Landis Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 718 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of LANDIS TOOL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE, 513
Case No. C-2600.-Decided July 27, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, Lodge 513, herein called the Union,"
against Landis Tool Company, herein called the respondent, a hearing
was held before a Trial Examiner in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, from
February 15 to 26, 1943, in which the Board, the Union, the respond-
ent, and Independent Associated Workers, Inc., herein called the
I. A. W., participated by their 'representatives. The Board has re-
viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence, and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed .2
On April 29, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, a copy of which is annexed hereto, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and briefs were thereafter filed by the respondent and the I. A. W.,
and a brief was filed by the Union. Oral argument was held before
the Board on July 6, 1943, in which the respondent, the I. A. W., and
the Union participated. Upon our consideration of the entire record,,
we affirm and adopt the findings of the Trial Examiner, except insofar
as they are inconsistent with our findings and conclusions hereinafter
set forth.
In the latter part of 1919 H. E. D. Gray, at that time the respondent's
production manager, established at the respondent's plants in Waynes-
boro and Greencastle, Pennsylvania, an employee representation plan
known as the Shop Council of Landis Tool Company, herein called the
I The Union, referred to in the Intermediate Report as A. F. L, has notified us of its
withdrawal of affiliation with the American Federation of Labor
2 On March 20, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued an order correcting the transcript in
certain respects . The order is hereby affirmed.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 121.
718
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 719
Council.3 In January 1920 and periodically thereafter all the non-
supervisory employees of the respondent with a minimum of 60 days'
service were invited to vote for fellow employees as representatives, on
company time and property and with all equipment furnished by the
respondent. These representatives then met on company time and
property with Gray, who, within the limits of his authority, acted as
the respondent's representative and also as secretary of the group of
representatives. Transcribed copies of the minutes taken by Gray
were frequently posted on the plant bulletin board. The Council had
no initiation fees, dues, or other source of revenue. There were no
membership requirements other than the rules for voting eligibility,
and whatever expenses or materials were needed by the Council were
furnished by the respondent. In short, the Council was not a free and
independent organization such as is envisioned in the Act, but was
rather a device for preventing the employees from exercising freely
the rights guaranteed them in the Act. It is true that prior to July 5,
1935, the effective date of the Act, the respondent's activities in connec-
tion with the Council did not constitute unfair labor practices, and
the Trial Examiner's contrary finding is hereby reversed. On and
after that date, however, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
respondent continued to operate the Council in the same manner as
before, both with respect to dominating and interfering with its admin-
istration and with respect to contributing to its support. We find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent unlawfully dominated
and interfered with the administration of and contributed support to
the Council, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Sometime in April or May 1937, shortly after the Supreme Court
of the United States had affirmed the constitutionality of the Act,
J. Elmer Frantz, at that time the respondent's president, advised the
employee representatives that the respondent would no longer deal
with the Council because the Council's elections and other activities
had taken place on company time and property and with the re-
spondent's assistance, support, and participation, and thus might
"cause some trouble." The representatives thereupon reorganized the
Council; revised the constitution and bylaws, in part to obviate the
objectionable elements referred to by Frantz, but without materially
changing the organization's outward structure; adopted a new name,
the Employees' Association of Landis Tool Company, herein called
the Association; obtained recognition by the respondent without being
8 According to Samuel F. Newman, the respondent's president, the establishment of the
Council was in fulfillment of the respondent's promise to a merchants' committee to
set up an employee representation plan to forestall future strikes.
720 DEOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
required to prove that the Association had a majority ; and thereafter
replaced the Council in, dealing with the respondent. The respondent
continued to assist and support the Association as it had the Council,
although in lesser degree, by attributing improvements in wages and
working conditions to "bargaining" with the Association, and by
granting the Association free use of a room in the plant for its
meetings. In addition, many of the employees referred to the Council
and the Association interchangeably, showing that there was no dis-
tinction in their minds between these two organizations. The Trial
Examiner found in effect that in organizing the Association the em-
ployees had not been freed by the respondent from' the effects of its
domination of the Council, and that the Association was the successor
of the Council. The respondent and the intervenor contend that this
finding is in error, on the ground that there was uncontradicted and
credible testimony by two of the respondent's representatives that a
notice had been posted in the plant in May 1937, announcing the
disestablishment of the Council. Upon a review of such testimony,
which the Trial Examiner generally characterized as "vague, indefi-
nite, and inconclusive," he stated that he was not convinced that such
a notice had been posted, in view of the complete absence of any
corroborative testimony. Furthermore, the respondent's verified an-
swer, which included several pages of affirmative defenses, alleges
merely that in April or May 1937 the respondent
called a meeting of the representatives of its employees and
. . . advised them orally that . . . rather than to take
any chance whatsoever of it [the Council] being in violation of
the law, they [the respondent] would from and after that date no
longer bargain with said organization, and . . . [the re-
spondent] advised its employee representatives that the National
Labor Relations Act, among other things, provided that em-
ployees had the right to join any labor organization of their
own choosing, . . . [and the respondent thereafter] dis-
continued bargaining with the Shop Council.
There was no allegation in the answer of any disestablishment notice
having been posted. In addition, the Council's minutes for May 1937
referred to the formation of the Association as a "reorganization" of
the Council under a "revised" constitution and bylaws, but nowhere
mentioned any disestablishment of the Council announced to the em-
ployees generally. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
respondent did not publish any notice, or in any other manner inform
the employees generally, of the alleged disestablishment of the illegal
Council. We further find that the Association was the : successor 'of
the Council, and that the respondent dominated and interfered with
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 721
the formation and administration of and contributed support to the
Association, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the, Act.
In August 1941 an organizational campaign was begun by the
Union among the respondent's employees. This campaign was im-
mediately countered by the formation of the I. A. W. to replace
the Association. The move was undertaken by certain employees
prominent in the Association, particularly Fox and Fishack, who
opposed the Union but felt in part that the Association was illegal
under the Act. However, the Association was not disestablished and
did not disband at this time, nor did Fox, Fishack, or any other
organizer of the I. A. W. resign from the Association.4 On the con-
trary, there is uncontradicted testimony and we find, as did, the
Trial Examiner, that the organizers of the I. A. W. intentionally re-
frained from dissolving the Association so that it could be utilized
in the event that the I. A. W. should fail to obtain a majority. In
addition, the respondent took a direct hand in the union activity of
its employees at this time by giving Fox a booklet entitled "What
Every Executive Should Know About the Wagner Act," published
by the National Metal Trades Association, which stated in part that
it was
perfectly proper for employees voluntarily to form an independ-
ent organization not associated with any outside union. . . .
Unless they [such independent organizations] are dominated or
interfered with by the employer, they are as lawful as any
labor organization . . . As long as an employer honestly be-
lieves that his conduct does not constitute coercion and inter-
ference, he should freely exercise his right to express his views
and opinions to his employees.
Accordingly, the erstwhile leaders of the Association proceeded to
form a so-called "independent organization," the I. A. W., but again
without materially changing the outward structure of the predeces-
sor. Considerable open solicitation for the I. A. I W. (particularly
in the month of November 1941) and some elections took place on
company property and even on company time without reprimand
and to some extent with the affirmative approval of certain super-
visors. In addition, the respondent, by admittedly permitting wide-
spread union activities by representatives of the I. A. W. on company
time and property, clearly engaged in unfair labor practices,
* On advice of counsel , Fox, Fisback , and some of the other organizers may have resigned
from the Association after the organization of the I. A. W. had been started There is no
evidence that any announcement was ever made to the employees generally of any such
resignations. ,
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REQ. fP1ONS BOARD
especially because of the Union's contemporaneous activity among
the employees and the respondent's knowledge thereof. Nor do we
find merit in the respondent's asserted defense that it told the I. A.
W.'s representatives to limit such activities to grievance matters
and thought that they were therefore permissible under the circum-
stances, particularly in view of the known presence of a rival organ-
ization among the employees. Moreover, we are satisfied, as was the
Trial Examiner, that the respondent must have known that these
activities were not so restricted but rather encompassed a substantial
amount of solicitation for the I. A. W., especially since the respond-
ent never attempted to ascertain that its injunction was being obeyed.
On November 21, 1941, the respondent, without ever having taken
steps either to sever its previous recognition of the Association or to
free, its employees from the effects of its prior unfair labor prac-
tices, and with full knowledge of the Union's contemporaneous efforts
among the employees, granted the I. A. W.'s request for exclusive
recognition upon a card check without consulting the Union or mak-
ing any effort to ascertain possible duplications in membership. On
several occasions in April and May 1942 the Union advised the re-
spondent that it represented a majority, and requested recognition.
The respondent refused this request, however, and told the Union
that it would require a Board certification. Nevertheless, the re-
spondent continued to assist , support, and deal with the I. A. W. in
all respects, except that it refused to sign any contract with that
organization. At some time not clearly reflected in the record, the
Association turned over its minute book to the I. A. W. The true
nature of the I. A. W. is also indicated by the fact that many of its
members were never asked to pay dues, and some were not even required
to pay the usual initiation fee. In addition, the respondent unmis-
takably confirmed its antagonism toward the Union by statements of
its supervisors to certain employees and by discriminatory treatment,
particularly of those employees who resigned from the Association
and joined the Union, as set forth in the Intermediate Report.5 In
view of these facts, we are unable to give controlling weight to the
testimony of many employees that they felt free to join or to refrain
from joining any labor organization and were unaware of any,em-
' It is to be noted that none of our findings is based on disputed portions of Victor
'Maitrn's testimony, except insofar as such testimony is substantially corroborated by
other witnesses We accordingly reverse the Trial Examiner's finding that lIollengreen,
the respondent 's rice president and general manager, promised Maitin in February 1942
to guarantee the payment of certain organizational expenses
The Trial Examinei found at one point in his Intermediate Report that on or about
February 21, 1942 , Assistant Superintendent Baker on his own initiative transferred
employee Sanders, and at another point that Superintendent Klay made the ti ansfer ; and,
principally by crediting Martin's testimony , lie further found that the transfer was
effected to suppress Sanders' activities on behalf of the Union . This finding is hereby
reversed.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 723
ployer restraint on their exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act,
or that the anti-union statements were not unfair labor practices be-
cause uttered by the respective supervisors as "personal opinions." 6
We find that the respondent is responsible for the existence of con-
ditions and circumstances which deprived the employees of that com-
plete and unhampered freedom of choice which the Act contemplates.
Upon the entire record we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
I. A. W. is the successor of the Association and the Council ,7 and that
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of, and contributed support to, the I. A. W., thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find
that the respondent, by the acts and statements of Supervisors Brindle,
Hollingshead, Davis, and Hareford, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent engaged in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, we shall order it to cease and desist there-
from and to take certain affirmative action which we find will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the administration of and contributed support to the Shop Council, and
further that the respondent dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of and contributed support to the Association
and the I. A. W. Since the Council and the Association have ceased
to function, we shall not order their disestablishment; but since these
two organizations have been succeeded by the I. A. W., with which the
respondent is currently dealing, we shall order the respondent to cease
and desist from recognizing them, in the event that they should resume
functioning. We further find that the continued existence of the
I. A. W. constitutes .a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by the
respondent's employees of the rights guaranteed them in the Act.
