Iowa Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 981 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of, IOWA ELECTRIC' COMPANY .and LOCAL UNION No.
B 1034 AND LOCAL UNION No. B 1107 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
Case No. C4617.- Decided June 30, 1943
DECISION -
AND
ORDER
On May 17, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above entitled proceedings, 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 cer-
tain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Re-
port attached hereto. Neither the respondent nor the Society -has-'
excepted to the findings and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the following modifications :
1. In footnote 3 on page 4 of his Intermediate Report the Trial
Examiner comments on the supervisory status of certain employees
active in the formation of the Society. In reaching the conclusion
that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation of
the Society and contributed financial and other support to it, we have
not deemed it necessary to consider the supervisory status of those
employees.
2. Since the respondent has never recognized the Society as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, we will not in-
clude in our order the provision recommended by the Trial Examiner
that the respondent cease and desist from "recognizing" the Society as
,the exclusive bargaining representative, or the provision that the
respondent shall "withdraw" its recognition from the Society as such
representative.
ORDER - `
Upon 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, Iowa Electric Company,
50 N. L. R. B., No. 141.
536105-44 -vol 50---03
981
t
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOA.R'D
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from : - I ,
(a) Dominating'or interfering with the administration of Society
Bargaining Agent, or with the formation or administration of any
other labor organization of its employees, or from contributing finan-
cial or other support to the above-named Society or to any other labor
organization of its employees; ,
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes 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) Withhold all recognition from, Society Bargaining Agent as
the exclusive representative 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 Society Bargaining Agent as such repre-
sentative;
(b), Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its main
office at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and also at its 10 divisional offices located
at the following points in the State' of Iowa: Anomosa, Atlantic,.De-
Witt, Fairfield, Guthrie Center, Manchester, Maquoketa, Marengo,
Monticello, and Muscatine, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the (late of posting, notices to its em-
ployees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct
from which it is ordered that it cease and desist in paragrapls 1 (a)
and (b) of this Order; and (2)' that the respondent will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth - Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR., GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board.
Mr. J. Harris Igou, of Austin, Minn., for I. B. E W.1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on April 16, 1943; by Local Union No.
B 1034 and Local Union No. B 1107, International Brotherhood of Electrical
'-As set forth below , no appearance was made on behalf of either the respondent or the
Society. ,
IOWA EILEGTRIC COMPANY 983
Woikers, herein called I B E W, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minne-
apolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint dated April 19. 1943, against Iowa Elec-
tric Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the Complaint
accompanied by notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent,
1. B E W., and Society Bargaining Agent, an unaffiliated labor organization,
herein called the Society.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in sub-
stance: (1) that in February 1943 the respondent encouraged, assisted, and
participated in the formation of the Society, and at all times thereafter dom-
inated aiid interfered with the administration of the Society' and contributed
financial and other support to it by permitting the free use, by its employees,
of the respondent's time, automobiles, and other property for the purpose of
assisting in the organization of the Society; (2) that the respondent warned
its employees against being active in, or becoming members of I. B. E. W.;
advised them that they would have received increases in pay if there had been
%no activity on behalf of I. B E. W ; that the respondent would never enter
into a closed-shop contract with I. B E. `W'. ; and (3) that by the aforesaid acts,
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on May 6,
1943, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated,by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board was represented by counsel, and I. B. E. W. by
its International Representative. Neither the respondent nor the Society filed
an answer, or was represented at the hearing. Frank A. Fratcher, the respond-
ent's vice president and general manager, testified at the hearing in response
to a subpena served by the Board. He testified that 'the respondent did not
intend to file an answer or take any part in the hearing. The Trial Examiner
read to him Sections 10 and 11 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 2,,
as amended, effective October 28, 1942,2 and stated to him that should the respond-
entdesire to file an answer to the complaint and be represented by counsel at the
hearing it could still do so, and that he could so inform the respondent. He re-
plied that the -respondent did not desire to avail itself of this offer. On
or about May 3, 1943, employee Bain and his attorney, Drake, representa-
tives of the Society, informed counsel for the Board that the Society did
not intend to file an answer to the complaint or intervene at the hearing.
