Montauk Iron & Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. 993
I am unable to agree with my colleagues that the holding of a straw
vote or the conducting of a poll among the eligible employees during
the critical period before a Board-conducted election is necessarily an
interference with the election atmosphere which would warrant setting
the election aside. It appears to me that employees, like potential
voters in political elections, if polled for their views in what is.
obviously a "dry run" or "opinion poll," are well able to make up their
own minds as to how to vote both then and when the official balloting
takes place. In the circumstances of this case, the employees were not
misled as to the nature of the poll and their vote was secret. I cannot
conceive what effect such a poll would have upon the final vote except
to produce more vigorous campaigning on the representation issue.
Nor do I agree with the Regional Director that the erroneous designa-
tion of the Petitioner by the Employer in the poll was of any material
significance. In the absence of a showing that the polling of em-
ployees herein could reasonably have interfered with their free choice.
in the Board-conducted election, I would overrule objection No. 1.
Moreover, unlike the Regional Director, I would overrule objection.
No. 3 as the statement in the handbill circulated by the Employer that
it would proceed further in its investigation of insurance benefits for
its employees was not in my opinion a promise of benefit nor in any
way conditioned upon a vote against the Union.
I would therefore overrule all the objections and certify the results.
of the election.
Montauk Iron & Steel Corp . and Louis A. Ferland
Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Independent and
Louis A. Ferland . Cases Nos. 2-CA-6701 and 2-CB-2598. June
3, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 29, 1960, Trial Examiner Arnold Ordman issued his.
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Union
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with-
127 NLRB No. 128.
560940-61-vol 127-64
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in these cases, including the Intermediate report, the excep-
tions and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. Montauk Iron & Steel Corp., Long Island City, New York, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Encouraging membership in Local 815, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Independent, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, or discouraging membership in Shopmen's Local Union No.
455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discriminating against its employees in respect to their
hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally with Local 815, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Independent, make whole Louis A. Ferland for any loss of
earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the
manner and to the extent set forth in the section of the Intermediate
Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social security
I The Company 's final letter to Ferland was written on July 30 and not June 30 as stated
in the Intermediate Report.
NIONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. 995
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(c) Resume making regular contributions in Ferland's behalf to
the welfare and pension funds described in its 1958 collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Respondent Union, and take all action within
its power necessary or appropriate to restore any rights or benefits
in that respect of which Ferland may have been deprived by cancella-
tion of his coverage.
(d) Post at its place of business in Long Island City, New York,
New York, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix
A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
of the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative
of the Respondent Company, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
Company to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set
forth in (d) above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional
Director, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B."
(f) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of the notice
marked "Appendix A" for posting by the Respondent Union as pro-
vided below. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director, shall, after being signed by an official representative of
Respondent Company, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director
for disposition by him.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within 10 days of the date of this Order what steps the Respondent
Company has taken to comply herewith.
B. Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, its officers,
agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Montauk Iron & Steel Corp.,
its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate against its
employees in respect to their hire, tenure, or any term or condition of
employment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
of Montauk Iron & Steel Corp. in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally with Montauk Iron & Steel Corp. make
whole Louis A. Ferland for any loss of earnings suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him in the manner and to the extent
set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify Montauk Iron & Steel Corp. and the New York Affil-
iated Fund that it withdraws all objections to the granting of coverage
to Louis A. Ferland under the welfare and pension funds described
in its 1958 collective-bargaining agreement with Montauk Iron &
Steel Corp., and take all action within its power necessary or appro-
priate to restore any rights or benefits in that regard of which Ferland
may have been deprived by cancellation of his coverage.
(c) Post at its business offices copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix B." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed
by an official representative of the Respondent Union, be posted im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that such no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set
forth in (c) above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional
Director, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."
(e) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of the notice
marked "Appendix B" for posting by the Montauk Iron & Steel Corp.,
at its place of business in Long Island City, New York, New York.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall,
after being signed by an official representative of the Respondent
Union, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition
by him.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within 10 days of the date of this Order what steps the Respondent
Union has taken to comply herewith.