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and free the employees
from the effect of the respondent's unfair labor practices, we shall
accordingly order that the respondent not only withdraw all recogni-
tion from the I. A. W. 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
6 See Matter of Donnelly Garment Company , 50 N L R B 241.
7 The I. A. W. contends that the Trial Examiner (1) stated during the hearing that the
evidence showed the I A W. was not the successor of the Council or the Association, and
(2) precluded the I. A. W. from adducing any evidence concerning those two organizations
The record wholly fails to support such a contention, and we find that it is without merit.
540612-44-vol. 51-47
724 DEOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conditions of work, but also that it completely disestablish the I. A.
W. as such representative.
Upon the basis of-the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
1. International Association of Machinists, Lodge 513, and Inde-
pendent Associated Workers, Inc., are, and the Shop Council of Landis
Tool Company and the Employees' Association of Landis Tool Com-
pany were, labor organizations within the meaning of. Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of, and
contributing support to, the Shop Council of Landis Tool Company,
and by dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of, and contributing support to, the Employees' Association of
Landis Tool Company and Independent Associated Workers, Inc.,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is` engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. )
ORDER
Upon the 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, Landis Tool Company,
Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or con-
tributing support to, the Shop Council of Landis Tool Company, and
dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of,
or contributing support to, the Employees' Association of Landis Tool
Company, Independent Associated Workers, Inc., or any other labor
organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing the Shop Council of Landis Tool Company, the
Employees' Association of Landis Tool Company, or Independent
'Associated Workers, Inc., as the representative of any of its em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment;
LANDIS ' TOOL COMPANY 725
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self- organization , to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activity,
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish In-
dependent Associated Workers, Inc., as the representative of any of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plants
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that the re-
spondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) 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 Sixth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. W. G. Stuart Sherman, for the Board.
Rice d Hannis, by Mr. Lacy I. Rice and Mr. Herbert E. Hannis, of Martins-
burg, West Virginia, for the respondent.
Mr. Victor S. Gauthier, of Toledo, Ohio, and Mr. Carl Huhndorff, of Washing-
ton, D. C. for A. F. L.
Mr. E. L Luttrell, of Martinsburg, West Virginia, and Mr. Millard A. Ullman,
of Waynesboro, Penn., for the Intervenor.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge 1 duly filed on January 20, 1943, by International
Association of Machinists, Lodge 513, affiliated with the A. F. L., herein called
A. F. L., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) issued
its complaint, dated January 29, 1943, against Landis Tool Company, Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania, 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 Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accom-
panied by notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent,
A. F. L., and the Intervenor, a labor organization known as Independent Asso-
ciated Workers, Inc., herein called I. A. W.
3 The , original charge was filed on August 20, 1942 , and the first amended charge, on
October 22, 1942.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the
hearing2 alleged in substance: (1) that in or about November 1919, the respond-
ent dominated and interfered with the formation, of °a labor- organization of
its employees known as the Shop Council, and at all times thereafter until about
May 1937, dominated and interfered with the administration of and contributed
financial and other support to the Shop Council; (2) that in or about May 1937,
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation of the Employees
Association of the Landis Tool Company, a successor to the Shop Council and
herein called the Employees Association, and at all times thereafter until about
August 1941, dominated and interfered with the administration of and con-
tributed financial and other support to the Employees Association ; (3) that in
or about August 1941, the respondent dominated and,interfered with the forma-
tion of I. A. W., a successor to the Employees Association. and to the Shop
Council, and has since dominated and interfered with the administration of
and contributed financial and other support to I. A. W.; (4) that the respondent,
through its officers and agents, has since July 1941, questioned its employees in
regard to their membership and activities in A. F. L., made statements designed
to discourage its employees from becoming members of A. F. L., and advised,
exhorted and threatened its employees to cease their activities on behalf of
A. F. L. and to discontinue their membership therein; and (5) that by said
acts the respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act:
Prior to the hearing, the respondent filed 'its answer dated February 8, 1943,
in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint in respect to its busi-
ness, but denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The
answer averred (1) that during the period from the fall of 1919 to the spring
of 1937, about the time that the Act was validated by the Supreme Court, it
bargained with the Shop Council as the sole representative of its employees
in respect to wages, hours and other working conditions ; that soon after the
validation of the Act it informed the Shop Council representatives that it
would no longer bargain with the Shop Council; (2) that it then recognized and
bargained with the Employees Association until the fall of 1941, at which time
it discontinued recognition of the Employees Association and entered into col-
lective bargaining relations with I. A. W.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Waynesboro, Pennsylvania5 from
February 15 to 26, 1943, inclusive, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
At the beginning of the hearing, the written motion of I. A. W. to intervene
was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. The Board, the re-
spondent and I. A. W. were represented by counsel, and A. F. L. by its repre-
sentatives, and all participated in the hearing. 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 the spelling of names, was granted by the Trial Examiner without
objection.
At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument on the record was heard by
the Trial Examiner from counsel for the Board and the respondent, respec-
2 Motion of Board's counsel to amend the complaint by striking all references to Joseph
Snively's activities on behalf of the respondent , was granted by the Trial Examiner
without objection . Snively was deceased at the time of the hearing. This motion also
included a connection in paragraph 6 of the complaint , substituting the date "August
1941" for "August 1937."
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 727
tively. Counsel for I. A. W. declined to make oral argument. Opportunity
to file briefs with the Trial Examiner was afforded all parties. On March 6,
1943, a brief was filed with the Trial Examiner by I. A. W.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT e
The respondent, Landis Tool Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation, having
its principal office and place of business in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania. It is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of machine tools, especially
precision grinding machines. The respondent owns and operates two plants,'
one, the main plant at Waynesboro, and the other at Greencastle, both in Penn-
sylvania and about 10 miles apart. The principal raw materials used by the
respondent at the plant are cast iron and steel. During the calendar year of
1941, the value of these materials purchased by the respondent, was in excess
of one million dollars, of which, approximately 80 percent was purchased and
transported to the plant from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The value and source of the raw materials used by the respondent during 1942,
were approximately the same as for 1941. The value of the finished products
manufactured and sold by the respondent during the above periods was in excess
of one million dollars annually, of which, approximately 80 percent was sold
and delivered to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The re-
spondent is engaged, approximately 100 percent, in the manufacture of war
materiel. The respondent normally employs approximately 2100 employees,
consisting of about 1750 at Waynesboro and 350 at Greencastle. The respondent
admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 513, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
The Shop Council and the Employees Association of the Landis Tool Com-
pany were unaffiliated labor organizations, representing and admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
Independent Associated Workers, Inc., unaffiliated, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of, interference with, and support of the Shop Council, The Em-
ployees Association and I. A. W.; interference, restraint and coercion
1. The Shop Council
Prior to the year 1919 there was no recognized labor organization in the re-
spondent's plant. In the fall of that year a general strike occurred in a num-
ber of manufacturing plants in the Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, area, in which
the employees of the respondent became involved. In the latter part of 1919
the strike was settled pursuant to an agreement between a representative of
3 These facts were stipulated.
4 Both of these plants are involved in this proceeding and are referred to herein
collectively as the plant, unless otherwise specified.
728 IYEGISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE1LMrIONS BOARD
the plants involved, a citizens' committee and a representative of the American
Federation of Labor. The agreement, which was confirmed by the respondent,
provided for (1) the establishment and recognition of a committee of the re-
spondent's employees known as the Shop Council;. (2) the number of working
hours a week; and (3) certain holidays with pay.. At that time there was in
existence in the plant, a temporary committee composed of a certain number
of the respondent's employees. According to the undenied and credible testi-
mony of H. E . D. Gray ' the respondent 's production manager at that time,
he secured copies of different Shop Council plans from' the General Electric
Company and the International Harvester Company, and possibly others, and
discussed them with the temporary committee. Gray collaborated with this
committee in formulating the rules and regulations of the Shop Council which
was then set up in the respondent's plant. In January 1920 the first election
of permanent Shop Council members was held The elections were held in •the
various departments of the plant during working hours The ballots and ballot
boxes were furnished by the respondent without cost to the Shop Council or to
the employees. X11 nonsupervisory employees, who had at least 60 days service
in the plant, were eligible to vote. Five Shop Council members were elected.
Gray was appointed by the respondent to represent the respondent on the Shop
Council, and acted as secretary. The Shop Council held regular meetings once
each month, and sometimes, special meetings were called All meetings were
held in the plant, during working hours. The Shop Council had no source of
revenue, no members among the employees, except those elected as Shop Council
members, and no initiation fees or dues. Although the Shop Council represented
all of the employees, the latter did not attend the Shop Council meetings and
had no voice in its deliberations. As secretary of the Shop Council, Gray made
minutes of the meetings, some of which were transcribed and posted on the plant
bulletin board. Gray was authorized by the respondent to make final settle-
ment of all questions of grievances and other working conditions affecting indi-
vidual employees which were submitted to the Shop Council, but not of matters
affecting the employees as a whole, such as a general wage increase. In the
event of a disagreement between Gray and the Shop Council members, the matter
should be settled by arbitration. Officers of the Shop Council were elected from
time to time, at their regular meetings, Gray being present, but having no vote.
Gray testified :
As I recall the Wagner labor act was passed in 193.5. After the passage of
that Act we discussed very carefully whether the shop council was affected
by the labor act or not. * * * Whether it would be valid or invalid
under the Act, and the shop council was so close to the border line that
we continued to overate under the shop council. '
Gray further testified that he had "certain misgivings" about the validity of the
Shop ,Council However, it continued to function in the plant until about the
first part of May 1937. According to Gray, after the Act was validated by the
Supreme Court on April 12, 1937, a meeting of the Shop Council was called about
the first week in May 1937, which was attended by Gray and J. Elmer Frantz,'
5 Gray was continuously employed by the respondent for about 32 years in the plant.
He was successively an apprentice, office and factory worker , production manager, superin-
tendent. secretary, treasurer, assistant general manager and general manager. From
1940 to 1942, the date of his resignation on account of ill health, he was general manager,
but was more or less inactive as such. M. A Hollengreen , the assistant general manager
acted as general manager during the intermittent absences of Gray due to illness during
that period.
Mr Frantz died in 1939.
N
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 729
the then president of the respondent. At that meeting Gray and Frantz informed
the members of the Shop Council that the respondent would no longer recognize the
Shop Council as a bargaining representative of its employees, because as stated
by Gray, it "might cause some trouble," in view of the fact that ballots had been
furnished by the respondent, and elections of the Shop Council members and
meetings of the Shop Council had been held in the plant, at the respondent's
expense The respondent took no steps to inform its other employees of this
action.7 No general meeting of the employees was held, and no direct notice of
this decision was given to them Employees Walter B. Powell, R. J. Fox, Elmer
Stevens, John Davis, Lynwood Huber and Frank Powell were the most active
members of the Shop Council.
2. The Employees Association
The record does not disclose the exact date of the called meeting of the Shop
Council at which the respondent informed its members that it would no longer
recognize the Shop Council as a bargaining representative of its employees. How-
ever, it appears to have been during the first week in May 1937.
