Connor Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 146 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any
other labor organization,. 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, and to refrain from
any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (;) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed:
Anne Karamourtopoulos Irene Harvey
Doris Gagnon Henry Hyder
Dorilda Pacquette Clyde Wheeler
WE WILL make whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our dis-
crimination, the.following employees:
Anne Karamourtopoulos Irene Harvey
Doris Gagnon Henry Hyder
Dorilda Pacquette Clyde Wheeler
Doris Isabelle
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
ROZELLE SHOE CORPORATION,
Emploper.
Dated---------------------------------- By-----------------------------
i(Representative) (Title)
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
NEIL J. KUNST, LLOYD NORTON AND LORETTA S. KUNST, CO-PARTNERS,
D/B/A CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY, A CO-PARTNERSHIP and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO and CONNOR FOUN-
DRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. Case No. 7-CA-
614. JuZy 14, 1952
Decision and Order
On December 277 1951 , Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac-
100 NLRB No. 28.
CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY 147
tices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act, and
recominending that they cease and desist therefrom and take affirma-
tive action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report. -
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock,
and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondents' exceptions, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Neil J. Kunst, Lloyd Norton and
Loretta S. Kunst, co-partners, d]b/a Connor Foundry Company, a
co-partnership, their agents, successors , and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all their
employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) Dominating, interfering with, or supporting the administra-
tion of Connor Foundry Employees' Union, or the formation and
administration of any other labor organization.
(c) Recognizing Connor Foundry Employees' Union as a represent-
ative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the
' We do not accept the Trial Examiner ' s inference in section III, C, of the Intermediate
Report that a member of management gave Curtiss the check list of employees used at
the election Our disaf iirmance of this portion of the Trial Examiner's findings has no
effect upon our affirmance of his finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2)
of the Act by dominating , interfering with, and supporting the formation and adminis-
tration of Connor Foundry Employees' Union.
3 For the Trial Examiner ' s conclusions contained in the last paragraph of section III, A,
of the Intermediate Report, the Board substitutes the following . The Respondents, by
their conduct in attempting to induce their employees to disavow the Union at the April 7
meeting , at which the employees were plied with refreshments and liquor by the Respond-
ents and told that steps would be taken to grant them a wage increase , and thereafter
by putting into effect a general wage increase , violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act in
that they discouraged self-organization and interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
227260-53-vol . 100-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(d) Giving effect to any agreement, supplement thereto or modi-
fication or renewal thereof, with Connor Foundry Employees' Union.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act : '
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely
disestablish, Connor Foundry Employees' Union, as the representa-
tive of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or any other conditions of employment.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit.
(c) Post at their Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix
A." 3 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ents' authorized representative, be posted by the Respondents immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region. in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order what steps
the Respondents have taken to comply therewith.
t
3 This notice , however , shall be and hereby is amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ," and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order " In the event this Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
149
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named
copartnership, herein called the Respondents, a hearing involving allegations
of unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, by the Respondents, was held in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, on December 3 and 4, 1951, before the undersigned
Trial Examiner.
In substance, the complaint alleges that the Respondents in 1951: (1) Begin-
ning in May formed, dominated, and supported Connor Foundry Employees'
Union, herein called the Independent; (2) since May have refused to bargain
collectively with the Union although it has at all times since May 8 been the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all employees in an appropriate unit; (3)
by various acts have threatened reprisals and given benefits to discourage
union membership and activity; and (4) by this and other conduct have inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to employees by the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence
pertinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and
proposed findings and conclusions. General Counsel argued orally. Briefs have
been received from the Independent and the General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents are a copartnership having their office and foundry in Grand
Rapids, Michigan , where they operate a gray iron foundry. Principal raw
materials used are pig iron, coke , cast iron , steel , scrap, and molding sand.