3 See footnote 2.
MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES,
997
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 815, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Independent, or any other labor organiza-
tion of our employees, or discourage membership in Shopmen's
Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating
against our employees in respect to their hire, tenure, or any term
or condition of employment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Local 815, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Independent, make whole Louis A. Ferland
for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL resume making regular contributions for Louis A.
Ferland to the welfare and pension funds described in our 1958
collective-bargaining agreement with the above-named Union,
and we will take all action within our power necessary or appro-
priate to restore any rights or benefits in that regard of which
Louis A. Ferland may have been deprived by cancellation of his
coverage.
MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP.,
Employer.
Bated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. AND TO
ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 815, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, INDEPENDENT
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Montauk Iron & Steel
Corp., its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate
against any of its employees with respect to their hire, tenure, or
any term or condition of employment in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees of Montauk Iron & Steel Corp., in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act as modified by the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Montauk Iron & Steel
Corp. make whole Louis A. Ferland for any loss of earnings suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL notify Montauk Iron & Steel Corp. and the New
York Affiliated Fund that we withdraw all objections to the
granting of coverage to Louis A. Ferland in the welfare and
pension funds described in our 1958 collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Montauk Iron & Steel Corp., and we will take all
action within our power necessary or appropriate to restore any
rights or benefits in that regard of which Louis A. Ferland may
have been deprived by cancellation of his coverage.
LOCAL 815, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. 999
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before the duly designated
Trial Examiner on December 7 and 17, 1959, in New York City, on a consolidated
complaint issued by General Counsel and on the respective answers of the Respond-
ents, Montauk Iron & Steel Corp., herein called the Company, and Local 815, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Independent, herein called Local 815. The evidence presented related to
allegations, set forth in the complaint as amended at the hearing, that on various
occasions beginning June 24, 1959, and thereafter, the Company, at the instance of
Local 815, discharged Louis A. Ferland and otherwise disciiminated against him in
the terms and conditions of his employment, thereby giving rise to violations of
,Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act on the part of the Company and violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act on the part of Local 815 Oral argument
was presented at the close of the proceeding by counsel for the General Counsel
and by counsel for the respective Respondents. No briefs were filed.
Upon the entire record I and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a New York corporation, has its principal office, plant, and place
of business at Long Island City, New York, where it is engaged in the fabrication
and sale of steel products. During the year preceding the instant hearing, the
Company purchased goods and materials, valued in excess of $500,000, which were
shipped to its plant from points outside the State of New York. Upon these facts,
I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that the exercise of jurisdiction in this case is proper.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Independent, herein called Local 815, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local No 455, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
A collective-bargaining relationship between the Company and Local 815 has
been in existence for about 10 years. At the time of the events here in issue the
parties were operating under a 2-year agreement executed on October 8, 1958, and
effective as of September 1, 1958. Under this agreement, so far as relevant here,
the Company recognized Local 815 as bargaining representative of all the Company's
employees except office help, foremen, assistant engineers, building employees, and
supervisory help. The agreement also contained a valid 30-day union-security
clause, a dues checkoff provision, and a provision for ,paid vacations. In addition,
the agreement provided that the Company would make $3 weekly contributions for
each employee covered by the agreement to a fund for the purchase of insurance,
welfare, and similar benefits for the employees and $2 weekly contributions for each
employee to another fund which was for the purpose of providing pensions and/or
annuities for the employees.
In the spring of 1959 when the above agreement still had more than a year to
run, Local 455, a rival labor organization, sought to organize and represent a group
of about six employees who worked in the Company's fabricating department.
These employees together with the employees in the Company's warehouse depart-
ment were covered by the current agreement between the Company and Local 815,
Nevertheless, Local 455, on April 1, 1959, filed a representation petition with the
1 A motion made by counsel for the General Counsel, dated December 31, 1959, to correct
certain obvious errors in the transcript on testimony is hereby granted. The transcript is
further corrected at page 288 , ' line 20, toy read "Field Examiner" instead of ",Trial
Examiner."