According to the minutes of the Shop Council, which were admitted in evi-
dence, a meeting of the Shop Council was held on May 10, 1937, at which employ-
ees, W. B. Powell and Elizabeth H. Haugh were selected as chairman and
secretary," respectively At that meeting a committee of six employees, including
Lynwood Huber and R J. Fox, was appointed to assist the Shop Council members,
in revising the constitution and bylaws of the Shop Council. The next meeting
of the Shop Council occurred on May 18, 197. The members of the Shop Council
were present together with five of the six employees who had previously been
selected to assist in revising the constitution and bylaws. The following is an
excerpt from the minutes of that meeting:
The Chairman read a number of questions and answers concerning the
Wagner Act, and a general discussion followed relative to the reorganization
of the existing Council, and the changes necessary so that it might be a
legally recognized society under this Act. Tentative plans for the Constitu-
tion were offered, including a clause whereby to assess members of the
Association a fee not to exceed 250 monthly, and upon motion of Raymond
L. Eigenbrode, seconded by John Layman, they were unanimously adopted
subject to any change the Council might deem advisable. '
T Giay testified that at this meeting he notified the Shop Council to advise the employees
to the effect that the company would no longer deal with them; that it was their "usual
procedure to post a public notice of any action of that kind and I believe that a public
notice was posted I believe the Wagner Act was posted on the bulletin board of the
factory at that time, but I don't have any specific evidence to show that. It is just my
belief that it was done I am sure that we posted the contents of the Wagner Act on
our bulletin board at that time. I feel certain that a notice was placed at that time,
but I don't have any evidence" The witness' testimony on this point was, in general,
vague, indefinite and inconclusive . Hollengreen , testifying on this point , stated : "The
only distinct memory I have about the ending of one or beginning of the other, I have
the impression that a notice was put on the bulletin board saying that they could not
deal with the old one, I am not positive about it, but it was confirmed in my mind by
earlier testimony by Mr. Gray, I believe, and I am positive of seeing little booklets or
pamphlets of the Wagner Act posted on the bulletin boards " No notice such as that
referred to by these witnesses was offered in evidence From their testimony and upon
the entire record, the undersigned is not convinced that such a notice was, in fact, ever
posted.
8 The appointment of a new secretary was necessary after the respondent had with-
drawn recognition from the Shop Council , as H E D Gray , then ceased to act in that
capacity
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REILATIONcS BOARD
The Chairman then asked that a name be chosen ( sic) for the organization.
Several names were suggested, and upon motion of Samuel Brewbaker, sec-
onded by Raymond L. Eigenbrode, the name selected was "Employees'
Association of the Landis Tool Company."
According to the minutes, the next meeting of the Shop Council, which had
now become the "Employees Association of the Landis Tool Company," was held
on May 25, 1937,8 for the purpose of revising the constitution and bylaws. All
members of the Council except John W. Davis were present, together with the
committee appointed to revise the constitution and bylaws. The proposed by-
laws were discussed and certain changes were made. The committee then re-
ported that approximately 250 employees had signed applications for member-
ship or had signified their willingness to join the Employees Association. It
was decided to have 1,000 copies of the revised constitution and bylaws printed
in book form for distribution among the members. It was agreed at that meet-
ing that the Employees Representation Committee of the Employees Association
would be held responsible for the collection of dues from members of the Em-
ployees Association in their respective departments of the plant and the monthly
assessment would be 25 cents.
The constitution as adopted by the Employees Association stated in sub-
stance as follows : that the purpose of the Employees Association was to pro-
vide a collective bargaining agency for the purpose of negotiating with the re-
spondent in respect to wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment ;
that all employees of the respondent except supervisory employees, technical
and office employees were eligible or membership, that the plant would be
divided into voting divisions of not less than 5 or more than 12 divisions, and
each division would elect one representative ; that the election would be by
secret ballot and each qualified voter would be supplied with a printed or typed
ballot which should be personally deposited in the ballot box by the voter ; that
such elections should be held semi-annually in May and November ; that a week
prior to the elections, nominations should be held in each division ; that repre-
sentatives were to be elected for one year; that all of the representatives elected
in the different divisions should constitute the Employees Representation Com-
mittee; that the Employees Representation Committee should hold regular
monthly meetings; that special meetings might be called by the president or
on the request of any two or more members of the Employees Representation
Committee ; that the Employees Representation Committee should act as a board
of, governors for the Employees Association for the purpose of condtrcting the
official business of the Employees Association ; that the officers of the Employees
Representation Committee should consist of a president, vice-president and a
secretary-treasu rer.
There was very little difference between the set-up of the Employees Associa-
tion and its predecessor, the Shop Council. The principal differences were that
Gray was no longer secretary, and the Employees Representation Committee
consisted of more members. The respondent readily recognized the Employees
Association and bargained collectively with the Employees Representation Com-
mittee, although the respondent had not been given any proof that the Employees
Association represented a majority of its employees.
The third meeting of the Employees Association "'was held on June 17, 1937
The secretary, Elizabeth Haugh, reported that there were 319 members and
9 Although the new name "Employees ' Association of the Landis Tool Company" had
been adopted at the meeting of the Shop Council on May 18, 1937, the minutes of this
meeting were captioned Minutes of the " Shop Council "
15 Referred to in the minutes as "The third meeting of the Council with their Associates "
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 731
approximately 15 more applications. On August 20, another meeting was held.
All members of the Employees Representation Committee were present together
with Gray and Hollengreen, the respondent's general manager and assistant
general manager',,respectively. This was a special meeting for the purpose of
discussing the Employees Association's request for a week's vacation with pay
for.all employees with 1 year or more of service. The request was refused by
the respondent At the meeting on June 6, 1938, Gray was present and stated
that the respondent would give the,same financial assistance to the annual picnic
that year that it had given the previous year" On June 6, 1938, the respondent
granted the request of the Employees Representation Committee to hold their
meetings in the plant free of charge. Thereafter all meetings of the Employees
Representation Committee and the Employees Association were held in the
plant. Meetings of the Employees Representation Committee were held monthly.
Open meetings for all members of the Employees Association were held four times
a year, the first being held on December 21, 1938.
On April 6, 1940, at 9: 45 a. m. Gray and Hollengreen called a meeting of
the Employees Representation Committee Gray opened the meeting and stated
that it was called for the purpose of discussing a proposed increase in wages.
Gray decided at that meeting to give all of the hourly paid employees an
increase of 4 percent, to become effective April 15, 1940. On May 27, 1940, at
11 : 00 a. m., Hollengreeen called a meeting of the Employees Representation Com-
mittee and Walter Klay, the plant superintendent, was present. Hollengreen
stated that the meeting was called in order to make some changes in working
hours. A regular meeting of the Employees Representation Committee was held
on October 7, 1940. Representatives Fox, Huber, Carty, Fishack, and Victor
Martin were present. Fox reported that he had talked to Hollengreen and "that
the (sic) would talk to the Directors and get them to give every possible cent
that he could." This was in reference to the annual bonus.
At the meeting on December 2, 1940, Lesher, one of the committeemen, sug-
gested that an open meeting be held and the members of the Employees Associa-
tion be informed of the purposes of the Employees Association. At the meeting
on January 7, 1941, President Fox reported that Hollengreen was in favor of
the Employees Association and "that he did not want it to drop but wanted
everybody to pay their dues." A meeting was held on April 11, 1941, at which
Hollengreen and Klay were present. Hollengreen informed the meeting that
a wage increase would become effective about April 28, 1941. On that day
the following notice was posted on the bulletin board in the plant:
On the request of the Landis Tool Company's Employment Association
it has been decided that all shop employees on an hourly basis will be
granted a general increase of 5¢ per hour effective April 28, 1941.
"Evidence was introduced by the Board to show that, from at least 1937 to and
including 1941, except possibly for 1 or 2 years when business conditions did not warrant
it, annual picnics were held for employees of the respondent and members of their families.
During the years in which picnics were held, the respondent contributed to the cost to
the extent of paying for transportation, refreshments, amusements for the children, and
similar items of expense Vouchers covering the annual picnic for the year 1941 were
introduced in evidence and disclosed that payments were made by the respondent directly
to the concessionaires of.the amusement park. It was contended that the contributions
made by the respondent to these picnics constituted aid and support to the Shop Council
and the Employees Association The undersigned is not convinced that these picnics,
conducted in accordance with a well-established custom in the respondent's plant, for the
benefit of all employees and members of their families , was utilized as a means of
dominating either the Shop Council or Employees Association, or that such contributions,
made in the circumstances here disclosed , were, in fact, or ought reasonably be construed
by the employees as, aid and support by the respondent to these independent organizations.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
The Landis Tool Company reserves the right in the individual cases where
a raise has been granted since March 1, to prorate that raise against this
general increase.
This increase does not apply to Superiors.
All female help on an hourly basis will be increased 5%.
The record discloses and the undersigned finds that the Employees Representa-
tion Committee of the Employees Association did not officially cease to func-
tion until after I A. W. was recognized by the respondent on November 21, 1941.
No steps were ever taken by the respondent to inform either the members of
the Employees Association or any other of its employees that it had ceased to
recognize the Employees Representation Committee as a bargaining representa-
tive of its employees. The Employees Association was never dissolved or dis-
established. It just automatically ceased to function after I. A. W. was recog-
nized on November 21, 1941, as the sole bargaining representative of its employees,
by the respondent.
In respect to the discontinuance of the Employees Association, Hollengreen
testified as follows :
Q. What happened, according to your recollection, at that time with refer-
ence to the employees association, did it discontinue ; state what you know
about it.
A. I do not know about it. They didn't ask for any more meetings ; at
the time I didn't think anything of it, because I thought things were going
very well in the shop, that is there were no grievances, but I did not know
what happened to the employees association, or what they did.
Q State whether or not the respondent notified the representatives of
the employees association in any manner that it would no longer negotiate
with them?
A. No, sir ; there was no reason for us to do that.
The A. F. L.
On August 2, 1941, Victor S. Gauthier, Grand Lodge representative of the Inter-
national Association of Machirtists, A. F. L., came to Waynesboro, Pennsylvania,
for the purpose of organizing the employees of the respondent, as well as employees
of other plants in the Waynesboro area. He first contacted R. J. Fox and
Russell Fishack, employees of the respondent. At first, Fox and 'Fishack
appeared to take some interest in the A. F. L. movement, but within a few days
they became active in the formation of I. A W. At that time, A. F. L. had a
local lodge in Hagerstown, Maryland, and a membership campaign by that local
was then in progress. On August 6 an open A. F. L. meeting was held in
Hagerstown, and about 75 to 90 persons were present, some of whom, were
employees of the respondent. At that meeting a number of the respondent's
employees signed A. F. L. application cards for membership. On August 16,
A. F L. held another meeting at Cold Spring Park, near Waynesboro, and'about
100 to 125 persons attended A number of those present signed A. F. L. applica-
tion cards for membership. A F. L. continued its campaign to organize the
respondent's employees, and in March 1942, A. F. L. Lodge 513 was established
and chartered in Waynesboro.
About May 8, 1942, Gauthier informed the respondent that A. F. L. represented
a majority of its employees and requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining
agent for these employees. Gauthier was advised by S F. Newman and M. A.
