Atlas Powder Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 912 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the. Matter of ATLAS POWDER COMPANY mud DISTRICT No. 50,
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 12083, C. I. O.
Case No. C-867.-Decided October 5, 1939
Industrial Finishes, Artificial Leather, a'nd Rubberized Cloth Manufacturing
Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion : derogatory , comments of the
supervisory force and interference by them with public meetings of the Union;
increased production in and closer supervision over one department to dis-
courage union activities of employees in that department ; celebration con-
ducted on company time and premises following Union's defeat in consent
election to determine collective bargaining agency, encouraged and participated
in by management and supervisors ; threats of discharge of union employees
by supervisory force because of union activities ; anti-union statements and
conduct of supervisory force-Discrimination : discharge of one and lay-off of
another employee ; charges of dismissed, not supported by the evidence.
Mr. G. T. O'Hanlon, for the Board.
Cummings c Lockwood, by Mr. tiVilliam A. Kelly and Mr. F. K.
Norman, of Stamford, Conn., for the respondent.
Mr. Herman Edelsberg, of New York City, Mr. Scurnuel Gruber, of
Stamford, Conn., and Mr. James Nelson, of Washington, D. C., for
the Union.
Mr. Ralph S. Rice, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon:•cllarges and amended charges duly filed by United Mine
Workers of America, District 50,1 herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore
M. Herrick, the Regional Director for the Second Region (New
York City) on April 29, 1938, issued and duly served its complaint
against Atlas Powder Company, Stamford, Connecticut, 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 (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
'From the record , it appears that the local organization here involved is District No.
50, United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 12083 , C. I. 0.
15 N. L. R. B., No. 102.
912
ATLAS POWDER CODIPA\I 913
The complaint, in substance, alleged that the respondent had (1)
discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
John Martinech because of his membership and activities in the
Union; (2) persuaded and warned its employees to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of the Union; (3) threatened its
employees with discharge and other reprisals if they became or
remained members of the Union; (4) kept under surveillance the
meetings and meeting places of the union members employed by the
respondent; and (5) by these and other acts, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon supplemental charges duly filed by the Union on May 10,
1938, the Board, on June 18, 1938, by the Regional Director, issued
and duly served an amendment to the complaint, alleging in sub-
stance that the respondent had discriminated with regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Klym Markevich.2
The respondent filed an answer and, at the hearing, a supplemental
answer. The answer, as supplemented, admitted certain of the al-
legations relating to the respondent's business but denied that it
had engaged in any unfair labor practices. In addition, the re-
spondent affirmatively alleged that it had discharged Martinech be-
cause of his repeated acts of gross negligence and wilful and delib-
erate failure to properly perform his duties, and had laid off
Markevich along with others in the plant because of lack of work.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing was
held at Stamford, Connecticut, on June 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30,
1938, before Mapes Davidson, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded to all parties.
During the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the finings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were . committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On August 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act. He recommended that Markevich and Martinech be rein-
stated to their former positions with back pay and that the re-
spondent cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or
2 In the testimony ,. reference was made to Markevich as "Kiem" Markevich.
014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and from discouraging membership in the
Union or any other labor organization.
On September 26, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and, in addition, requested findings of fact.
Pursuant to request therefor by the respondent and notice to all
parties, a hearing was had before the Board in Washington, D. C.,
on May 19, 1939, for the purpose of oral argument. Counsel for the
respondent and a representative of the Union appeared and par-
ticipated therein. Counsel for the respondent filed a brief. The
Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
the requested findings of fact, and except as they are consistent
with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no
merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Atlas Powder Company, the respondent, is a corporation organized
under -the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal office
and place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. At Stamford,
Connecticut, it operates a plant known as the Zapon Division, the
employees of which are those who aie here involved.
The Zapon Division is engaged in the manufacture, production,.
sale, and distribution of artificial leather, rubberized cloth, and
chemical industrial finishes. The raw materials used in the manu-
facture of these products are. cloth, pigments, solvents, nitro-cellulose,
resins, and chemicals.
In 1937 the value of the raw materials used by the respondent
in its operations at the Zapon Division was approximately $2,000,000.
Ninety per cent of such materials were obtained by the Zapon Di-
vision outside the State of Connecticut. In the same year,'the value
of the finished products manufactured at the Zapon Division, and
distributed and sold by the respondent, was approximately
$3,000,000. Approximately 85 per cent of these products were sold
and shipped by the 'respondent to customers outside the State of
Connecticut.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District No. 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 12083,
C. I. O., is a labor organization admitting to its membership
employees of the respondent.