2 Sections 10 and 11 are as follows :
SEC 10 Answer to complaint : time for filing ; contents ; allegations not denied
deemed admitted -The respondent shall have the right, within ten days from the
service of the complaint , to file an answer thereto Such answer shall contain a
short and simple statement of the facts which constitute 'the grounds of defense.
The respondent shall specifically admit or deny or explain each of the facts alleged
in the complaint , unless the respondent is without knowledge , in which case the
respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. Any allegation in
the complaint not specifically denied in the answer , unless,the respondent shall state
in the anwer that the respondent is without knowledge, shall be deemed to be ad-
mitted to be true and may be so found by the Board:
SEc 11 Where to file ; form ; jurat ; service upon other parties -The answer ehall
be filed with the Regional Director issuing the , complaint It shall be in wilting,
the original being signed and sworn to by the respondent or by, a duly authorized
agent with appropriate power of attorney affixed , and shall contain the post-office
address of the respondent . The respondent shall file three additional copies of the
answer. Immediately upon filing his answer the respondent shall serve a copy
thereof upon each of the other parties.
l
11
1
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOiR REILATIONS BOARD _
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing" upon the issues was afforded all parties.
A motion by the Board's counsel, at the conclusion of the hearing, to con-
form the pleadings to the proof, in respect to minor inaccuracies in'regard to
dates and figures, was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board made an oral argu-
ment on the record, before the Trial Examiner. Opportunity to file briefs with
the Trial Examiner was afforded the parties, but no briefs were filed.
Upon the entire record in, the case and from his observation of the wit-
nesses, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TFIE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Iowa Electric Company, is an Iowa corporation, having its
principal office and place of business in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It maintains and
operates 10 divisional offices, located respectively at Anamosa, Atlantic, DeWitt,
Fairfield, Guthrie Center, Manchester, Maquoketa, Marengo, Monticello and
Muscatine, all in Iowa. The respondent is engaged in the purchase, sale, and dis-
tribution of electricity,i electric fixtures and appliances, gas fixtures, gas and
Diesel engine oil, and the distribution of gas for commercial use. The re-
spondent purchases gas to the value of about $100,000 annually,oall of which
or'g nates outside Iowa. It supplies, electrical energy to more than 100 Iowa
towns and cities, and to approximately 3600 rural customers About 80 percent
of this energy is purchased by the respondent. It owns and operates hydro-
.elve ric plants at Maquoketa, Manchester, Anamosa, Monticello, Oxford Mills
and Oakland Mills, Iowa, and a Diesel station at Anamosa The respondent
- has several connections with other electric power companies, which produce elec-
trical energy outside Iowa and supply it to the respondent for distribution in
Iowa During 1942, the respondent purchased materials, such as poles, wire,
transformers, oil, electric and gas ranges and heaters, meters, switches, fuses,
small appliances, refrigerators, conduits, street lighting fixtures and related
supplies, to the value of $133,322.27, of which $66,069 70 represented purchases
outside Iowa The respondent sells a substantial quantity of electrical energy,
purchased and generated by it, to interstate rail and air carriers for station
and airplane beacon usage, and for power and light to manufacturing concerns
engaged in interstate commerce.
II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Union No. B 1034 and Local Union No B 1107, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
are labor organizations, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Society Bargaining Agent is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Domination of, interference with, and support of the Society Bargaining Agent;
interference, restraint, and coercion
Prior to 1943, the respondent's employees were not organized Early in 1943,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, established Local Union No. B 1034 at Fairfield and Local
No. B 1107 at Anamosa, Iowa, for the purpose of organizing the respondent's
employees. These Locals received their charters on February 14 and March 1,
IOWA ELECTRIC COMPANY 985
1943, respectively. I B. E. W. was successful in securing a considerable num-
ber of members among the respondent's employees prior-to the inception of the
Society. However, I. B. E. W. has never requested the respondent to recognize
it for purposes of collective bargaining and the respondent has never had any
contractural relations with I. B E. W.