Hollengreen, president and vice-president, respectively of the respondent, that
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 733
such matters would be taken care of by the respondent's attorneys, Rice and
Hannis of Martinsburg. Gauthier thereupon informed the respondent's attor-
neys by letter that A. F. L. represented a majority of the respondent's employees
and requested a conference. In reply he was informed by attorneys Rice and
Hannis that the respondent world not recognize A. F. L. unless it was certified by
the National Labor Relations Board. On May 9, A. F. L. filed a petition for
investigation and certification with the Regional Director, which was later with-
drawn. On August 20, 1942, A. F. L. filed charges against the respondent" The
treatment accorded the A. F. L. by the respondent was very different from that
given the I A. W. when the latter requested recognition on November 15, 1941.
The respondent did not refer I. A. W. to its attorneys or to the National Labor
Relations Board, but immediately completed arrangements to check I. A. W.
membership cards against the pay roll, and granted the requested recognition.
Although respondent was under no contractual relations with I. A. W., it refused
to negotiate with A. F. L. unless A. F. L. was certified by the Board.
The I. A. W.
About the time that A F. L. began its campaign for members in the respondent's
plant in the first part of August 1941, there was considerable apprehension among
the employees concerning the validity of the Employees Association, and, dis-
satisfaction with it as a result of its failure to settle grievances satisfactorily.
There was also some fear among the Employees Representation Committee of
the Employees Association that A. F. L. would get into the plant. At that time,
R. J. Fox was chairman of the Employees Representation Committee and Russell
Fishack was a member of the committee.
Employee Victor Martin testified that the reason for organizing I. A. W. was
that there had been considerable discussion among the employees in the plant as
to whether or not the Employees Association was valid under the Act; that there
was a growing sentiment in the plant in favor of A. F. L.; that the employees
were dissatisfied because of the failure of the Employees Association to get their
grievances adjusted satisfactorily ; that Millard Ullman, a local attorney, advised
them to form a new organization as the Employees Association might not be a
legal organization under the Act ; and that Ullman told him that he did not
think that the Employees Association was valid under the Act.
Employee Ed Gingrich testified that there was a general feeling among the
employees, when employment increased in the plant in 1941 to several times the
normal number of employees, that the Employees Association would provide very
little security for them ; that it would be well to organize "something that had just
a little bit more teeth in it than what the old Employees Association had" ; that
1. A. W. was organized to offset the efforts of A. F. L.; and that "we had known
we had some strikes and considerable violence in our town which wound up by
having a group of our citizens in our county jail and we just didn't want anything
like that to occur again." Gingrich testified that what he meant by "more teeth"
was "just an organization that has a background and expands from eight-man
representation to a 34-nian representation is much more effective and anything
that is more effective, figuratively speaking, has more teeth." At the time of the
formation of I. A. W. the Employees Association had eight employee representa-
tives. After the formation of I. A. W. there were 34 employee representatives.
In other words, when I. A. W. was formed the number of employee representa-
tives was increased from 8 to 34.
12 The foregoing findings in respect to A. F. L. are based upon the credible testimony
of Gauthier.
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
Employee R. J. Fox testified that about the first week in August 1941 he and
Russell Fishack went over to Hagerstown, Maryland, and contacted John Keller,
president of the Independent Aircraft Workers, Inc., at the Fairchild factory, and
Keller told'them about his union and how to^organize an independent union. Fox,
at that time, was chairman of the Employees Association and Fishack was a
member of the Employee Representation Committee of the Employees Association.
Fox testified that the reason he went to see Keller was :
Well, there was quite a few did not seem so much interested in the
Employees' Association, different ones was talking about this organization
they were starting at Fairchild, and we had heard that Keller was at the
head of it, and we went over to see him, have a talk with him and see what
the set-up was. I
According to the credible testimony of several witnesses, the undersigned finds
that on August 13, 1941, a meeting was held in Hagerstown, Maryland, which is
about 13 miles from Waynesboro. About 19 of the respondent's employees were
present, a majority of whom, were members of the Employees Association. Among
those attending the meeting were employees R: J. Fox, Russell Fishack, Aaron
Haugh, John Rebok, Percy Lesher, Walter Powell, Ed Gingrich, Victor Martin,
J. H. Brubaker, Chal Kugler, and Attorney Ullman. Fox acted as spokesman.
The 'meeting was addressed by Keller, president of ,the Independent Aircraft
Workers, Inc., an unaffiliated union in the Fairchild Aviation Plant at Hagerstown.
Keller explained how the Independent Aircraft Workers, Inc., operated and the
many benefits to be derived from such an organization. Shuping, another employee
of Fairchild's, also spoke. After the speeches a general discussion was had and
the committee decided to organize. Keller suggested that the name of the organi-
zation should be "Independent Associated Workers of Franklin County." Tem-
porary officers were elected. R. J Fox was elected president ; Aaron Haugh, vice
president ; John Rebok, secretary ; and Percy Lesher, treasurer. Victor Martin
and Russell Fishack were elected directors. At that time, Fox was chairman
of the Employees Representation Committee of the Employees Association, and
Fishack, Haugh, and Lesher were members of the Employees Representation Com-
mittee. It is significant that Fox had been active in the Shop Council. Attorney
Ullman was instructed to incorporate the organization and to secure a charter
from Franklin County. Later, the official name given to the organization was
Independent Associated Workers, Inc.
According to the testimony of Attorney Ullman, after Fox and Fishack had
been elected officers of I. A. W., he suggested to them that they resign from the
Employees Representation Committee of the Employees Association. Fox testified
that he did resign, but there is no evidence that the resignations were ever acted
upon and the record shows that he was still a member of the Employees Represen-
tation Committee approximately 2 months later, when the funds of the Employees
Association were donated to the Red Cross, as shown below.
On August 15, a meeting of I. A. W. was held at the Y. M. C. A. in Waynesboro.
Attorney Ullman, Keller, and others made speeches. The initiation fee was fixed
at $1. On August 21, Ullman filed articles of incorporation with the County Court,
and on September, 17, 1941, I.' A. W. was duly, incorporated and a charter- was
issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Among
the incorporators were R. J. Fox, Russell Fishack, Victor Martin, John Rebok,
and J. H. Brubaker. The application for a charter stated that until the first
annual meeting of the corporation was held the following persons were to be its
officers and directors:
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 735
R. J. Fox-------------------------------------------- President
A. G. Haugh---------------------------------------- Vice-President
J. A. Rebok------------------------------------------- Secretary
P. G. Lesher----------------------------------------- Treasurer
Russell Fishack---- ---------------------------------- Director
Victor Martin---------------------------------------- Director
C. F. Kugler------------------------------------------ Director
J. W. Noll-------------------------------------------- Director
Ed. Gingrich ------------------------------------------ Sergeant-at-Arms
It will be observed that the I. A. W. application for a charter designated as
officers the same officers who had previously been elected, as stated above.
The proposed bylaws of I. A. W. which were submitted with the articles of in-
corporation, provided in substance as follows : every person, male or female
employed in Franklin. County, Pennsylvania, shall be eligible for membership in
I. A. W., except employees classified as supervisors; the initiation fee shall be
$1 and monthly dues 25 cents; an annual meeting shall be held in January of each
year at Waynesboro, Pennsylvania ; however, special meetings may be called by
the Board of Directors or any ten members of the corporation ; the officers of the
I. A. W. shall consist of president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, four
directors, and a sergeant-at-arms; elections shall be by secret ballot ; one repre-
sentative shall be elected from each of the following departments of the respond-
ent's Waynesboro plant : inspection, tool room, grinder, tool crib, drilling, milling,
boring mill, planer, lathe, welding, automatic, repair, electric, foundry, core room,
pattern shop, blacksmith shop, paint shop, outside gang, medium assembly, large
assembly, shipping , stock room, engineering, clerical, and such other departments
as are from time to time created ; each department shall elect or select its own
representatives in any manner that the members of the corporation employed in
such department may deem wise ; three representatives shall be elected from the
Greencastle plant of the respondent; the election of representatives shall take
place within one week after the adoption of the bylaws and then annually ; the
representatives so elected shall constitute the "Representation Committee" to
serve for a period of one year or until their successors are chosen ; the Represen-
tation Committee shall meet twice monthly ; the Representation Committee shall
elect a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary; the Representation Committee
shall have power to represent I. A. W. members and workers employed in Franklin
County, Pennsylvania, and collectively bargain and deal for them with respect to
wages, hours, tenure of employment, and all other working conditions and to
promote their general welfare in their relations with each other and with their
employer ; the board of directors shall consist of the president, vice-president,
secretary, treasurer, and"four' directors. In preparing the bylaws of I. A. W. the
bylaws of Independent Aircraft Workers, Inc., of the Fairchild plant in Hagers.
town were used as a model.
At a meeting of all the day supervisory employees of the respondent held at
the local Y. M. C. A. in August 1941, Hollengreen explained the Act to them
and told them that they "must not interfere with, dominate, or coerce any em-
ployee," or show favoritism "for or against" any union. He also furnished
them with booklets entitled "What Every Executive Should Know about the
Act, which was prepared by the National Metal Trades Association, Chicago,
Illinois. On August 22, 1941, Hollengreen wrote a letter to all foremen
reiterating these instructions. In this letter he told them that they might
"express their own personal views in respect to unions ," provided they stated
that such views were their own personal views and not those of the respondent.
736 DE,OISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAmIONS BOARD
The foremen were instructed not to permit canvassing or solicitation for any
union on company time or property. Despite these express instructions, activity
on behalf of I. A. W. was permitted to take place on the respondent' s premises
during working hours without hindrance from the foremen or supervisors.
On August 26, 1941, another meeting of I. A. W. was held at the Junior
High School in Waynesboro. Speeches were made by Keller and Gingrich. The
latter explained a ten-point program which was printed on some cards. Later
that evening Victor Martin was appointed chairman of the organizing com-
mittee for I. A. W. by R. J. Fox. A campaign for membership was immediately
begun. I. A. W. circulars were printed and distributed at the plant gate. The
organizing committee was composed of approximately all of the 19 employees
who attended the Hagerstown meeting on August 13, 1941, including Fox,
Fishack, Gingrich, Lesher, Rebok, and Walter Powell. Rebok worked on- the
night force and was assigned to secure members on the night shift.
Victor Martin served as chairman of I. A. W. organizing committee from
August 26, 1941, until November 21, 1941, the date on which I. A. W. was
recognized by the respondent. During that time he solicited members for
I. A. W. in all the departments of the plant, distributed application cards and
signed up employees. He also took employees of the various departments to
I A. W. organizing committeemen of the departments for the purpose of having
them join I. A. W. All organizing-committeemen were supplied with I. A. W.
application cards. Such cards were signed in the plant during working hours
and, according to Martin, whom the undersigned credits, the campaign was
conducted openly. Martin left the machine where he was employed whenever
he felt disposed to do so, turned off the lights, and went to the other depart-
ments of the plant for the purpose of soliciting membership for I. A. W. No
deductions were ever made from his pay for the loss of time when thus engaged
in I. A. W. activities.