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board asking for certification as bargaining representative
of the employees in the fabricating department. On April 20, 1959, representatives
of Local 815, of Local 455, and of the Company attended a conference at the
Regional Office of the Board concerning the petition. Louis A. Ferland, an em-
ployee in the fabricating department, was among those representing Local 455 at
this conference. In a letter dated April 30, 1959, the Regional Director for the
National Labor Relations Board notified the several participants at the conference
that he was dismissing the Local 455 representation petition because the current
agreement between the Company and Local 815 constituted "a bar to investigation
of representatives at this time." No appeal was taken from the Regional Director's
ruling.
It is undisputed that Local 815 suspended Louis A. Ferland from membership,
because, among other reasons, he had become a member of a rival labor organiza-
tion, i.e., Local 455. General Counsel alleges that following this suspension Local
815 brought pressure to bear on the Company to discriminate against Ferland in
the terms and conditions of his employment and to cease making contributions for
him to the welfare and pension funds described in the 1958 agreement; that the
Company yielded to Local 815's pressure in that regard; and that Local 815 and the
Company thereby committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
Local 815 and the Company deny the commission of unfair labor practices. The
relevant facts are now set forth hereunder.
B. The discrimination against Ferland
1. The suspension of Ferland by Local 815
Louis A. Ferland, a member of Local 815, signed a card on April 1, 1959, author-
izing and designating Local 455 to act as his bargaining representative. Ferland
also, as already indicated, attended the April 20 conference at the Board Regional
Office as a Local 455 representative. Nat Tipelin, business agent of Local 455, was
also at the conference. On May 22, 1959, Local 815 addressed a letter to Ferland
charging him in substance with disloyalty and dual unionism in violation of Local
815 bylaws and directing him to appear on June 9, 1959, before the executive board
of Local 815 for a hearing on these charges. The letter was given to Ferland at
the plant by Garland Floyd, shop steward for Local 815. Ferland appeared at the
executive board hearing pursuant to this directive and after initially pleading not
guilty to the charges changed his plea to guilty. The executive board sentenced
Ferland to pay a fine of $750 within 10 days on penalty of suspension from Local
815. According to Ferland, Barasch, secretary-treasurer of Local 815, told Ferland
to turn in his union card and to contact Tipelm, business agent of Local 455, about
getting a job in a Local 455 shop.2
Ferland did not pay the $750 fine. Accordingly, under date of June 23, 1959,
Local 815 wrote to Ferland advising him that because of his failure to comply with
the executive board directive, "you are suspended from membership in the Union,
and you may not be reinstated except upon specific application to the Executive
Board, and only after compliance with their original directive." The letter closed
with a further direction to Ferland to return his union card immediately to his shop
steward, Garland Floyd.
On the same day Local 815 wrote Ferland suspending him from membership,
Local 815 wrote another letter to the Company stating:
Please be advised that Louis Albert Ferland has terminated his membership
in this Union.
In the future, please make no deductions for dues or remittances for Welfare
or Pension, for the employee involved.
A third letter, likewise dated June 23, 1959, was sent to Ferland by the New York
Affiliated Fund, trustee of the welfare fund set up under the 1958 agreement between
the Company and Local 815. This letter, signed by George Barasch, read:
We have been advised that your membership in the Union has been terminated
and, pursuant to the provisions of the policies, please be advised that Policy
#W5493 and Policy #0011 are hereby cancelled and declared null and void.
2 Herman Plotnick and Al Spilberg. Local 815 officials, who were present at the executive
board hearing, denied that anything was said to Ferland about contacting Local 455 to
get another job. Barasch himself, however, did not testify and although-Plotnick testified
that he had taken extensive minutes at the hearing, such minutes were not put into evi-
dence I credit Ferland's testimony.
MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. 1001
It was stipulated by all the parties at the hearing that since June 24, 1959, the
Company made no contributions for Louis A. Ferland to the welfare and pension
funds described in the agreement between the Company and Local 815. It was
likewise stipulated that the Company did not check off dues for Ferland after
June of 1959.