The Society
On Thursday, February 11. 1943. employees Bain , Beck, Tebbe, and Cook,' met
Ray Ingham, the respondent's vice president and general superintendent, and
H. W. Stewart, the respondent's general foreman, in Ingham's office at Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. Beck and French' came from Fairfield in the respondent's motor
car to attend this meeting. with the permission of G. G Hovey, the respondent's
manager at Fairfield. Bain acted as spokesman for the employees present. He
stated that the purpose of the meeting was to arrange for the formation of a
company union. Beck and French were opposed to the idea because they were
members of I. B. E W. Bain asked Ingham if the employees would not be
better off with a company union than'with an outside union. Ingham replied,
"You know, my hands are tied I can't say too much " After some discussion,
Bain said, "Now, you are sitting here right before our bosses, and they are not
telling you you can't do it" Stewart said they could have a company union
that would be as good as any other union, and that they would get more con-
sideration from the respondent through a company union than they would
by having an "outsider" represent them. During the discussion the,subject of
an increase in wages was mentioned, and Ingham said, "Had it not been for
this union activity that [sic] this wage increase was already in the making,
and would have been taken care of." Ingham was referring to the fact that
some of the employees had joined I B E. W. Finally, with the approval of
Ingham and Stewart. it was decided to have a meeting of the employees at
Muscatine on the following Monday, February 15. In connection with this next
meeting, Ingham said to Bain, "Since you are going to be the Host you will
have to make arrangements to take care of these boys and feed them."
The next day, Friday, February 12, Beck, French, and employee Carnahan,
went to Ottumwa, Iowa, in the respondent's motor car with the approval of
Hovey, the manager at Fairfield, to consult with the president of an inde-
pendent union at the Iowa Soutliein Utilities Company. They returned to Fair-
field at 5 p. in. that day. The next clay Beck and French used the same motor
car to go to Sigourney, Iowa. to see the attorney for the independent union.
Upon their return to Fairfield, Beck told Hovey that he wanted the motor car
"Just one day more " Hovey said "All right, use it." On Monday, February
15, Beck and French used the same motor car to attend' the meeting at
Muscatine. The respondent made no charge for its motor car or the gasoline
consumed on these trips, and the employees were paid for the time lost from
work'
3 Beck was in charge of the respondents gas department at Fairfield 'Bain and Cook
were linemen Tebbe was foreman of one of the respondent's construction gangs. In re-
spect to Tebbe's employment Hatcher, the respondent's vice president and general mana-
ger, testified as felons: "Well, lie is a supervisory employee, I think We have two con-
struction crews, so-called, which move around over both Central States aild Iowa Electric
Company, iNhere storm damage occurs, or where repair work is to be done and that sort of
thing, and Tebbe has a crew of about -, of in normal times, a crew' of seven or eight over
which he has charge, but he also does some dine construction work."
French was a lineman.
The above findings, in respect to the occurrences on February 11, 12 , 13, and 15 are
based upon -the undenied and credible testimony of employee Beck.
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
On Monday, February 15, a meeting of the employees was held in the base-
ment'of the respondent's office at Muscatine, pursuant to the approval of Ingham
and Stewart. About 20 employees were present. Employees Stephenson and
Dunn-went to the meeting from their station at Manchester, which was about
,185 miles from Muscatine. They used the motor car of Gassman, the respondent's
divisional manager, with Gassman's approval. - On the way to Muscatine they
picked up employees Meade and Pazour at Anamosa. Thompson, the respondent's
resident manager at Anamosa, had, given his approval for Meade and Pazour
to attend the meeting. The trip consumed the entire day. The, respondent
made no charge for the use of its motor car or the gasoline used, and no de-
duction was made from the pay of the employees for the time lost at the meet-
ing. At this meeting, Bain was the spokesman, and the subject of organizing
a company union was discussed but no organization was effected, only the name,
Society Bargaining Agent, was adopted. Bain encountered considerable opposi-
tion,in his efforts to organize the Society since a number of employees present
at-this meeting were already members of I. B E. W. and did not wish to partici-
pate in the formation of an independent union.'
On February 21, copies of a proposed agreement between the Society and the
respondent, together with a letter of acceptance authorizing the president,
,vice president, secretary and treasurer, and the directors of the Society to be-,
come the collective bargaining representative, of the employees, were sent to all
the employees by Bain, with the request that the letter be signed and returned
to him, which would be equivalent to an application for membership in the
Society. The proposed agreement provided inter alia: That the Society should
be the sole representative of the employees,for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and that "Any meetings of the Society Bargaining Agent or expenses
derived [sic] from meeting, or other expenses, shall be paid for by the Com-
pany. Time shall be allowed to employees who attend to Society Bargaining
Agent affairs at straight time per 8-hour day."