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY 915,
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
During the year 1936, the respondent instituted a plan to increase.
production, referred to by the employees as a "speed up" system,
in various departments of the Zapon Division, and by August 1937,.
it had installed the system throughout the plant, excepting the-
lacquer department where the respondent sought to install the system.
during that month. The employees of the lacquer department ob-
jected to the system and on August 23, 1937, 47 employees, including:
most of those employed in that department, protested against it by
going on strike.
The strikers requested assistance from Fred Ruscoe, an organizer
for the Union, who thereupon organized them and directed strike-
activities during the 3 days that the strike was in progress. At.
the end of that time, it appeared that the strike was unsuccessful;
and it was discontinued. By agreement between the respondent
and a committee of the respondent's striking employees the strikers-
returned to work on August 26, 1937.
During the ensuing 3 months, the Union held frequent organiza-
tional meetings at the entrance to the plant during the employees`
lunch hour and after working hours.3 These meetings were attended.
by employees, including foremen and other members of the super-
visory force who heckled the union speakers and went through the-
audience talking to listeners. This was done for the obvious purpose-
of interfering with the meetings and was continued during all the
time that the shop-gate meetings were held, notwithstanding the-
protests of the union organizers which were broadcast over the loud-
speaker system. To each shop-gate meeting, the respondent sent a.
stenographer who openly took shorthand notes of the speeches made-
and later transcribed them and submitted them to the manager of`
the Zapon Division.
During shop-gate meetings held after working hours, some em-
ployees from the rubber department and elsewhere assembled there--
at a place from which they were able to hear the union speaker-
through an open window. For a year prior to the start of the shop- -
gate meetings, this window had been opened by employees at will:
to provide needed ventilation. In September 1937, during the-
period that the shop-gate meetings were in progress, the window
was closed by a watchman, although the employees in the depart-
ment protested the resultant heat and lack of ventilation. In closing
ri Referred to herein and in the record as the shop -gate meetings . At these meetings, the -
union organizers addressed the employees by means of a loudspeaker which was off the-
respondent ' s property . The employees, however, were on the respondent 's premises.
916 DECISIONS OF NATTONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the window, the watchman said that he was acting for the "office."
One of the employees, however, reopened the window and was subse-
quently told by the watchman, "You know now, in office, everything
all right" and thereafter the window was allowed to remain open.
Immediately following the strike the employees of the lacquer
department, the focal point of union organizational activities .in the
plant, were subjected to 'much closer supervision than they had
been before the strike, and the volume of work assigned to them
was increased. They were also warned by the assistant superin-
tendent, Francis Paight, concerning the quality of their work.
Joseph Evanusich testified with reference to conditions in the lacquer
department after the strike :
Of course, it was bad. We have to rush everywhere, and we
scared, he [Paight] have 8 men on the list he going to get rid
of, and from that day he was watching every hour. You see
bosses walking around the plant, and they want to see what
the worker does, and before that I see them maybe once a day
passing through, and everything all right . . . That rough part
of the way they was acting last until election time.
During the following weeks the organizational activities of the
Union spread to other parts of the plant. Joseph Doran, Jr., an
employee in the coating room, testified that his supervisor, one
McHugh, told him, "I am surprised at you-I hear you are organ-
izing for the C. I. 0." "Don't let me catch you." Doran further
testified that thereafter his supervisor kept closer watch over him
than formerly ; that the respondent arranged his work so that his
opportunities to earn a bonus were more limited than those of other
employees; that he was subsequently laid off; and that later the
management rehired another employee in his department with less
seniority and transferred other men into the department from other
departments. Doran's testimony is uncontradicted.
In October 1937, the Union claimed to have a membership of 182
employees, a majority of those employed in the plant at that time,
and offered, in order to secure sole collective bargaining rights in
the plant, to submit to the respondent its membership cards to be
checked against the respondent's pay-roll records. The respondent
refused to make such a check but agreed to abide by the results of
an election. A consent election was accordingly held on December
8, 1937, under the auspices of the Regional Director. The Union
was not designated as bargaining agent by a majority of the em-
ployees who voted, obtaining but 96 votes out of 292.