2. The events of June 24
On the morning of June 24, after Ferland reported to work, there was a work
stoppage at the Company. Prior thereto Shop Steward Garland Floyd had shown
Ferland a copy of the June 23 letter from Local 815 to Ferland notifying him of
his suspension, and had told Ferland to quit working Floyd also showed the letter
to Foreman George Novy and told the latter that Ferland was no longer a union
member and that the employees would not work so long as Ferland was in the
shop Several of the employees made similar statements to Novy. When Ferland
continued to work nevertheless, a work stoppage ensued. Thereupon Foreman Novy
sent Ferland to see Louis Goldstein, secretary-treasurer and managing agent of the
Company, in the plant office.
On his way to Goldstein's office, Ferland met Nat Tipelin, business agent of
Local 455, who was also on his way to see Goldstein. Ferland and Tipelin met
with Goldstein who had in the meantime been informed of the work stoppage and
had unsuccessfully solicited Shop Steward Floyd to "sort of let things stay as they
were until we could definitely determine what was to be done." Goldstein explained
to Ferland and Tipelin that under his contract with Local 815 he could employ only
members in good standing with that union . Goldstein showed Ferland and Tipelin
the letter he had received from Local 815 advising him that Ferland had terminated
his union membership and that the Company was not to makes dues deductions or
welfare and pension remittances for him. Tipelin protested that the letter from
Local 815 was not a request for discharge. Goldstein, however, emphasized that he
was in a tough spot and that under the terms of the Local 815 contract, he did not
have "a leg to stand on." He also pointed out that the work stoppage would have
disastrous effects, financially, for the Company. Accordingly, Goldstein told Ferland
he would have to stay off the job for a few days pending further clarification of the
issues involved in the work stoppage.
Ferland left the plant and that afternoon went to the Regional Office of the
National Labor Relations Board where he filed the unfair labor practice charges
which gave rise to the proceeding herein. The work stoppage ceased as soon as
Ferland left the plant .3
3. The second work stoppage
On June 30, 1959, 6 days after Goldstein had instructed Ferland to stay off the
job for a few days, Goldstein advised Ferland by letter that there was an opening
in the warehouse and that he should report for work. On the morning following
his receipt of the letter, either July 1 or 2, Ferland reported to the plant and showed
the letter to Foreman Novy. Novy, who said he knew about the letter, talked to
Shop Steward Floyd who said that he had not heard from Local 815 and that as
far as he, Floyd, was concerned, things were still the same as they had been. Novy
thereupon told Ferland that his time would be paid for, not to work, and to await
the arrival of Goldstein.
Goldstein arrived a little later and Ferland apprised him of the situation. Gold-
stein, accompanied by Ferland, then went to the shop steward and told him the
Ferland matter had been straightened out with Local 815. Floyd replied that he
had had no word and, as far as he knew, there was no change. He indicated also
that if Ferland worked there would be trouble. He also rejected Goldstein's sug-
gestion that Ferland be permitted to remain at work until the matter was straightened
out and reiterated that if Ferland worked there would be a work stoppage. Follow-
ing this conversation, Goldstein told Ferland to go back to work anyway and re-
turned to his office.
Ferland, pursuant to this directive, started work in the fabricating department.
His fellow employees in that department were working also. After Ferland had
been working for about an hour, Foreman Novy told him that the men in the
warehouse department which was in an adjoining building, were refusing to work.
Ferland replied that he knew what to do and, after changing from his work clothes,
8 There was conflicting testimony as to whether Goldstein told Ferland and Tipelin at
the June 24 conference that he had had a telephone call from Local 815 advising him to
terminate Ferland For reasons set forth in more detail later in this report, I deem it
unnecessary to resolve this conflict.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
left the plant.4 Goldstein had in the meantime spent about 2 hours in his office
taking care of other business and endeavoring unsuccessfully to get in touch with
Local 815. Thereafter, he was told by Foreman Novy that Ferland had left .5 As in
the June 24 situation the men engaged in the work stoppage returned to work on
Ferland's departure.