On February 25 the respondent entered into a written agreement with a com-
mittee composed of four employees, namely, H. C Bain, H. J. Price, Elmer V.
Tebbe, J. R. Scanlon,' representing the Society, for an election to be held on
March 2, 3, and 4, 1943, at the various divisional offices and plants, of the
respondent, to determine whether or not the employees desired the Society
to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining According to the
agreement all full-time base divisional employees, excluding divisional managers,
were entitled to vote. Voting during working hours, if necessary, was per-
mitted without loss of pay. The judges of the election were Bain and French
representing the employees, and Stewart, the general foreman, representing the
respondent. The judges were charged with the duty of supervising the voting
and counting the ballots' The respondent agreed to recognize the Society as
the collective bargaining agent of the employees, providing it received a
majority of the votes cast. The ballots contained no reference to I. B. E. W.
This agreement, together with a sample ballot and blank Report of election,
was posted on the bulletin boards in the various divisional offices and plants
of the respondent. The respondent entered' into this agreement solely upon
the representations made by Bain, Price; Tebbe, and Scanlon, that they repre-
sented the Society and that the employees, as a whole, desired an election. No
proof of membership in the Society was submitted to the respondent and none
was requested. ,
\ G The above findings are based upon the credible and undenled testimony of employee
J E Stephenson which was corroborated by employee P. 0 Dunn. ti
7 Price was a gas meter repairman. Scanlon was a lineman.
POWA ELECTRIC COMPANY 987
On February 27, the Regional Director informed the respondent by letter
that I B E. W. had filed charges against the respondent, alleging that the
respondent : had aided in the formation of the Society ; permitted the first and
subsequent meetings of the Society to be held on the respondent's' time and
premises; and that the employees attended the meetings in the respondent's
motor cars, at the latter's expense. Certain information in respect to the re-
spondent's business and its attitude toward the Society was requested by the
Regional Director.
On February 27, J I3 Igou, a representative of I. B. E. W. upon learning of
the election agreement, telegraphed the respondent protesting against the holding
of the election. On that date the original charge against the respondent was
filed by I. B E W.
On March 2, the respondent replied to the Regional Director's letter, giving the
information requested concerning its business, and stating in substance: that
on February 11 employees Bain, Tebbe, Cook, French and Beck called on Ingham,
the respondent's vice president and general superintendent, and informed him
that they were considering the formation of a "Company cooperative group"
and requested assistance in connection with its organization ; that these employees
were informed that the respondent "did not care to have any part in such an
undertaking"; that the respondent had no knowledge of the use of its motor
cars by its employees for the purpose of attending meetings of the Society, and
"any such use was definitely unauthorized ;" and that it was immaterial to the
respondent whether the Society or I. B. E. W. represented the employees, pro-
vided that such representation was legal and was desired by a majority of its
employees.
In accordance with the aforesaid Agreement, elections were held' March 2,
3, and 4, in all divisional offices and plants of the respondent. The balloting
occurred during working hours and on the premises of the respondent, under the
direction of Bain, Stewart, and French. After all the votes had been cast, the
ballot boxes were taken to Fairfield and the votes counted. The result of the
count showed 56 votes for, and 54 against, the Society. This information was
posted on the bulletin boards of the various divisional offices and plants of the
respondent.
On April 27, Fratcher, vice president and general manager of the respondent,
wrote the Regional Director that the respondent had received a copy of the com-
plaint and notice of hearing, set for May 6, 1943; that it did not consider that
any useful purpose would be served by filing an answer or attending the hearing;
that it had no part in the formation of the Society and no interest in its con-
tinuation, other than such interest as resulted from the fact that 56 out of 110
employees voted in favor of the Society in an election, to which it reluctantly
agreed ; that it would agree to any arrangement in respect to disestablishing the
Society that would be acceptable to employee Bain; that it would not advocate
or sponsor any course of action which would appear to be antagonistic to those
employees favoring the Society, as such action would tend to disturb future
relations with such employees ; and that any participation in the hearing by the
respondent would amount to defense of the Society, which the respondent did
not feel obligated to do. ,
Notwithstanding the fact that the Society had gained a majority of the votes
in the election, no organization of the Society was ever perfected. No officers
,were ever elected and no constitution or bylaws were ever adopted. The Society
made no effort to secure recognition from the respondent as the collective bar-
gaining agent.