As soon as. the counting of the ballots was completed, a "crowd"
of employees, including some foremen led by Foreman Felix Di
Prisco, bearing signs and banners praising the management and
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY 917
deprecating the Union, paraded into the room where the election
had been held, through the plant, and through the town of Stam-
ford. The signs and banners carried by the employees were made
of the respondent's property. Cans belonging to the respondent
were used as noise makers in the parade through town, although
it was. against the rules of the respondent to remove the cans from
the plant premises. The parade returned to the plant and, at its
conclusion, a celebration was held on the plant premises, which was
participated in by employees of all departments of the plant except
those in the lacquer and press rooms who continued working. Work
in the other departments was apparently abandoned.
The celebration continued through the afternoon and evening.
The participants hanged and burned effigies of union officers. Felix
Di Prisco.passed out intoxicating liquor to the men. During the
celebration the employees listened to speeches and various forms of
entertainment including a drum solo given by one employee at the
request of his supervisor. At the close of the day, the respondent's
supervisors and office and production workers held a dance at the
office, during which some property damage to the respondent's build-
ing occurred. There had never been a dance held for the plant
employees on the plant premises prior to this time.
When the celebration was beginning, Paight went through the
lacquer department, over which he was assistant superintendent, and
announced that "anyone that voted right could go over and have a
good time."
Creighton, the general manager, testified that during the celebra-
tion the celebrators "gathered in a group . . . and they were getting
various men there to make speeches. I suppose anybody that came
around that was a supervisor, or anybody particularly liked in the
office, or any thing." He further testified that he made a speech to
the employees in which he said in substance that "We were all glad
it was over and the thing to do now was to come back and go to
work and forget all about the election and everything that happened
previous to the election" and "I said that apparently it appeared
as if they liked the way it came out and I may have told them I
was glad they liked it."
It does not appear that anyone gave permission for the dance to
the employees, or that the respondent took any disciplinary action
against the employees who organized the dance or caused the dam-
age to the respondent's property, or complained to them about it.
Throughout the period from the termination of the strike to the
date of the hearing herein, the respondent by its supervisory force
consistently urged, persuaded, and warned its employees against
membership in the Union. Much of the testimony of employees con-
cerning statements revealing the respondent's interference with and
199549-39-vol. 15--59
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restraint and coercion of their rights under the Act is undisputed in
the record. Some instances of such undenied statements follow:
Two days after the strike, Paight, the assistant superintendent
of the lacquer department, came into the freight room and said to
Joseph Evanusich and other employees of his department, "Well;
well, I can't-I am nervous to look at you boys. I think I am going
to fire you, one by 'one. I got eight on a list I am going to get rid
of." This statement, while not clear in itself, was construed by the
employees as a threat of discharge because of their union activities.
Paight, when called as a witness, failed either to deny or explain
the statement. Since 'the record shows : but one interpretation of
the statement, that of the employees, and since that interpretation is
consistent with the contemporaneous anti-union activities of the re-
spondent, we find that the statement was made for the purpose of
threatening those engaging in the union activities in the plant with
discharge 'because of such activities.
On 'the: _day .following the strike Stephen Mirs^ir, an employee,
was seen by Paight talking to Frank Rehoric, president of the
Union.': .Although their conversation was regarding some pails used
in. their work Paight' immediately told them not to talk about the
Union any more. Felix Di Prisco,- speaking to Mirsir in the pres-
ence 6f;10 or ,15 other employees, also said in substance that, "The
C:.I.,O. no:good. We don't join the C. I. O."
„ Joseph Doran, Sr., was told .by his foreman, "I am ashamed of
you. I hear you are getting applications for the Union . . . Let
us forget about the Union.". . ' -
Foreman Johnson asked one of the employees after the election,'
"Do you. think we will, have any more work if the C. I. O. got -in
here?" and told him that "they had an election in New Jersey, and
the plant lost out, so the employer gave up the plant."
An employee named Szczekhowski was congratulated by his fore-
man ' because of his participation in the parade during the election
celebration heretofore described.
From the foregoing, it is clear that from the moment that the.
Union began -to. organize the employees of the Zapon Division'' it
was the respondent's purpose to destroy the 'Union in the plant
The. evidence revealing the respondent's interference with the shop-
gate meetings is .undisputed. The presence of the respondent's fore-
men. and, other supervisory officials at the meetings was in itself'
sufficient to' deter the employees from attending them and the con-
duct -of the respondent's' supervisory officials in heckling and ridi-
culing the union organizer clearly revealed the respondent's hostile
attitude toward the Union to the employees. The presence of the
respondent's stenographer,, keeping 'a record . of all proceedings at
the: meetings,. further' furnished to the ' employees a cogent expres-
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY 919
sion of the respondent's disapproval. When the meetings in the
Union hall began, union members made numerous complaints that
they were afraid to attend the shop-gate meetings because of the
presence of the foremen and the supervisors.