4. The events of July 13 and 14
On or about July 7, 1959, Louis Goldstein sent Ferland another letter on the
Company's letterhead. This letter read:
I understand that you reported to work as a result of our letter of June 30 but
did not stay to complete the day and have never consulted us since.
We have a position open in the yard at the same salary as previously and
would like you to report directly to me upon receipt of this letter.
In the event you fail to report for work, we shall assume that you have
terminated your employment here. [Emphasis supplied.]
Prior to this time, Ferland's work was done predominantly inside Respondent's plant
although on occasion, like his fellow employees, he worked outside in the yard.
Goldstein testified that his offer of a yard job in the July 7 letter was based on his
fear of friction and another work stoppage if Ferland returned to an inside job.
In any event, Ferland returned to work on July 13 in response to the Company's
letter. Foreman Novy assigned him to a job in the yard. A little later in the day
Goldstein directed Ferland to cut the grass and clear up a certain area in the yard
so that Ferland could work on a reinforcing bar setup involving work on metal
parts. For the remainder of the day Ferland carried out this assignment though he
had never performed this kind of duty before. The next morning Ferland reported
to work in the yard again. It was raining heavily and Goldstein told Ferland to go
inside in the back of the shop to cut some steel beams. When Ferland complied
and,started to measure the beams to be cut, Shop Steward Floyd appeared and told
Ferland he could work in the yard but not in the shop. Ferlaitd asked what dif-
ference it made and Floyd said he was instructed by Local 815 not to let Ferland
work in the shop. Ferland told Floyd to straighten out the matter with the "boss."
Floyd replied that he had already seen Goldstein. Thereupon Ferland called Gold-
stein and related his conversation with Floyd. Goldstein told Ferland that he would
not let a dog work outside in that rain, but that there was nothing else for Ferland
to do. Thereupon Ferland left, having worked only a day and a half There was
no work stoppage during this period by the other employees.
5. Subsequent events
Late on Friday afternoon, July 17, Ferland called on Goldstein at the plant.
Goldstein told Ferland to report to work on Monday, July 20, and he would see if
he could find something for Ferland to do. Ferland reported as directed, punched
in, but Foreman Novy told him that it was a mistake and that there was nothing
for him to do.
Ten days later, on July 30, Local 815 wrote to the Company setting forth that
it had been notified of the filing of an unfair labor practice charge by Ferland to
the effect that Local 815 had caused the Company to terminate Ferland's employ-
ment and was continuing to cause the Company to refuse to employ him. The
letter continued in relevant part:
As you know, we have not requested nor caused Mr. Ferland's termination
and have not objected to his continued employment with you.
Without conceding the charge or any part thereof, we wish to state in writing
that we have no objection to Mr Ferland's employment by you and am sending
him and the N.L.R.B. a copy of this letter so that they will be on notice that
we do not object to Mr. Ferland's continued employment by you.
On the same day, June 30, the Company sent Ferland a letter by registered mail
advising him that it had received notice of the filing of an unfair labor practice
charge. The letter continued:
* Ferland again, as on the June 24 occasion, went to the Regional Office of the National
Labor Relations Board.
5 Although Ferland worked only an hour or so on this occasion, the evidence adduced at
the hearing indicated that Ferland was entitled to vacation pay for the first week in July
and that he received such payment.
MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. 1003
This company never discharged you. You left of your own volition, how-
ever, in order to clear the atmosphere you may return to the job which you left
on July 17, 1959.
Ferland reported back to work within a day or two after receiving the Company's
June 30 letter. He was put back to work on the duties he had performed prior to
June 24. No further discrimination against him occurred.