Victor Martin testified that after he was made chairman of I. A. W. organ-
izing committee, the representatives of I. A. W. put on an , intensive campaign
for members ; that approximately 100 new members were required in order to
give I. A. W. a majority ; that I. A. W. wanted to secure a majority and obtain
recognition by the respondent , as soon as possible, in order to be in a position
to negotiate with the respondent for the annual bonus which was usually an-
nounced by the respondent about December 15 of each year; that I. A. W.
organizers told the employees that they could sign application cards for mem-
bership in I. A. W. and pay the initiation fee of $1 after the bonus had been
paid, and if they were not satisfied with the amount of the bonus, they would
not be required to pay the I. A. W. initiation fee ; that about 112 signed ap-
plication cards were accepted by I. A. W. without the accompanying fee of $1;
that Walter B. Powell advanced the sum of $100 in cash to'cover some of these
applications, which amount was subsequently returned to Powell by a vote of
I A. W.
According to Victor Martin, he had considerable difficulty in signing up em-
ployees for I. A. W., because they had no confidence in I. A. W. as a bona fide
bargaining organization, and that they referred to him as a "Metz Hollengreen
monkey" and a "stooge." Some of the employees also told Martin that I. A. W.
would never "amount to a damn" and that it would be the same thing as the
old Employees Association.
On one occasion Victor Martin's foreman, George Hollingshead, told him
that his machine "was a damned high price machine to be let standing idle" and
that he was going to find out, if Martin had a right to "go around and do this
solicitation." Martin told Hollingshead that he had been informed by Fox,
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 737
Rebok, and other I. A. W. organizing committeemen that "the object was to get
the Independent Associated Workers Incorporated , organized as quickly as possi-
ble and that we were, to have the go-ahead signal in the plant .," During his
activities on behalf of I. A. W. Victor Martin was never interfered with by
Hollingshead or any other foremen, although they were present during such
solicitations . Martin's activities on behalf of I. A. W. were conducted in every
department of the Waynesboro plant.
On September 17, 1941, I. A. W. held an open meeting in the old school house.
The I . A W. charter was read and adopted. Victor Martin presided at this
meeting and there were about 75 present . Attorney Ullman was present at
the meeting and read the tentative bylaws. On September 24, 1941, another
meeting of I. A. W. was held at the same place. Ullman and Victor Martin
both presided . Nominations for officers was the first business taken up, then
the meeting adjourned . The election of officers for I . A. W. occurred on October 1,
1941. At that meeting bylaws were adopted . The officers elected were as fol-
lows : Percy Rock,' president ; Fred Gilbert, vice -president ; John Rebok, sec-
retary ; P. G. Lesher, treasurer ; and the directors elected were : Harold Frank,
James Gluck, Herbert Loudenslager , Aaron Haugh, Ervin Eshelman, and Ernest
Benchoff, sergeant -at-arms. It is significant that Lesher and Haugh were mem-
bers of the Employees Representation Committee . On October 2, 1941, another
meeting of I. A W. was held . At that meeting it was decided that the voting
for departmental representatives should be done by individual balloting in each
department , and Rebok , the secretary , was designated to see that each depart-
ment had a man to take care of the election.
According to the undenied testimony of Victor Martin, which is credited by
the undersigned , elections for I- A . W. departmental representatives were held
in the various departments of the plant on October 7, 1941; the election in the
lathe department occured in the plant during working hours; ballots were
prepared in the department , voted , and then collected and counted.
According to the testimony of Fox and Victor Martin , which the under-
signed credits , after I. A. W. had been formed there was about $60 in the
treasury of the Employees Association , and about 2 months after the formation
of I. A W. the Employees Representation Committee of the Employees Asso-
ciation agreed to turn this money over to the Red Cross , which was done. I. A. W.
was formed on August 13, 1911, and therefore this incident shows that, at
least, up to about the middle of October 1941, the Employees Representation
Committee of the Employees Association was still in existence , as evidenced by
the fact that they took action in respect to the disposition of this fund. There-
fore, it is evident that the resignations of Fox and Fishack from the Employees
Association did not become effective until some time after October 1941, if, indeed,
they did resign from the Employees Association . Fox testified that he did
resign, but there is no evidence in the record as to when, where, or by whom his
resignation was accepted on behalf of the Employees Association.
According to the testimony of Victor Martin, which is credited by the under-
signed, the organizing committee of I. A W . decided that it was advisable to
retain the Employees Representation Committee of the Employees Association
so that in the event I. A. W. could not secure a majority of the employees, the
Employees Representation Committee could negotiate with the respondent in
respect to grievances and the annual bonus. The record shows , and the under-
signed finds, that Fox served both as temporary president of I. A W. and as
Chairman of the Employees Representation Committee of the Employees Associa-
I
13 Rock declined the office and the vice-president acted in his stead.
738 DROISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion simultaneously , from the time I. A. W. was formed on August 13, 1941, to
October 1 , 1941 , the date of the I . A. W. election . Also, Russell Fishack and Percy
Lesher continued as members of the Employees Representation Committee Of the
Employees Association until I. A. W. was recognized on November 21, 1941.
While R. J. Fox was chairman of I. A W. Representation Committee, lie
handled grievances alone with Hollengreen and Klay, without any other I. A. W.
representative being present . The other I. A. W. representatives disapproved
of this procedure for the reason that they wanted several representatives present
when grievances were discussed with management On this account , Fox re-
signed as chairman of the I. A. W. Representation Committee. - Victor, Martin,
succeeded Fox as chairman of I. A . W. Representation Corfiinittee . Martin always
took from two to seven other I A. W. representatives with him whenever he
discussed grievances with Hollengreen or Klay.
Charles Baker testified that he attended four or five meetings between I. A. W.
Representation Committee and Hollengreen , Klay and Steiner , assistant to Hol-
lengreen , and that they had considerable difficulty in getting their grievances
settled satisfactorily ; and that Hollengreen would often tell the I . A. W. Repre-
sentative Committee to get their grievances settled with the foreman.
The undersigned finds from the undenied testimony of Victor Martin that while
the I . A. W. campaign was in progress in November 1941, Martin arranged with
Superintendent Klay to secure a list of all new employees , in order that he might
canvass them for membership in I. A. W. before they were seen by A. F . L. repre-
i sentatives . Klay admitted that he made this arrangement with Martin and that
the names of all new employees were currently supplied to him. There is no
evidence in the record that this facility was furnished to any representative of
A. F. L.
Victor Martin testified that employee Lester Sanders was a member of A. F. L.
and that he was very active in A F. L. efforts to secure members in the plant ;
that Sanders ' activity interfered with the efforts of I. A. W. to secure members ;
that he complained to Superintendent Klay about it and requested that Sanders
be transferred to a bench job; that Sanders was a machine repair man and his
duties took him all over the plant ; that Klay made no reply to this request to
transfer Sanders, but very soon thereafter , Sanders was transferred to a bench
job in the tool room which prevented him from going to any other department in
the plant ; that a short time thereafter , Sanders accused Martin of being the
cause of his transfer ; and that he said to Sanders "I got you right where I want
you." Klay denied that Martin requested Sanders' transfer.
In connection with his transfer , employee Lester Sanders testified that on
February 21, 1942, Assistant Superintendent Baker asked him how he was getting
along and he replied that he was getting along all right and Baker said, "how
would you like a transfer ,"; that he replied , "Well," I said, "that all depends
whether I would like it or not." Baker then said, "Well , I want a man down
in the tool room."; that Baker then said he could not put an inexperienced man
in that place and that Sanders was familiar with the different kinds of tools and
would make a good man fgr the job; that he then asked Baker did he have any
other reason for transferring him and Baker said he did not ; that he again
asked Baker was that the only reason he had for transferring him and that
Baker shook his head and said "Well, will you accept the transfer? I want
you."; that he replied "There is nothing else to do and I will accept it." The
record shows that Sanders was then transferred to the bench job. Baker testi-
fied that they needed a man in the tool room and he offered the job to Sanders and
the latter accepted ; that it was a cleaner job than Sanders then had ; that
Sanders' job was a "grease monkey" in the maintenance department ; that the
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 739
new job did not pay any higher wages but did carry with it a chance for advance-
ment.
The,record.shows, that the foreman, of the tool room did not request Sanders'
transfer and that Baker, assistant superintendent, made the transfer on his own
initiative ; that Sanders was very active in attempting to secure members for
A. F. L. in the plant and that his job in the maintenance department facilitated
these activities as his work took him to every department of the plant ; that
Sanders was transferred to a bench job soon after Martin made the request. In
view of all testimony and the entire record the undersigned credit,s,the testimony
of Victor Martin and Sanders in respect to this incident and finds that Sanders
was transfer-red,by,Klay, at the request-of Victor Martin in order to suppress
Sanders' activities on behalf of A. F. L.
Employee Lud Friel was a planer operator on the night shift. After I. A. W.
was organized, he became a member of the I. A. W. organizing committee and
was also elected I. A. W. steward for the entire night shift. According to Victor
Martin, during the I. A. W. campaign for members in November 1941, he arranged
with Superintendent Klay for Friel to leave his work and solicit members for
I. A. W., that Klay said it would be "OK but not to gang up." Klay admitted
that he granted Martin's request for Friel to leave his work, but he understood
it was for the purpose of handling grievances, and not for soliciting members
for I. A. W. However, Klay testified that he could not recall whether Martin
told him that Friel was a member of I. A. W. grievance committee or not. In
this connection,' Martin testified : "I told ' Mr.' Klay' that, I wanted Lud [Friel]
turned loose so that he could solicit members for the IAW in order to increase
our membership and bring it up to a point where we could ask for bargaining
rights" Martin notified Baker, the assistant superintendent about the arrange-
ment he had made with Klay in regard to Friel, and Baker said "All right;
I will take care of it." Martin thereupon informed Friel that he could leave
his machine that night, ,November 7, 1941, to solicit members for I. A. W. and
that if he wanted employees Ferguson and Stuckey, or any other I. A. W. members
to assist him it would be all right, and if they were interfered with by any
forelnail40 refer them to Baker.
The record discloses that Friel, Ferguson and Stuckey spent practically the
entire shift that night soliciting for I. A. W. throughout the plant. They signed
up about 22 members for I. A W.
In regard to this incident, Daniel Baker testified that the night Superintendent
Stevens telephoned him one night and said that Lud Friel had told him that
Victor Martin had secured permission for Friel "to go around over the shop" ;
that he said to Stevens "For Lud Friel or anyone to leave their machine to take
up grievances is out of my control, but for any other reason whatsoever he does
not have permission at this time or any other time to leave his machine."
According to the testimony of Friel, on or about November 7, 1941, he spent
practically the entire night shift in going around the plant soliciting members
for I. A. W.; that he was not stopped or questioned by any foreman, although
they saw him ; that Ferguson and Stuckey went around with him most of the
time ; Stuckey worked in the welding department and Ferguson worked in the
boring mill department ; that during the night in signing up an employee he
could not make change, as the employee gave him a $5 bill ; that he asked Stevens,
the night superintendent, to lend him $2; that he told Stevens that he wanted
to make change for an employee who had signed up in I. A. W. and that Stevens
lent him the money. Stevens admitted that Friel asked him for the money and
that he lent it to him, but denied that he knew what it was for. The under-
signed credits the testimony of Friel.
540612-44-vol. 51 48
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REILAT 'IONS BOARD
The record shows that it was understood and agreed between I. A. W. ana
the respondent that any employee having a grievance must report it to the I. A W.
representative in the department where the employee worked, and the I. A. W.
representative , together with the aggrieved employee , would discuss it with the
foreman of that department and settle it if possible ; that failing to agree on a
settlement the I. A W. representative would report the grievance to,the I. A. W.