The respondent offered no testimony to explain its conduct in
closing the window in • the rubber department over the protests of
the employees. It is apparent from the undisputed evidence that
the window was closed by the respondent's watchman upon orders
from the "office"; that the window had been open during both sum-
mer and winter prior to the shop-gate meetings; and that the closing
of the window resulted in a lack of ''Ventilation. It is further ap-
parent from the respondent's failure to offer any evidence to explain
the closing of the window under the circumstances heretofore set
forth, that the window was closed under the respondent's direction
to prevent employees within the plant from listening to the union
organizer, and we so find.
The increased burden of work placed upon the lacquer-department
employees and the constant surveillance over them after they became
active in union affairs reveals the respondent's opposition to the
Union from its inception. The -explanation given by Paight, assist-
ant superintendent of the department, for his demanding better
work of and exercising closer supervision over the lacquer-depart-
ment employees is inconsistent with that given by Creighton, the
general manager. Paight testified that he concluded that the
employees were not doing their work properly because the laboratory
workers who had taken their places during the strike had turned in
a superior grade of work. Creighton testified, however: "We weren't
satisfied with the performance of any of the men in that department
over . . . the last two or three months prior to the strike." This
dissatisfaction with the work of the lacquer-department employee`s,
claimed to have" existed for '2 or 3 months prior to the strike, was
acted upon, however, only after the employees in the department had
affiliated with and become active .in the Union. The apparent ces-
sation of such dissatisfaction immediately following the election
which resulted in the defeat of the Union clearly reveals that the
respondent, in requiring of its employees more work than usual and
in keeping them under. surveillance, sought thereby to discourage
union -activities. That this purpose of the respondent was accom,
plished is clear.
. No evidence was introduced by the respondent contradicting the
testimony of Joseph Doran, Jr., concerning the respondent's dis-
criminatory acts against him in connection with his employment,
nor was Doran cross-examined by the respondent as to such conduct.
In. the absence of .any explanation as to the discriminatory conduct
by the respondent, we find that the respondent discriminated -with
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reference to Doran's hire and tenure and the terms and conditions
of his employment with a view to discouraging membership and
activity in the Union and that the respondent thereby did discourage
membership and activity in the Union.'
The combination of events occurring during the election celebra-
tion of December 8, 1937, and the participation of the respondent's
supervisory force and foremen therein clearly reveal the anti-union
animus of the respondent. The parade immediately following the
election was led by the respondent's foreman, Felix Di Prisco, who
actively participated in the entire celebration. Di Prisco was not
called as a witness to explain his conduct in this or any other
respect. Company property was used for signs and noise making
and intoxicating liquor was dispensed to employees by a foreman.
Various supervisory officials, including the plant manager, made
speeches at the celebration, thereby indicating to the employees in
unmistakable terms the respondent's approval of the Union's defeat
in the election. The respondent's acquiescence in the use of its
premises for a dance on the night of the election and its failure to
take any action regarding the property damage which occurred there
serve as further indication of the lengths to which the respondent
went to demonstrate to its employees its preference for lack of
employee organization to the Union. We find that the respondent
assisted, supported, and encouraged the anti-union demonstrations
of December 8.
The foregoing activities of the respondent, indicating its hostile
attitude toward the Union, engendered among the respondent's em-
ployees the fear of reprisals for union activities. This fear pervaded
the plant from the time of the start of union organization therein
through the time of the hearing. The foundations of such fears lay
in statements such as that by Foreman Felix Di Prisco who told a
union member during the hearing, "You guys should all be fired
and you are going to get kicked out pretty soon." Di Prisco
then verbally attacked in a vicious and obscene manner the Board
and the mayor of Stamford for his sympathy with the Union.
The effect of the respondent's anti-union practices, described above,
on the Union's membership is evident. In October 1937 the Union
claimed a membership of 182 employees and offered to -allow the
respondent to examine its membership cards. At the election of De-
cember 8, 1937, it obtained only 96 votes. Thereafter, following the
speech of the general manager that "it was all over now" and that he
"was glad they liked" the way the election had resulted, and the
respondent's continued anti-union activities, the Union's membership
* No charge of a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act was filed with reference to
Joseph Doran, Jr., and apparently no claim for reinstatement or back pay was made as
to him.