C. Respondents' contentions, conclusionary findings
The total picture here presented is not hard to descry. Ferland fell out of favor
with Local 815 because of his activities in behalf of Local 455. Accordingly, Local
815 suspended Ferland from membership. Thereafter Local 815 directed the
Company to cease making contributions for Ferland to the welfare and pension
funds even though under the terms of the 1958 agreement between Local 815 and
the Company such contributions were to be made for each employee in the
bargaining unit without regard to his union membership status. The Company
complied and discontinued making contributions for Ferland. The Company was
also subjected to pressure in the form of work stoppages and threatened work
stoppages to remove Ferland from its employ or otherwise discriminate against
him respecting the terms and conditions of his employment. The principal actor
and spokesman in this phase of the case was Garland Floyd, shop steward for
Local 815. The Company yielded to this pressure also, albeit reluctantly, inasmuch
as, so far as appears, it had no animosity toward Ferland or any objections of its
own to his continued employment.
Respondents' defense, generally speaking, is that no discrimination actually
occurred. With respect to the discontinuance of welfare and pension payments, it
is urged that Ferland continued to enjoy the welfare and pension benefits provided
by virtue of the 1958 agreement even though the Company discontinued making
the requisite payments for him.6 Respondents likewise urge that Ferland was
never discharged or otherwise discriminated against with respect to his tenure of
employment or the other terms and conditions of his employment. As to specific
defenses, the Company urges that such action as it took respecting Ferland was
to avoid the bickering, disruption, and work stoppages which were costly to man-
agement. Local 815, for its part, disclaims responsibility for the action of its shop
steward, Garland Floyd, and for the action of the other employees at the plant.
Its position is that the employees were opposed to Ferland for purely personal
reasons and that so far as Local 815 itself was concerned, it recognized and an-
nounced that Ferland was entitled to undisturbed employment at the Company
notwithstanding the suspension of his Local 815 membership.
The foregoing contentions are dealt with hereunder.
1. The contentions respecting welfare and pension contributions
It is well settled that welfare and pension benefits accorded to employees are part
of their "wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment." Inland
Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 170 F. 2d 247 (C.A. 7), certiorari denied , 336 U.S.
960. Accordingly, to the extent that the Company discriminated against Ferland
with respect to his eligibility for these benefits to encourage or discourage member-
ship in a labor organization, it violated the literal language of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, and to the extent that Local 815 caused or attempted to cause such dis-
crimination, it violated the literal language of Section 8(b)(2). Moreover,
employees confronted with the realization that union membership or lack of it might
result in the loss of valuable welfare and pension benefits are necessarily con-
strained in their freedom of choice respecting such membership. Accordingly, the
Board holds that discrimination of the kind here described also constitutes restraint
and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and 8 (b)(1) (A) of the Act.
See Jandel Furs, etc., 100 NLRB 1390; Local 140, Bedding, Curtain & Drapery
Workers Union, etc., (Cenit Noll Sleep Products, Inc.), 109 NLRB 326.
Respondents do not challenge the legal principles controlling here. Moreover,
undisputed facts establish that Local 815 notified the Company that Ferland had
terminated his Local 815 membership and directed the Company to make no
"remittances for Welfare or Pension, for the employee involved." The Company
promptly complied with this directive. Moreover, Ferland was specifically informed
E At the bearing the complaint, which initially alleged a failure and refusal to provide
coverage for Louis A. Ferland under the welfare and pensions funds, was amended to
allege a failure and refusal to make contributions for that purpose.
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the New York Affiliated Fund, trustee, of the welfare fund under the 1958
agreement, that his membership in Local 815 was terminated and that "pursuant
to the provisions of the policies, please be advised that Policy #W5493 and Policy
#0011 are cancelled." 7 Under these circumstances any suggestion that Ferland's
coverage under the welfare and pension funds was unimpaired and that any legiti-
mate claim he made in that regard would be honored is on its face implausible.
In any event, I find that Local 815 and the Company intended to and did take
action which was designed to deprive Ferland of his welfare and pension fund
coverage.
Accordingly, I find that Local 815 caused the Company to discriminate, and
that the Company did discriminate, against Ferland in respect to welfare and
pension benefits because of the termination of his membership in Local 815. Such
conduct constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the
Company and a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by Local 815.
See authorities cited, supra.
