realize your situation. Where do you think
the main difficulty lies?
Mr. DUPREE : The main issues seems to be the increase. If
Sperry settles for what they have offered, we will be in a tight
spot.
Mr. CARBONARA : I propose that you have your meeting on Mon-
day, and present what you have obtained, with the understand-
ing that you will not be bound to what was proposed.
Mr. DUPREE: We left here Tuesday [June 24] with the under-
standing that everything would be all right, and not like last'
time.
Mr. CARBONARA : I want it understood that we can get together
on this.
Mr. DENTON : We are not reflecting our personal opinions: We
still think the agreement is fair, but, because of what has hap-
pened at Sperry, we do not think the men will be satisfied.
'a A company , engaged in an enterprise similar to that of the respondent , and which had
recently announced an increase in wages , as well as other improvements in working condi-
tions . The A. I Al negotiating committee had been instructed to request a 10-cent an hour
general'increase . At the June 24 meeting with the respondent , however , the committee-had-
agreed to the respondent 's counterproposal of a 5-cent increase
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. C ARBONARA : However, because of your position, you should
be able to exert some influence. In other words, your function is
that of an ambassador, and you have to negotiate with both sides.
Mr. DUPREE: Here, among seven of us, we can convince each
other. But at a meeting of several hundred, it is not so easy.
On July 1, 1941, the provisions of the agreement were discussed
further between the respondent and the A. I. Al. At this meeting, the
A. I. M. delivered- its membership cards to the respondent.' A check
of the cards disclosed that 522 employees in the unit involved had
signed cards, and the respondent delivered to the A. I. M. a type-
written memorandum reciting that the A. I. Al. was thereby recog-
nized as the sole bargaining agency for the employees. The contract
was not signed, however, until July 8, 1941, when a compromise
agreement as to the proposed wage increase was finally reached.
With minor changes,44 the contract was substantially the same as
that entered into the year before by the Relation Board and the
respondent, and followed it closely in wording.
D. Concluding findings as to the A. I. M.
The respondent, as we have found above, dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Relation Board
and contributed to its support. The circumstances attending the
formation of the A. I. M. plainly show that it is the direct successor
of the Relation Board and is in, substance the same organization
under a different name. Thus seven of the nine officers of the A. I. M.
were officers of the Relation Board. Riess announced that the
A. I. M. was the successor to the Relation Board and that it was
"taking over the contract and the duties of the Relation Board," and
officers of the A. I. M. informed the respondent to that effect on or
about March 19, 1941. Although the respondent was fully apprised
that the A. I. M. was "taking over" the Relation Board, the respond-
ent did nothing to mark a separation or cleavage between the two
or to make plain to the employees that the A. I. M. "was not a revi-
sion, or amendment" of the Relation Board.4" There was here no
clear and unequivocal disavowal or disestablishment of the. Relation
Board, no effort at "wiping the slate clean and affording the em-
"Some improvement was made in the piovisions relating to overtime , pay for holidays,.
and seniority The provision for i eadjustment of the wage scale during the term of the
contract was omitted
+1 Westinghouse Etectiic & Manu (acturi ny Company v N L R B , 112 F (2d) 657, 660,
CGl (C C A 2), affirmed per cumam , lVestznghouse Electric R Manufacturing Co!m.pany v.
N. L. R B ,. 312 U . S. 660 ; see also Western Union Telegraph Co. V N. L. R. B, 113 F
(2d) 992 (C C A 2)
SQUARE D COMPANY 725
ployees an opportunity to start afresh." 46 On the contrary, the
respondent affirmatively aided and fostered the A. I. M. through the
participation of Riess, a supervisory employee, by publicly treating
it as the successor to the Relation Board and as such entitled to pro-
pose revisions to the existing Relation Board contract, by recognizing
and negotiating with the A. I. M. in the absence of any proof of
majority, and by entering into a contract with it.47
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent domi-
nated and interfered,with the formation and administration of the
A. I. M., and contributed support to it; and that thereby the respond-
ent has 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 contract entered into by the respondent and the A. I. M.
on July 8, 1941, is invalid because it was made with a labor organi-
zation dominated, interfered with, and supported by the respondent.
lv. 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to take cer-
tain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of and contributed support to the
Relation Board. Because of the discontinuance of the Relation Board
as a collective bargaining agency, we do not find it necessary to order
its disestablishment. However, because of the possibility of the re-
vival of the Relation Board as a bargaining agency, we shall order
the respondent to refuse recognition to the Relation Board in the
event of such revival.