During the year 1950 the Respondents bought materials valued at more than
$150,000, of which about 50 percent was shipped to the foundry from points
outside the State of Michigan . During the same period the Respondents sold
finished castings valued at more than $400,000, of which about 3 percent was
shipped to points outside the State of Michigan . During the same period
the Respondents sold finished castings valued at more than $200,000 to the
following customers for incorporation into their products , each of which cus-
tomers during the same period sold and shipped products in interstate commerce
valued at more than $100,000: Hudson Motor Car Company , Detroit , Michigan ;
Continental Motors Corporation , Muskegon , Michigan ; Motor Wheel Corpora-
tion, Lansing, Michigan ; and John Wood Manufacturing Company, Muskegon,
Michigan.
The Respondents concede that they are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-CIO, and Connor Foundry Employees' Union are
labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respondents.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The'Respondents'. interference with self-organization
About March 1, 1951, employees of the Respondents sought assistance of the
Union in self-organization A meeting for this purpose was held March 3,
when about 40 authorization cards were signed. On March 5 the Union wrote
to the Respondents, claiming representation of a majority of the foundry
employees (numbering about 45), and requesting to negotiate concerning a
collective bargaining agreement. The Respondents tailed either to question
the claim or to answer the request.
On March 6 the Union filed a petition for certification with the Board's
Regional Office, and the Respondents concede having received both the letter
from the Union and the notice from the Board of the filing of the petition. The
Trial Examiner finds that on or about March 6 the Respondents were aware
of the Union's claim that it represented a majority of their eiupioyee5.
The Respondents, however, particularly through Lloyd Norton, a partner
and general manager, promptly began an open campaign to deprive the employees
of rights accorded them by the Act Norton even appealed to another Govern-
ment agency to assist the Respondents in their efforts to defeat purposes of
the Act. On March 15 he wrote to the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour
Public Contracts Division, asking for permission to install an incentive plan,
saying:
We have no Union. However there are definite indications of labor
troubles unless we can correct this inequality in our core room. We feel
that this dissatisfaction can be eliminated if our request is granted.
Having ignored the Union's request to bargain, Norton finally met with
Board and union representatives but declined to consent to a Board election.
The Regional Office set April 25 as a hearing (late on the representation
petition in Case No. 7-RC-1309.
Before the hearing, however, Norton made 2 additional moves against self-
organization and for the plain and openly avowed purpose of discouraging
union membership. Personally and through other management representatives
he prevailed upon about 35 of his employ ees, on their own time, to attend
a meeting called by himself at a local hall, where he provided refreshments and
liquor, and at which he told them, in part:
Inasmuch as there is organizing going on at the shop at this time I cannot
negotiate with you nor promise anything . . . We do not want a Union m
our shop . . . I applied for an increase in wages. In part this is the re-
ply I got from the U. S. Department of Labor. Quote "The procedure for
filing applications for increases has not been formulated, therefore you
are advised to keep in touch with the Grand Rapids Field Office
(Emphasis supplied.)
Within a week after this meeting, and despite Norton's quotation from the
Department of Labor letter, he put into i ffict, on April 13, a general wage increase
for the employees.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the following conduct of Norton,
designed to discourage self-organization, interfered with, restrained. and coerced
the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act: Attempting to
induce employees to disavow the Union at the meeting of April 7 and by plying
them with refreshments and liquor, and by putting into effect a general wage
increase at a time when the Union claimed to represent a majority of the
CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY 151
.employees and following his thinly veiled announcement that the raise he
was seeking was to discourage union activity.
B. Coercion at the Board election
The Board conducted an election at the foundry on May 8.
The testimony of employee Sam Dock is undisputed, and the Trial Examiner
finds that on the day of-the election his foreman, Ed De Graff, asked him how
he was going to vote and warned him, "If I was you I wouldn't vote for the
Union." Later the same day De Graff told Dock that Kunst, one of the partners,
"was talking about selling the place."
De Graff's remarks were clearly designed to coerce employees in the exercise
of free choice at a Board-conducted election, and constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion within the meaning of the Act.