Representation Committee , which was composed of all the I. A. W. representatives,
and the I. A W. Representation Committee would take it up with the manage-
ment. Contrary to this recognized method of handling grievances , J. S. Diller,
the night master mechanic , testified that during the nights of November 7, 10, and
11, 1941 , Friel, Ferguson and Stuckey left their work and went around the plant,
for the purpose of gathering up'grievances . In response to a question whether or
not he or some of the foremen met with Friel and discussed the grievances which
Friel, Ferguson and Stuckey were supposed to have gathered , Diller replied "No,
I don't think that the foremen had anything to do with it." Diller further
testified that he understood that Friel would "report back to Martin ." Accord-
ing to Friel's testimony , the next day he turned over to Victor Martin about 22
signed application cards for membership - in I. A. W. The undersigned finds that
Diller knew that Friel, Ferguson and Stuckey were soliciting membership in
I. A. W. when they left their work on the nights of November 7, 10, and 11,
1941, and that they were not collecting grievances . Friel testified that on one
occasion while he was soliciting members for I. A. W., Diller , night master
mechanic , stopped him and asked him what he was doing ; that he told Diller that
he was soliciting membership in I. A. W.; that Diller said "Are you doing the
right thing ?"; that he told Diller to see Daniel Baker or Walter Klay ; that
Diller said nothing further to him. Diller did not deny that he had this con-
versation with Friel on about November 7, 1941 , but he denied that Friel told
him that he was soliciting for I . A. W. Diller testified that he knew Friel
was head of the grievance committee , and it was his understanding that he
had permission to go through the plant . In view of the testimony of Friel and
Diller, and upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that this conversation
occurred as related by Friel . The undersigned was not impressed with the
testimony of Diller.
Diller testified that if it had not been for the newspaper articles and the
pamphlets which he read he never would have known that there was an I. A. W.
,organization in the plant . Contrary to this testimony , Diller, also testified
that subsequent to receiving written instructions from Hollengreen on August
22, 1941 , he was asked by, at least, 10 employees whether A . F. L. or I . A. W. was
the better union to join ; that he told them it was for each one to decide ; and that
when he talked to these employees about A. F. L. and I. A W he told them that
whatever he said was his own opinion and not that of the respondent. It is
evident from his own testimony , that Diller did know that both I. A. W. and
A. F. L. were organizing in the plant.
Diller testified that in November 1941 , Paul Hareford , night foreman in the
welding department , telephoned him and asked if Herman Stuckey could be
away from his machine with Lud Friel "on some kind of business" ; that he
telephoned Herman Stevens , the night superintendent, and told him of the
request; that Stevens said it would be all right for Stuckey "to go along on
grievances." According to the credible testimony of Harefore , both Friel and
Stuckey asked his permission for Stuckey to leave his work one night; that
he telephoned to Diller and the latter replied that he would let him know in a
short time ; that after about 15 or 20 minutes Diller informed him that it was
all right for Stuckey to go with Friel ; that Diller gave Hareford no explanation
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY' 741
as to why they would be away from their work. Hareford further testified
that Friel and Stuckey were away from their work for several hours and that
he did not know at that time, that either one was an I. A W. representative.
Employee Lewis Ferguson was elected I. A. W. representative for the boring
mill department on the night shift and he solicited for membership in I. A. W.
during the drive in November. Ferguson testified that Victor Martin told him
that arrangements had been made for him to leave his work and solicit for
I. A. W. on November 7; that while he was soliciting for I. A. W., he met Dave
Hovis, night foreman of the grinding department ; that Hovis asked him what
he was doing and he told him he was soliciting members for I. A. W.; that
also that night, he met Peck Beeler, foreman of the automatic department, and
he talked to Beeler about soliciting for I. A. W.; and that neither Hovis nor
Beeler intefered with him. Beeler did not testify at the hearing. Hovis
admitted that he knew Ferguson was in the department that night but he denied
that he saw Ferguson soliciting for I. A. W. In view of all the circumstances
and on the entire record, the undersigned credits the testimony of Ferguson
and finds that both Hovis and Beeler knew that Ferguson was soliciting for
for I. A. W. on that occasion and that they did not interfere with him, as
testified to by Ferguson. No deduction was made from Ferguson's pay for the
time lost from work.
Edgar Mann, night foreman in the boring mill department, testified that
Lester Ferguson asked permission to be away from his department several times
and that he granted the request because he knew that Ferguson was an I. A. W.
representative ; however, he did not question him as to why or where he
wanted to go. He admitted that Ferguson was out of the department on several
occasions. On cross examination Mann testified that Ferguson never mentioned
grievances when he requested permission to leave the department.
Friel testified that during the I. A. W. membership drive, he was supplied
with I. A. W. application cards and he canvassed for members in practically all
departments of the Waynesboro plant; that in order to better carry out his
I. A. W. activities, he requested Ralph Henneberger, his foreman, to change his
time card from a piece work basis to the position of helper, and this was done.
In this way his time card did not show any particular amount of work done
but simply stated that he was engaged as a helper, and it would not show the
time he spent away from his work. Henneberger, testified that he changed
Friel's time card as requested by Friel, but that Friel did not tell him that he
wanted to be away from his machine to solicit members for I. A. W.; that
Friel said that "he had some business, some grievances to take up with some of
the men." The record shows that Victor Martin had already informed Henne-
berger that arrangements had been made for Friel to leave his work that night.
In view of all the circumstances and the entire record the undersigned credits
the testimony of Friel and finds that he did inform Henneberger that he was
soliciting for I. A. W. as testified to by Friel.
According to the undenied and credible testimony of employee John Rebok, he
kept a supply of I. A. W. application cards in his tool box in the plant and em-
ployees who wished to join I. A. W. signed the cards and deposited them in the
tool box together with $1 initiation fee and that he was never interfered with by
any foreman on account of his activities on behalf of I. A. W.
Victor Martin testified that the bonus was paid on December 15, 1941, and
that it was only 6 per cent, although I. A. W. organizing committee had told
the employees that they were asking for a 10 per cent bonus ; that a considerable
number of employees, who had joined I. A. W., tore up their membership cards
and threw away their I. A. W. buttons in protest against the small bonus ; and
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELLATIONS BOARD
that the names of approximately 100 employees , who had signed application
cards for membership in I. A . W. without paying any initiation fee, were torn
out of the I. A. W. membership book. This reduced -.the number of members of
I. A. W. to less than a majority.
Friel testified without contradiction that when the I . A. W. representatives
were elected in each department throughout the plant he was elected shop
steward for the night shift and that the election was held in the plant just
before the shift went to work . The ballots were collected in the plant and
then deposited in a ballot box located just outside the gate. There were about
25 employees on the night shift at that time.
On November 21, 1941, Hollengreen , vice-president and general manager of the
respondent wrote Ullman , attorney for I . A. W., the following letter :
This is in reply to your letter of November 15th in which you called our
attention to the fact that you represent the Independent Associated Workers,
Incorporated.
You also notified us that the above mentioned Corporation claimed a major-
ity of the hourly paid production and maintenance employees ( excepting
the main office , Methods Department and plant watchmen ) employed in
non-supervisory positions.
On November 19th a committee from the Independent Associated Workers,
Incorporated waited on the writer at which time they proved to our com-
plete satisfaction that they did have a majority of the hourly paid produc-
tion and maintenance employees (excepting the main , office, , Methods De-
partment and plant watchmen) employed by the Landis Tool Company in
non-supervisory positions.
For your information , the signatures on the membership cards were veri-
fied as to their authenticity by two men who are skilled and versed in the
comparison of signatures.
Thus on November 21, 1941, the respondent formally recognized I. A. W. as
the exclusive representative of its employees for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with the respondent in respect to 'rates of pay, wages , hours of em-
ployment , or other conditions of employment.
According to Victor Martin soon after the respondent recognized I. A. W. as
the sole bargaining agency of its employees , Victor Martin , R. J. Fox and Charles
Martin told Hollengreen that I. A. W. represented about 61 per cent of the
employees in the agreed unit, and that Hollengreen said "that was fine ." Victor
Martin then told Hollengreen that I. A. W. would not stop at that, but would
endeavor to get 100 per cent and then ask for a closed shop contract . Hollen-
green replied that he did not want a closed shop and that "things would not be
any different from what they were ." Martin testified that he understood from
that remark that Hollengreen wanted I . A. W. to "run along the same lines
as the old shop association [ Employees Association ]." This was not denied by
Hollengreen.
According to the undenied testimony of employee Charles Baker , which is
credited by the undersigned , an election for I . A. W. representative in the heavy
erecting department was held in the plant during working hours in January 1942,
and Baker was elected . The ballots were distributed , collected and counted in,
the plant during working hours.
Friel testified that after the bonus was paid on December 15, 1941 , he ceased
his activities for I . A. W. and in the first part of 1942 , joined A . F. L.; that after
he joined A. F. L. he was not allowed to leave his machine as he had done pre-
viously while soliciting for I . A. W.; and that the foreman watched him
continuously.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 743
On February 17, 1942, a meeting of I. A. W. was held for the nomination of
officers. At that meeting it was decided that an election of officers would be
held in the plant by secret ballot and that each I. A. W. representative should
take -care of ,the ballots in•,his department.." The election was. held on February
24, 1942. Walter B. Powell was elected president; Fred Gilbert, vice-president;
Vernon Staines, secretary; Harold Frank, treasurer. Four directors and a
sergeant-at-arms, were also elected.
Victor Martin testified that on February 22, 1942, he informed Hollengreen
that I. A.'W. was going to hold an election in a local hotel and that he wanted to
have some refreshments and entertainment for the occasion, in order to attract
as many voters as possible, but that he was afraid I A. W. would not approve
of the expenditure and lie was not able to stand the expense himself; that Hollen-
green. told him.to wait a.minute and then stepped out of the office ; that Hollen-
green returned immediately and said "Go ahead. If it is not paid in any other
way,- I will take it out of my own pocket and pay it." Hollengreen admitted
that Martin made the request as related by Martin, but denied that he offered
to guarantee the payment. Hollengreen testified that he told Martin to wait
just a minute; that he then went into President Newman's office and told New-
man what Martin had said and asked him if the respondent could guarantee
the expense ; that Newman replied, "Hell, no 1"; that he then went back to his
office and told Martin that as he had been elected chairman of I. A. W. he was
sure that I. A. W. would back him up in This expense ; that in other words, "I
let him down easy, and I did not give him any money, I did not promise to see
that he got the money, I did not say that I would pay it out of my pocket, or
in any way, shape or form, lead him to believe that I would provide the money."
The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that after Newman's refusal to
commit the respondent, Hollengreen offered to guarantee the expense, as related
by Martin.