According ,to the credible and undenied testimony of Fratcher, the respondent's
vice president and general manager, immediately after the respondent received
ti
'DECISIONS OF NAffIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD988
a copy of the complaint in April, he notified Bain ' that the respondent would
not negotiate with the Society until after the present proceedings were terminated.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
,That the respondent aided and assisted in the formation of the Society and
rendered financial and other support to it, is clearly shown by the record At
the initial meeting of Bain and several other employees with the respondent
in reference to forming a company union, Stewart, the general foreman, en-
couraged the idea and stated that such an organization would receive more
favorable consideration from the respondent than would be accorded to an out-
side union. The respondent approved of an organizational meeting of the
employees to be held a few-days later at its plant in Muscatine and furnished
free transportation to those attending it. The meeting was held on the re-
spondent's time and property. The respondent also furnished free transportation
to certain employees for a trip to-Ottumwa to -interview the president of an in-
dependent union in another plant. The respondent also agreed to a plant-wide
election to determine whether or not the employees desired the Society to rep-
resent them, which was held on respondent's time and property. No opportunity
was given to the employees in this election to express their preference, if any,
for I. B E. W, although the respondent knew several days before the election
that I. B. E. W. represented some of the employees and had protested against
such an election. Stewart, the respondent's general foreman, was one of the
judges in the election, as a representative of the respondent. It is true that the
respondent never recognized the Society as a bargaining agent; however, the
reason assigned by Fratcher for not doing so, was that the respondent desired
to await the outcome of the instant hearing
The undersigned finds from the entire record in the case that the respondent
dominated and interfered with the formation of the Society and contributed
financial and other support thereto, and has thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. _
,The undersigned further finds that by the acts and statements of Ingham, vice
president and general superintendent, and Stewart, the general foreman, as re-
lated above, in which Ingham stated, in substance, to certain of the employees
that a wage increase would have been granted to them if they had not joined
1. B E. W, and in which Stewart told these employees that a company union
would probably be able to secure more favorable consideration from the re-
spondent than could an outside union, the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. _
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above. occurring' in
connection with the operation of the respondent 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 ob-
structing commerce' and the free flow of commerce. I
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease
IOWA ELECTRIC COMPANY 989
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation of, and contributed support to, Society Bargaining Agent. The un-
dersigned finds that the effects and consequences of such domination, inter-
ference, and support, render Society Bargaining Agent incapable of serving
the respondent's employees as a genuine collective bargaining agency, and the
recognition of Society Bargaining Agent as the bargaining representative of any
of the respondent's employees constitutes a continuing obstacle to the free exer-
cise by the employees of their right to self-organization and to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing.' It will therefore be
recommended that the respondent withdraw all recognition from Society Bar-
gaining Agent 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 it as such representative.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record,
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Local Union No. B 1034 and Local Union No. B 1107, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the' Act.
2. Society Bargaining Agent, unaffiliated, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration
of, and contributing support to , Society Bargaining Agent, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 ( 2) of the Act. '
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor' practices , within the meaning of Section S
(1) of the Act. -
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis' of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Iowa Electric Company, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administration of,
and contributing financial or other support 'to Society Bargaining Agent or
any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing Society Bargaining Agent as the representative of any of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights 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
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS, BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and -withhold all recognition' from Society Bargaining Agent
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
Society Bargaining Agent as such representative ;
(b) Post immediately in, conspicuous places throughout its main office at
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and also, at its 10 divisional offices located at the following
points, in the State of Iowa : Anamosa, Atlantic, DeWitt, Fairfield, Guthrie
Center, Manchester, Maquoketa, Marengo, Monticello and Muscatine, and main-
tain 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 recommended that it cease and desist in paragraph
1 (a),, (b), and (c) of the aforesaid recommendations ; and (2) that the re-
spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of these
recommendations ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. f
It is,further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the -respondent notifies. said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the'
respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2=as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Wash-
ington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such. exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he"
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
Dated May 17;, 1943.
W. R Wean,
Trial Examiner.