C. Formation, domination, and support of the Independent
William Staniulis, a maintenance employee, was the Respondents' observer
at the Board election, which the Union won by a small majority. The day
after the election employee Kenneth Curtiss was given the check list of the
Respondents used at the election, and it is reasonably inferred and found that
Curtiss received it from some member of management' During working hours
Curtiss proceeded to circulate among the employees and to ask them if they
wanted to join an inside union. According to his testimony he checked off a
number of names on the list and then gave the list to Staniulis.
Staniulis. Curtiss, and two other employees then went into Norton' s office,
and Norton gave them a bankbook having on deposit a sum of more than $400-
a sick and flower benefit fund which for several years had been held and dis-
tributed by the Respondents and which had accumulated both from weekly
contributions made by employees and from profits received by the Respondents
from vending machines of cigarettes, candy, etc. According to his own testi-
mony Norton formally turned the fund, which had until then been under his
jurisdiction, over to these employees by having the signature cards at the bank
changed, on June 5. Money from this fund was drawn, after May 8, by Curtiss
to defray refreshment and hall expenses for meetings of the Independent. Since
May 8, also according to Norton's testimony, the Respondents have contributed
to the Independent all profits from the use of the vending machines in the plant.
It is concluded and found that the Respondents have, by thus contributing funds
to the Independent, financially supported its formation and administration.
On May 22, Staniulis gave Norton a letter, obviously prepared for him, signed
by himself and three other employees, claiming that they were a "committee
elected by the independent union" and claiming to represent a majority of the
employees. According to Staniulis' testimony, however, no election or organiza-
tion meeting was held until June 2.
According to Norton's testimony, he thereafter recognized and bargained with
the Independent, and on some date which he said he could not remember signed
a written agreement 2 with it concerning wages and vacations. He admitted at
1 The testimony of both Curtiss and Staniulis, as well as that of Lloyd Norton, con-
cerning events surrounding the formation of the independent is confused , mutually con-
tradictory, and wholly untrustworthy. Curtiss said he found the list on the company
dump while looking for a piece of paper to write upon. At various times Staniulis in
his testimony said he put the list in the wastebasket and that he placed it on the desk
of a member of management.
2 The agreement, in evidence, bears no date of execution.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the 'hearing that he was still bargaining with this organization. He further
admitted that he thus recognized and bargained with the Independent, without
election (and so far as the record shows without any real effort to ascertain
whether or not the Independent represented a majority), although he had re-
fused to bargain with the Union even after the Board's certification of it. By
recognizing, bargaining with, and entering into a collective bargaining agreement
in the Independent, the Respondents further assisted it.
It is undisputed that both Norton and De Graff, in effect, urged employees to
join the Independent. When employee Eugene Hemphill asked Norton for an
advance on his pay, Norton refused, saying "You guys got the Union in now,
and I decided to quit lending advances," and then asked Hemphill if he had seen
Staniulls who, he said, "is getting up a company union now." Foreman De Graff
urged employee Frank Enoch, who was the union observer at the election, to
get his "guys" together and go to a meeting then being planned by Curtiss to
form the Independent. It is likewise undisputed that De Graff told employee
Frank Adams to see Staniulis who, De Graff told him, was organizing a "comr
pany union." De Graff also told Adams that he would "like for as many to sign
it as possible," referring to the check list above described. De Graff then told
Adams that "if the CIO stayed in" some of the employees might be laid off but,
that Adams would not be laid off if he "would follow along with management."
By this conduct of management officials the Respondents have further supported
the organization of the Independent'
By the conduct above described, so openly in defiance of the Board election on
May 8 and the Board's certification of the Union on June 4, the Respondents
plainly have dominated, interfered with, and supported the formation and ad-
ministration of the Independent, and thereby have interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
D. The refusal to bargain
As noted above, on June 4, 1951, the Board certified the Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all employees in the following appropriate
unit :
All production and maintenance employees at the Grand Rapids plant, ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that at all times since May 8, 1951, when
the Union won the majority at the Board election, the Union has been and now
is the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the above-de-
scribed unit.