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY 921
dwindled until, as Fred Ruscoe, the organizer , described it at the
hearing, "there is practically no union there."
We find that by the acts described above the respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged discriminatory discharges
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent had dis-
charged John Martinech and Klym Markevich because of their activ-
ities in the Union, thereby discriminating with reference to their
hire and tenure of employment.
John Martinech, was discharged by the respondent on September
10, 1937. Prior thereto he had been employed for approximately 11/2
months in the plant laboratory and for 3 months as a mixer in the
lacquer department. There his work consisted of mixing the prin-
cipal ingredients for batches of lacquer.
Martinech was active in the strike of August 23 to 26, 1937, and
acted, at times, as a volunteer organizer for the Union. On Septem-
ber 9, 1937, he was elected secretary of the Union. On the following
day, he was discharged. The reason for the discharge asserted by
the respondent at the time thereof and since was that Martinech had
improperly prepared two batches of lacquer, both mistakes having
become apparent immediately prior to his discharge. The mistakes
in both cases were characterized by witnesses as gross and as involv-
ing unusual carelessness. A 4-day delay in the shipment of one batch
of lacquer resulted from Martinech's error. Martinech's work gen-
erally was not as good as that of other employees in his department,
and he had previously been warned by Paight concerning his work.
The reasons presented by the respondent for the discharge of
Martinech are not the most persuasive. However, the record does not
establish that Martinech's union membership or activities were the
cause of the discharge. While the circumstances surrounding it are
somewhat suspicious we do not find convincing evidence in the record
that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment of Martinech to discourage membership in the Union or
in any labor organization.
Klym Markevich was first employed at the plant in 1918 and,
except for 9 months, worked continuously for the respondent from
that time until November 1, 1937, when he and 54 others were laid
off. From 1930 to 1937 Markevich was employed in the rubberized-
cloth department in the plant.
In January 1937 Markevich was a member of a committee of
employees which asked the respondent for an increase in pay. After
considerable negotiation with the management , the employees re-
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceived the increase. Markevich was a member of the Union and was
vigorous and outspoken .in his activities as a volunteer organizer.
His affiliation with and his diligence on behalf of the.. Union were
known to the management.
The lay-off of November 1, 1937, was due to a diminution of the
respondent's business. Markevich was one of 9 of the 14 employees
laid off in the rubberized-cloth department where he was employed.
Markevich claims that the respondent discriminated against him in
reinstating, within the 5-month period following the lay-off, three
employees in his department who were"junior to him in point of serv-
ice, while not offering employment to him. The respondent submit-
ted evidence showing that the three employees reinstated could per-
form a number of specialized jobs which Markevich was unable to
do., The respondent conceded that Markevich's work was entirely
satisfactory and stated at the hearing that it intended rehiring him
as soon as it could use him. The good faith of they respondent as to
this intention is indicated by a stipulation entered into by counsel for
the respondent and the Board and filed herein subsequent to the hear-
ing showing that the respondent rehired Markevich on July 20, 1938.
We find that the respondent did not discriminate with reference to
the hire and tenure of employment of Klym Markevich to discourage
membership in the Union or in any labor organization.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
' We find that the activities of, the respondent set forth in Section
III, A above, occurring in. connection with the operations of the
respondent, described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and.obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. .
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. We
shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative action which
we find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having, found that the respondent has not discriminated with
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John Martinech and
Klym Markevich, we shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it
alleges the commission of unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY 923
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. District No. 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local No.
12083, C. I. 0., is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the' Act.
2. By interfering with; restraining, -and coercing its employees in
f, the rights -guaranteed in Section..7 of the Act, thethe exercise of-the-
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in-unfair-labor practices
within the meaning of Section _8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor 'practices are unfair labor. practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of -Section 2..(6) and (7).
of the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor" practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) `of the Act.-
ORDER .
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Atlas Powder Company, Stamford, Connecticut, and its
officers, agents, successors, ' and assigns, shall : .
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, 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 purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
the plant of the Zapon Division, and maintain such notices for a
period of at least sixty (60), consecutive days, stating that the re-
spondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraph 1
of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
--IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act; be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.