Victor Martin testified that in the first part of 1942 when he became chairman
of I. A. W. Representation Committee, which consisted of all the representatives
in the various departments of the plant, he was operating a Bullard cut master,
vertical boring turret machine, on which several operations may be done at
one time, and which was a very important machine in the plant requiring constant
attention; that "it became apparent to me that too much of my time would
have to be devoted in organization work and on one occasion I requested that
I be transferred to another machine that required less attention and where I
could do work that was ahead of orders. That is work that wasn't on the
immediate rush list" ; that he requested Hollengreen to transfer him to the
old American lathe ; that when he made the request Hollengreen said that
"he was about four jumps ahead of me, that the arrangement had been made
to put me up there" ; 14 that after he was transferred to another machine he
had authority to leave his machine whenever he liked and to go to any depart-
ment in the plant for the purpose of soliciting membership in I. A. W. and
attending to grievances ; that there was an understanding that any time he
wanted to go back ^ on the Bullard vertical turret lathe, he could go back ; that
he spent approximately 10 hours a week on I. A. W. activities and no reduction
was ever made from his pay on account of these activities ; and that nearly
every Saturday morning he spent the entire shift on I. A. W. activities without
interference from any supervisory employee. Hollengreen admitted that Victor
Martin made a request to be transferred to another machine, but that he under-
stood it was for the purpose of attending to grievances. In respect to Martin's
11 This testimony of Victor Martin was corroborated by employee Charles Baker.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony that Hollengreen told him that the matter had already been arranged
and that he was four jumps ahead of him, Hollengreen testified that "to the
best of my knowledge, I never made that assertion, because it is not an expression
that I commonly use or would have used." In view of the fact that Victor
Martin was transferred immediately to a less important machine and that he
was given the privilege of leaving his machine whenever he desired and going
to all departments of the plant whenever he wished, and from the entire record,
the undersignedicredits the testimony of Victor Martin and finds that Hollengreen
made the statement as testified to by Martin, and that Martin was transferred
to a less important machine so that he could devote more time to I. A. W. activities
and secure additional members for I. A. W.
On March 10, 1942, Victor Martin resigned from I. A. W. He had been chair-
man of I. A. W. Representation Committee since December 9, 1941. Prior to
that time he had been chairman of I. A. W. Organizing Committee, and a member
of I. A. W. Representation Committee. In connection with his resigning from
I. A. W. Martin testified as follows :
Well, I came to the conclusion that the I. A. W. was only a successor of
any [sic] of the other old shop councils or associations- that they had up
there, and it was my belief that the question between management and labor
had become such a burden that we should have a bona fide organization in
there to handle our business.
After resigning from I. A. W., Victor Martin joined A. F. L. He then informed
Assistant Superintendent Baker that he was ready to return to his former
machine ; however, he was transferred to an entirely different machine, one that
he had never worked on before, which was located very near to the desk of
Foreman Hollingshead.
Victor Martin testified that soon after he joined A. F. L. Foreman Hollingshead
told him that he had received a complaint that he was interfering with other
employees by talking to them during working hours ; and that he was not to
leave his department at any time unless he first notified Hollingshead It is
significant that no such restriction had ever been placed on Victor Martin while
he was a member of I. A. W. and was soliciting membership for I. A. W.
Employee Edgar Kramer, a sheet metal worker on the day shift in the welding
department, testified that he joined A. F L., that in November 1941, he solicited
membership in A. F. L. in the plant during working hours and also during
the noon lunch hour; that he continued his activity during the first part of
1942; that his foreman, Roy Martin, said nothing to him in 1941 on this account,
but that twice during 1942, between April and September, Roy Martin "called
him down" for being away from his machine ; that on one occasion Roy Martin
told him that if he did not discontinue his activities he would be discharged;
that he had never been criticized for his work or been reprimanded ; that he did
not know what Martin meant by that, but he understood that it referred to his
A. F. L. activities.
Foreman Roy Martin testified that he had received several complaints about
Kramer having visited other parts of the plant and interfered with the work
by talking to the employees ; that on one occasion employee Bupp, a saw oper-
ator, complained to him that Kramer had been, arguing with him about joining
A. F. L.; that he, Martin, said to Kramer, "Edgar, it doesn't matter to me if you
belong to forty unions, it is none of my business, but you cannot organize in here,
solicit members during working hours" ; that Kramer denied that he had been
soliciting union members ; that on another occasion in 1942 George Hollingshead,
day foreman in the lathe department, complained to him that Kramer was talking
to the employees in the lathe department and requested Martin to keep him out
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 745
of that department ; that Kramer 's excuse was that he went to that department
to get a pair of micrometers; that he told Kramer he could get them in the tool
room ; that Kramer replied that he would go wherever he pleased:
The undersigned finds that Foreman Martin and Hollingshead knew that
Kramer was an active A. F. L. member and that he was soliciting A. F. L.
membership in the plant during working hours, and that they endeavored to
suppress these activities of Kramer in order to discourage membership in A. F. L.
On June 1, 1942, the respondent posted the following notice on the plant bulletin
board:
The Company for some time has been meeting with the Committee of I. A. W.
and discussing the terms of a written contract, including a wage increase.
Since the beginning of our negotiations several months ago a question has
arisen as to the majority bargaining agency, which has prevented the signing
of a contract.
It may be necessary for the National Labor Relations Board to ascertain
the majority and this will likely be done by holding an election by secret
ballot at some time in the future.
In view of the fact that the request for a wage increase was made by the
I. A. W prior to the time that any other group of employees claimed to repre-
sent the majority, the Company has agreed to make an increase at the present
time.
We, therefore, announce a wage increase at this time of five cents (50)
per hour to all hourly shop and engineering employees. This increase to be
effective on the 1st day of June, 1942.
This wage increase does not apply to supervisory, office or female help.
The Company will negotiate further as to wages and other meetings with
the proper bargaining unit at any proper time in the future.
On August 21, 1942, the respondent posted a notice on the plant bulletin board
reciting the June 1, 1942 notice in full and concluding as follows :
After further consideration of the original request for an increase of ten
(100) an hour and further discussion the Company has decided to make
and now announces a further increase in wages of five (50) per hour to all
hourly shop and engineering employees, the same not to apply to those in a
supervisory capacity.
This wage increase to be effective on the 31st day of August, 1942.
The record shows that after I A. W. was recognized by the respondent on
November 21, 1941, negotiations began in respect to a contract and these negotia-
tions were continued until' about May 1942 and then discontinued, although
I. A. W. and the respondent had almost reached an agreement. Under the advice
of its attorneys, the respondent never entered into any written agreement with
I. A. W.
In respect to his dealings with I. A. W., Hollengreen testified as follows:
During my meetings with the I A. W., I would, as I stated before, always,
when anything would come up relative to unions or their rights, I would
always preface my remarks with the fact that that was entirely up to the
men themselves , they could do as they wanted to and the company had no
interest, and I always ended up my remarks with that, and as I said before,
I said it so frequently that I am sure the members of the committee will
testify that they got tired of hearing me say it.
Now, during these meetings with the I. A. W., the representatives would
ask me questions concerning the Wagner Act. I did not feel free to use my
746 DBOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
own judgment in answering them and I always referred either to this little
booklet or other clippings I had in my desk . I had a little marked copy of
not only this , but other digests of the Wagner Act, and when they would ask
me specific questions I could turn immediately to that page and I would tell
them what it said, that that was not what the company said, and either at
one of those meetings during the time that Mr. Fox was chairman of the
grievance committee , or at some other time, Mr. Fox specifically requested
me as a personal favor to give him one of these booklets.
He also stated he wanted it because the men were continually asking him
what their rights were and what they could do , on some specific point under
the Wagner Act, and I was glad to give it to him.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
That the Shop Council was formed, dominated and supported by the respondent
is too clearly shown in the record to admit of any doubt or conjecture. The
respondent agreed to set up the Shop Council in the plant as part of the strike
settlement ; Gray, the respondent 's production manager, introduced the Shop
Council plan to the employees , and became its secretary ; all meetings and elec-
tions of the Shop Council were held in the plant at the respondent 's expense.
The respondent was convinced that the Shop Council was an illegal organization
within the meaning of the Act, and in May 1941 a meeting of the Shop Council was
called and its members were notified by both Gray and President Frantz that-the
respondent would no longer recognize it as a bargaining representative of its
employees . Nothing was done by the respondent to inform the employees at
large that the Shop Council was an illegal organization , and that recognition had
been withdrawn by the respondent.
The employees Association came into being as the result of the respondent's
withdrawal of recognition from the Shop Council. A meeting of the Shop Council
was held immediately afterwards and a new secretary was selected to replace
Production Manager Gray. A committee was appointed to revise the Shop Council
constitution and bylaws . At the next meeting of the Shop Council , which was
held " within a week , the name was changed to the Employees Association, and
a tentative constitution adopted. The Shop Council was formed , existed, and
functioned only through the respondent's control , financial support, and suf-
ferance. With the passage of the Act , the respondent had a plain duty to its
employees.. As was stated in the Western Union case : 15
. . . an unaffiliated union, known for long to be favored by the employer,
carries over an advantage which necessarily vitiates its standing as exclusive
bargaining agent. It cannot remain such until measures are taken com-
pletely to disabuse the employees of any belief that they will win the em-
ployer's approval if they remain in it, or incur his displeasure if they leave.
Rather than disabusing its employees , the respondent openly continued to deal
with the Shop Council for nearly two years after the passage of the Act, without
any change having been made in its status as a collective bargaining agency.
In the American Smelting & Refining Company v. National Labor Relations
Board, 126 F. ( 2d) 680, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
said :
It was the duty of the petitioner to disestablish the Plan which had pre-
viously been dominated by it and which it had recognized as a bargaining
unit. This was "the only effective way-of wiping the slate clean and affording
15 Western Union Telegraph Company v N. L R. B,113 F. ( 2d) 992, (C C A. 2)
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 747
the employees an opportunity to start afresh in organizing for the adjustment
of their relations with the employer." N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Ship-
bnilding, etc. Co., 308 U. S 211, N. L R B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
303 U. S. 261; N. L. R B v. Rath Packing Co., 8 Cir., 123 F. (2d) 684.
The failure of the respondent to take affirmative steps to disabuse the minds of
the employees generally of the belief which they may have had that the respond-
ent favored the Employees Association as it favored the Shop Council justifies the
findi,ig that the employees were not, in joining the Employees Association, as free
as the Act demands.'e
The respondent made no positive attempt to terminate the existence of the
Shop Council which it dominated nor to disassociate it from the employee's
choice of a bargaining agency. The organization of the Employees Association
was promoted by those who were officers or committeemen of the Shop Council
and they were continued in office under the Employees Association. There was
no well defined "wiping of the slate clean."
It is now settled as a matter of law that there must be a definite, clear line of
cleavage between the two organizations in order for the latter to be free from the
taint of employer domination found to be prevalent in the former. Roebling
Employees Ass'n., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 120 F. (2d) 289
(C C. A. 3) and cases cited therein. The establishment of the line of fracture
is, under the decisions, an affirmative obligation resting upon the employer.
The record is clear that I. A. W. was initiated and formed by employees who
had been active in the Shop Council and the Employees Association, and who
were strongly identified in the minds of the employees with these earlier organi-
zations. The undersigned has found that the Employees Association was kept
alive for the purpose of bargaining with the respondent in regard to the bonus,
in the event that I. A W. did not succeed in obtaining a majority in time to
negotiate with the respondent for this purpose. It is equally apparent, that the
Employees Association was in existence after the formation of I. A. W., as
evidenced by the fact that the funds in the treasury of the Employees Associa-
tion were not donated to the Red Cross until about 2 months after I. A. W. was
formed.