2. The contentions respecting Ferland's discharge on June 24
I find that Ferland was discharged on June 24, 1959. As already set forth,
Ferland was greeted upon his arrival at work that morning by Shop Steward Garland
Floyd who already had a copy of the Local 815 letter to Ferland notifying him
of his suspension. Floyd told Ferland to quit working and also told Foreman
George Novy, to whom he likewise showed the letter, that Ferland was no longer
a union member and that the employees would not work as long as Ferland was
in the shop. A work stoppage ensued. Louis Goldstein, who was fully apprised of
the situation, sought to persuade Shop Steward Floyd to hold matters in abeyance
until the matter could be resolved. Failing in this effort, Goldstein, who apparently
deemed himself bound by the contract with Local 815 and by the Local 815 letter
notifying him of the termination of Ferland's membership and who feared the
grave economic consequences of the work stoppage told Ferland he would have to
"stay off his job a few days" pending further clarification of the issues involved in
the work stoppage. While Goldstein manifestly hoped that Ferland's severance
from the Company's employ would be temporary, it is clear on the basis of his
own testimony that he severed Ferland's employment on June 24. It is clear also
that he did so because of the pressure generated by the work stoppage and that
he had been informed that the work stoppage was attributable to Ferland's suspen-
sion from membership in Local 815. Under the circumstances it is no defense
that the Company harbored no personal resentment against Ferland or that a
refusal to discharge him might entail grave economic consequences flowing from
the work stoppage. Without recapitulating the underlying rationale which has
already been set forth at length in Board and court decisions, it is sufficient to state
that an abridgement of employee rights guaranteed by the Act cannot be justified
on these grounds. As the Board recently had occasion to state in Local 138, Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Nassau and Suffolk Contractors
Association, Inc., etc.), 123 NLRB 1393.
It has long been held that when an employer discharges or otherwise discrimi-
nates against an employee because of pressure exerted by one of two competing
union factions, the Employer is guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) even though it had no antiunion motivation and acted only to protect its
economic interests. [Citing cases.]
Local 815 for its part seeks to evade liability for the June 24 discharge and, in-
deed, for all subsequent changes in Ferland's employment status on the ground
that it was in no way responsible for the work stoppages by the employees or for
any pressure exerted upon the Company to take action with respect to Ferland's
employment status. Preliminarily, Local 815 suggests that the employee opposition
to Ferland's continued employment was not attributed to Local 815's suspension of
his membership but rather to a history of personal disagreements and "arguments"
between Ferland and his fellow employees. The record, however, fails to support
this contention. Indeed, the great weight of the evidence is to the contrary. To
the extent that the Company- takes the position of Local 815 in this regard, the
Company's position is likewise without merit.
The contention more vigorously urged by Local 815 is that it was not responsible
for the actions of Shop Steward Garland Floyd and that its official position through-
7 The letter from the New York Affiliated Fund was signed by George Barasch , who was
also secretary -treasurer of Local 815 and who participated in the executive board hearing
leading to the suspension of Ferland from membership.
MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. 1005
out the Ferland controversy was that Local 815 had no interest in or opposition
to Ferland's continued employment with the Company. Al Spilberg, president of
Local 815, testified that he had told Floyd over the telephone on the morning
of June 24 that Ferland, as an employee of the Company, was entitled to continue
his employment, and that the men were not to refuse to work with him. Similarly,
Herman Plotnick, recording secretary of Local 815, testified that he had been sent
to the plant on the occasion of the second work stoppage early in July and that he
had told the men they were not to walkoff the job because Ferland was working there.
I do not credit the foregoing atestimony of Spilberg and Plotnick. The pre-
ponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing belies any suggestion that Floyd
was acting without authority or contrary to the instructions of Local 815 officials.
Throughout the controversy here involved, Floyd exercised all the authority nor-
mally exercised by a shop steward. In that capacity he took the position that the
men would not work with Ferland because Ferland was not a member of Local 815.