We have also found that the respondent dominated and interfered
with the formation and administratioli- of and contributed support
46 N J R B v Newport News ShipbaOldwig and Dry Dock Co., 308 U S 241, 250.
47 It is plain that the notice and statements of the respondent to the effect that it was not
"recognizing" the A. I M . were no more than purely formal announcements which are belied
by the course of dealings described above.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the A. I. M. We further find that the effects and consequences of
the respondent's domination of, interference with, and support of the
A. I. M., as well as its continued recognition of the A. I. M. as the
bargaining representative of its employees, constitute a continuing
obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their rights to self-
organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing. Because of the respondent's wrongful conduct
with regard to the A. I. M., the latter is incapable of serving the re-
spondent's employees as a genuine collective bargaining agency.
Accordingly, we shall order the respondent to disestablish and with-
draw all recognition from the A. I. M. as the representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment 48
Since the contract between the respondent and the A. I. M. embodies
recognition of the A. I. M. as such representative and represents a
device by which to perpetuate the effect of the respondent's unfair
labor practices, we shall order the respondent to cease giving effect to
its contract with the A. I. M. as well as to any extension, renewal,
modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding-contract
which may now be in force. Nothing in this Decision and Order,
however, should be taken as requiring the respondent to vary those
wage, hour, seniority, and other substantive features of its relations
with its employees themselves which the respondent may have estab-
lished in performance of this contract as extended, renewed, modified,
amended, supplemented, or superseded. Since the respondent's con-
tract with the A. I. M. provides that it shall automatically "cover any
additional plants required by the Employer and operated in the State
of New York by the Kollsman Instrument Division of the Square D
Company," as well as the four plants operated by the respondent in the
Borough of Queens at the time of signing the contract,-we shall order
that the respondent post the usual notices, not only in the latter plants,
but in any other plants operated by the Kollsman Instrument Divi-
sion which the respondent may have established in the State of New
York and to which the contract has been extended.
As has been found above, the respondent has, by varying methods
and over a long period of time, dominated and interfered with labor
organizations of its employees and thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.' The respondent's course of conduct in this
respect, by virtue both of its intensive and extensive character, dis-
48 See N L R B v . Newport News Shepbutldini and Dry Dock Company, 308 U. S 241;
N L. R. B. v The Falk Corporation, 308 U S 453 ; N L. R. B . v Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lanes. Inc, 303 U S 261
SQUARE D COMPANY 727
closes a purpose to defeat self-organization and its objects. Thus, the
respondent, by its domination of the formation and administration of
and its contribution of support to both the Relation Board and the
A. I. M., has denied its employees the full opportunity to bargain
collectively...through representatives of their own choosing and sub-
stantially deprived its employees of their right to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection, except in the channels directed by the respondent.
Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying pur-
poses, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are per-
suasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and
that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
the course of the respondent's conduct in the past.4° The preventive
purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the remedy is coextensive
with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interde-
pendent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which bur-
dens 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 the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1227 of United Electrical, Radio and Machine `Yorkers of
America, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and
Aeronautical Instrument Makers of America, an affiliate of Brother-
hood of Scientific Instrument Makers of America, are labor organiza-
tions, and Relation Board of Kollsman Employees was a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Relation Board of Kollsman Employees and Aeronautical
Instrument Makers of America, and contributing support to these
organizations, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
19 See N. L. R B v Express 'Publishing Co, 312 U 8 426
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Square D Company, New
York City, its officers,; agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the formation and administra-
tion of Relation Board of Kollsman Employees and Aeronautical
Instrument Makers of America, or with the formation or administra-
tion of any other labor organization of its employees, and from con-
tributing financial or other support to said Relation Board of Kolls-
man Employees and Aeronautical Instrument Makers of America, or
to any other labor organizations of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to its contract with Aeronautical Instrument
Makers of America or to any extension, renewal, modification, or
supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract with said Aero-
nautical Instrument Makers of America which may now be in force;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Aeronautical Instrument Mak-
ers of America as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and completely disestablish said Aeronautical Instru-
ment Makers of America as such representative;
(b) Refuse to recognize Relation Board of Kollsman Employees as
the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plants
in the Borough of Queens, City and State of New York, and at any
other plants operated by the Kollsman Instrument' Division which
it may have established in the State of New York, and maintain for a
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting
notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not
engage in the conduct from which -it is ordered to cease and desist iii
SQUARE D COMPANY 729
paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order, and (2) that it will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this
Order ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days of the date of this Order what steps the respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GEIARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.