As a witness, Norton freely admitted that he has refused to bargain with the
Union, despite the Board certification, but that he has, on the contrary, recog-
nized and bargained with and is still bargaining with the Independent. The
Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondents have continuously
refused and are refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the above-described appropriate unit.
8 Not only because Staniulis was the Respondents' appointed representative at the
election, but also because management officials openly urged employees "to see" him,
pointing out that he was starting a company union, the Trial Examiner is convinced
and finds that in organizing and leading the Independent, Staniulis was serving as a
representative of management, and that for his activity in this respect the Respondents
must be held accountable. (Reed and Prince Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB 850 )
CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY 153
E. Discrimination in granting of advances in pay
As noted in section C, above, Norton refused employee Hemphill an advance on
his pay, in effect telling him that he was doing so because the employees had
selected the Union as their bargaining agent. It is undisputed and the Trial
Examiner finds that Superintendent Richard Babcock, when employee Edward
Flowers asked for a small advance on his pay shortly after the election, told
him "No," after seeing Norton. Credible evidence establishes that before the
election the Respondents frequently granted employees such advances, and it is
concluded and found that by discriminatorily discontinuing this practice, to
discourage union membership, the Respondents have interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondents dominated, interiered with, and
supported the formation and administration of the Independent, and executed
a collective bargaining agreement with it. The effect of such coercive conduct
will not be remedied if the contract is permitted to remain in effect. It will
therefore be recommended that the Respondents withdraw and withhold all
recogiution from, completely disestablish, and cease giving effect to their agree-
ment with, the Independent. Nothing in these recommendations shall be deemed
to require the Respondents to vary or abandon those wage, hour, or other sub-
stantive features of their relations with their employees established in per-
formance of said contract, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any
rights they may have under such agreement.
It has been found that the Respondents have refused and are refusing to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all employees in an appropriate unit. It will therefore be recommended that the
Respondents cease and desist therefrom and, also, that upon request they bargain
collectively with the Union with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, for all employees in the appropriate unit.
The nature of the Respondents' unfair labor practices is such that the com-
mission of other unfair labor practices may reasonably be expected ; it will
therefore be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from in any
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, and Connor Foundry Employees' Union,
are labor organizations within the meaning of section 2 (5) of the Act.
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By dominating , interfering with, and supporting the formation and ad-
ministration of Connor Foundry Employees ' Union , the Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (2) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondents at their
Grand Rapids plant, excluding office and clerical employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, was on May 8, 1951 , and at all times since
has been the exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Union , United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing their employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume ]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH CONNOR FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES ' UNION as the repre-
sentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us con-
cerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment , and we will not recognize it or any suc-
cessor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all agreements and contracts, sup-
plements thereto, or modifications thereof , or any superseding contract with
CONNOR FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES ' UNION, or any successor thereto.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay , hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our Grand Rapids plant,
excluding office and clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
THE AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA 155
organization, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, U NITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all of such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
NEIL J. KUNST, LLOYD NORTON AND
LORETTA S. KUNST, Co-Partners, d/b/a
CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY, a co-partnership,
Employer.
Dated ---------------------------------- By ------------------------------
(Representative ) i(Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
THE AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORK-
ERS, CIO. Case No. 6-CA-515. July 14, 1954
Decision and Order
On February 28, 1952, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief,
The Board" has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby -affirmed.; - The Board has considered the Intermediate Re-
port, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case,3 and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
a The Trial Examiner rejected the Respondent's proffer of evidence pertaining to certain
of the issues in this proceeding. As there is no contention or showing that such proffered
evidence was not available to the Respondent at the time of the hearing in the earlier
representation proceeding, this ruling is hereby affirmed. N. L. R. B. v. West Kentucky
Coal Company, 152 F. 2d 198 (C. A. 6).
3 As the record and the exceptions and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues
and the contentions of the parties, the Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby
denied.
100 NLRB No. 36.