It is manifest that when the respondent ceased to negotiate with the Employees
Association and recognized I. A. W. as bargaining representative,, it was under
the same obligation to make this fact known to its employees, as it was when
it ceased to recognize the Shop Council and accorded recognition to the Em-
ployees Association. That it never affirmatively and effectively undertook to
disabuse the minds of the employees of any taint of company-domination, is
demonstrated by the testimony of Hollengreen, that he did not know what had
happened to the Employees Association after I A. W. was formed, and that, not
only did the respondent fail to notify the employees, but it did not even notify
the representatives of the Employees Association, that the respondent would no
longer deal with them.
When the intensive campaign for members was inaugurated by I. A. W. in
November 1941, in order to secure a majority so that I. A. W. would be in a
position to bargain with the respondent in respect to the amount of the annual
bonus, which was usually announced about December 15 of each year, the re-
spondent extended valuable aid to I. A. W. in its organizational efforts and gave
considerable impetus to its membership -drive by permitting employees Victor
Martin, Ferguson and Stuckey to leave their machines and visit other depart-
ments of the plant for the purpose of soliciting members for I. A. W. on the
"Kansas City Power ct Light Co. v. N L. R B., 111 F (2d) 340 (C C A 8)
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RF1LAfl'IONaS BOARD
respondent's time and property. Further assistance was rendered to I. A. W.
by the respondent by giving I. A. W. credit for wage increases.
The announced policy of the respondent that its supervisory staff was to re-
main completely neutral ; that it was to take no part in any union activities ; and
that solicitation for any union on company time was prohibited, was clearly
not applied to I. A. W 17
Thus, during a period in which the respondent had done nothing to reestab-
lish a condition of freedom, I. A W. succeeded the illegal Employees Associa-
tion and Shop Council with strong indication of connection between the three.
In these circumstances, the mass of employees, conditioned by over 20 years of
denial of their rights to self-organization, could reasonably have assumed that
the respondent favored I A. W. as it had favored the Employees Association
and the Shop Council. A habit firmly moulded by 20 years of domination may
well have dictated their choice of I. A. W 18 Such duplication of personnel as
related above, coupled with substantial continuity of existence is indicative of
continued domination by the employer" The effects of company-dominated
organizations upon employees can only be dispelled by the creation of condi-
tions in which a free choice can be exercised, and when an ostensibly new
organization has been created there must be a "complete break between the
organization and disestablishment of the illegal ones," and the employees must
be ,"effectively and unmistakably informed of such action"'
The undersigned finds, from the entire record in the case that I. A. W. was a
successor to the Employees Association an-' the Shop Council, and that the
respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administra-
tion of I. A. W., the Employees Association, and the Shop Council and has
contributed support to them and that by such interference, support and
domination the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
According to the credible and undenied testimony of employee Lud Friel,
which is accepted by the undersigned, Friel talked to Ed Brindle, foreman of
the electrical department, several times about membership in I. A. W. In
November 1941 Brindle told Friel that he had talked to some of the employees
in his department about joining I. A. W. and he would send them to Friel
to sign up, and one employee came to Friel and told him that he had talked
to Brindle about I. A. W. Brindle also told Friel that he was in favor of
I. A. W. but not A. F. L. Brindle did not testify.
IT Even though the actions of its supervisors were in violation of the orders of the
respondent and contrary to its expressed policy, they nevertheless constituted unfair labor
practices by the respondent. J. H. Heinz Co v. N. L R. B., 311 U S. 514 ; Soleey Process
Company V. N. L. R. B, 117 F. (2d) 83 (C C A 5), cert. den 313 U. S. 596; N L. R. B.
1. A. S. Abell Co., 97 F (2d) 951 (C C. A 4).
is N L R. B i Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc , 303 U S 272
IOInteinational Association of Machinists v. N L R B, 311 U S. 72, aff'g 110 F (2d)
29 (-1Pp D. C ) enforcing Matter of Serrick Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local 459, 8 N. L R. B 621.
20Maonolia Petroleum Co v N L. R B, 115 F. (2d) 1007 Thus courts have recog-
nized the necessity of "wiping- the slate clean." (N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding
and Dry Dock Co., 308 U. S 241) ; "clearing of decks" (Westinghouse Electric if Mfg. Co.
v. N. L R. B., 112 F. (2d) 657 (C. C. A. 2)) ; "absolute and public cleavage between the
old and the new" (Western Union Telegraph Co v. N. L. R B., 113 F. (2d) 992 (C C. A.
2) ) ; clearing the field "of the original illegal growth," thus rendering it "suitable for
sowing the seeds of an undominated body" (E. I. Dupont de Nemours if Co v. N L. R B.,
116 F. (2d) 388 (C. C. A. 4)); washing out "the virus of control" (N. L. R. B. v. H. B.
Fletcher Co., 108 F. (2) 459 (C. C. A. 1) ).
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 749
While Victor- Martin was chairman of I. A. W. representation Committee,
he told Hollengreen that if the employees did not get a raise in pay pretty soon,
A. F. L. would get into the plant, and Hollengreen replied "if the AFL came
in, they would have to fight every inch of the way and that would be the end
of the individual raises." Hollengreen did not deny having made this state-
ment to 'Martina'
Victor Martin testified that he and George Hollingshead, his foreman, were
always very good friends, and that Hollingshead talked to him a number of
times about unions ; and that on one occasion, Hollingshead said to him that
"he didn't believe in any damn union." This was not denied by Hollingshead.
The undersigned finds that Hollingshead made the statement as related by
Martin.
Charles Hareford, night foreman in the welding department, testified that a
number of employees asked him questions about A. F. L. and I. A W. and he
told them that he did not like either one of them and that he did not believe
in organized labor ; that he told one employee that he would not join either union
as he did not think anything of organized labor, and that he told these employees
this was his personal opinion, and that the employees had a right to join or not
to join a union just as, they chose. In this connection Hareford testified as
follows :
They [employees] would come to me and ask me which I thought was the
best, which one I would join, and I told them, I said, so far as I am con-
cerned, it is up to you, I have got nothing in them, I said, what I say is my
own personal opinion, I said, that is not anything concerning the company.
I says, as far as the company is concerned, I do not know how they feel about -
it and I don't care, I says, these are my personal opinions, but I said, for my
own I do not like labor organizations.
Employee Lester Sanders testified that on October 15, 1941, he met John W.
Davis, assistant foreman in the grinding department, at Mannerheim's store at
Sabillasville, Maryland, and that Davis told him that he was in a position to know
that unless a majority was secured by I. A. W. no bonus would be paid that year.
Davis admitted that he talked to Sanders about the bonus on that occasion, but
denied having said that unless I. A. W. got a majority no bonus would be paid.
From his' observation of the witnesses and the entire record the undersigned
finds that this conversation occurred as related by Sanders.
Employee J. R. Toms, a sheet metal worker on the day shift in the welding
department for the past 9 years, testified that in September 1941, while he was at
work in the plant, Roy S. Martin, his foreman, came up and began talking to him
about things in general and then about unions ; that Martin said to him "If I was
you I would join the I. A. W."; and that if he, Toms, joined A. F. L. they would
take his money and, if he got out of work, they would be through with him, and
that A. F. L. would not amount to anything. Martin denied ever having had any
conversation with Toms about joining any labor organization, and stated that he
did not know whether Toms belonged to a labor organization or not, and that
Toms sometimes acted as assistant foreman. According to Toms, the alleged con-
versation, which lasted about five minutes, was the first and only conversation
he had ever had with Martin about unions, although he and Martin had worked
together in the welding department for a number of years and had talked to each
other every day. Toms was never solicited by either I A. W. or-A. F. L. and he
never became a member of either organization, probably for the reason that he
sometimes acted as assistant foreman. Toms testified that he knew of no soliel-
u This finding is based upon the undenied and credible testimony of Victor Martin.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tation for members, either by I. A. W. or A. F. L. in the plant, and that the alleged
conversation with Martin, with no one else present, was the only union talk he
had ever heard in the plant. The undersigned was not impressed with the testi-
mony of Toms, and in view of his observation of both Toms and Martin on the
witness stand and from the entire record, the undersigned credits the denial of
Martin in respect to this alleged conversation and finds that he did not make the
statements accredited to him by Toms.
The respondent contends that it should not be held accountable for the acts or
conduct of its supervisory employees in respect-to'unions and union activity, be-
cause they had been instructed to remain neutral, and although they were free
to express their opinions in respect to unions, they had been instructed to clearly
indicate that such expressions were their personal opinions and not the expressions
of the respondent. This contention is without merit. The question is not whether
certain acts by supervisory employees were authorized ; but whether the em-
ployees' freedom of choice has been interfered with by the employer. As the
Supreme Court has stated :
The employer, however, may be held to have assisted the formation of a
union even though the acts of the so-called agents were not expressly author-
ized or,might not be attributable to him on strict application of-the rules of
respondent superior . . . The existence of that interference must be deter-
mined by careful scrutiny of all the factors, often subtle, which restrain-the
employees' choice and for which the employer may fairly be said to be respon-
sible."
The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the statements and acts of Super-
visors Brindle, Hollengreen, Hollingshead and Hereford, described above, inter-
fered 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 con-
nection 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
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
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 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 forma-
tion and administration of and contributed support to , the Shop Council, the
Employees Association, and I . A. W. Since the Shop Council and the Employees
Association have ceased to function under the names by which they were originally
known , and there appears to be no likelihood of their being revived under those
names,'their disestablishment as such will not be recommended . The undersigned
further finds that the effects and consequence of such domination , interference,
and support, render I. A. W., incapable of serving .the-respondent 's-employees as a
genuine collective bargaining agency. and the recognition of I. A . W. as the bar-
gaining representative of any of the respondent's employees constitutes a con-
21 International .4ss'n of Machinists v. N L R B, 311 U S 72
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 751
tinning obstacle to the free exercise by the employees of their right to self-
organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing. It will therefore be recommended that the respondent withdraw, all
recognition from I. A. W. 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. International Association of Machinists, Lodge 513, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, and the Independent Associated Workers, Inc.,
unaffiliated, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. The Shop Council and the Employees Association of the Landis Tool Com-
pany, both unaffiliated, were labor organizations 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, the Shop Council, the Employees Association of
the Landis Tool Company and Independent Associated Workers, Inc., 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 8 (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 under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Landis Tool Company, Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania, 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 the Shop Council, the Employees
Association of the Landis Tool Company, and Independent Associated Workers,
Inc., or to any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing the Shop Council, the Employees Association of the Landis
Tool Company, and Independent Associated Workers, Inc., as the representative
of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment ;
(c) 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 bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Independent Associated Work-
ers, Inc., as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA!PIONS BOARD
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment and completely disestab-
lish the Independent Associated Workers, Inc., as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plants at Waynes-
boro, Pennsylvania, and Greencastle, Pennsylvania, and maintain for a period of
at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its em-
ployees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is recommended to cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) of the
aforesaid recommendations; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of these recommendations ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth 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.
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 recommenda-
tions, 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, Washing-
ton, 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 pro-
ceeding (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 permission 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 transferring the case to the Board.
W. P. WEBB,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 29, 1943.