When Goldstein asked that work stoppages be delayed pending clarification of
the issues, Floyd refused. When Goldstein indicated on the occasion of the second
work stoppage that the resumption of Ferland's employment had been straightened
out with Local 815, Floyd promptly replied that he had gotten no such word and
that as far as he was concerned there was no change. Goldstein failed in his efforts
to contact Local 815 officials to get a contrary ruling. I believe it highly unlikely
that Floyd, as shop steward, would have blatantly disregarded instructions from
Local 815 officials if he had received such instructions. On the contrary, I find
in view of all the evidence that Shop Steward Floyd was acting with the express
approval or tacit acquiescence of Local 815.
Even assuming, however, that Floyd was acting contrary to instructions, Local
:815 would not be absolved from responsibility for his actions. Local 815 correctly
points to the fact that Floyd was not appointed to the job of shop steward by Local
815 but was elected to that job by his fellow employees. On the other hand, the
,contract between the Company and Local 815 vested in stewards the right "to
enforce such rules and regulations and to perform such duties during working
-hours as may be required of them by the Union for the welfare of its members."
,Shop stewards were also given superseniority by the contract. In addition, Local 815
conducted much of its business at the Company through its shop steward. Thus,
with specific reference to the Ferland controversy, Ferland received his initial notifi-
cation that he was to appear before the Local 815 executive board hearing from
Garland Floyd. Local 815 also furnished Floyd with a copy of its June 23 letter to
Ferland suspending the latter from membership. Floyd thereupon, as already set
forth exercised his full authority as shop steward to act as the Local 815 spokesman
for the employees. He exercised this authority on June 24 and throughout the
.entire Ferland controversy.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that Spilberg had told Floyd over the telephone
on the morning of June 24 that Local 815 disapproved of any work stoppage, that
information was never conveyed to the Company.8 Indeed, neither the Company
nor Ferland had any basis for assuming any limitation on Floyd's normal authority
:as shop steward. On the contrary, Plotnick told Goldstein, according to Plotnick's
'own testimony, that if any differences or work stoppages arose Goldstein was to take
them up with Garland Floyd as shop steward. Under these circumstances Local 815
cannot avoid liability for Floyd's conduct. On settled principles of agency law a
limitation on the apparent authority of an agent does not immunize the principal
from liability for the agent's actions where that limitation is not disclosed to third
parties. Restatement of Agency, 2d, Sec. 161.9
I find, therefore, that Local 815 was legally responsible for the actions of Floyd
Garland on June 24 and thereafter when acting in his capacity as shop steward with
respect to the Ferland controversy. See also Local 135, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, etc. (Capital Paper Company, etc.), 117 NLRB 635, 643-644; Local
1016, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, et at. (Booher Lumber Co., Inc.), 117
NLRB 1739, 1746.
I find further that with respect to the June 24 work stoppage Local 815 caused
the Company to discriminate, and the Company did discriminate, against Ferland
8 Indeed Ferland and Tipelin testified that on the occasion of their June 24 conference
with Goldstein, the latter said he had been told by Local 815, in a telephone conversation,
to terminate Ferland's employment. Goldstein, however, did not corroborate this testi-
mony and I do not rely on it
8Indeed, it was not until July 30, after notice of the filing of unfair labor practice
charges, that Local 815 notified the Company by letter from President Spilberg that it did
mot object to Ferland's continued employment.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by discharging him because his membership in Local 815 had been terminated.
Thereby the Company violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act and Local 815
violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. 1. P. Florio & Co., Inc., 118
NLRB 753; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local 249, AFL-CIO
(Lancaster Transportation Company), 116 NLRB 399.
3. Remaining contentions
There remain to be considered only the contentions relating to Ferland's employ-
ment history at the Company after June 24, the date of his initial discharge, and
until July 30, when he was offered and in due course accepted employment at the
same job he held prior to June 24.
As already set forth, Ferland following his discharge on June 24 received a letter
from the Company dated June 30 stating that there was an opening for him in the
warehouse. When Ferland reported to work pursuant to that letter, Shop Steward
Floyd made. it-clear that, as far as he was concerned, there was no change and told
Goldstein who sought to intercede in Ferland's behalf that whatever Goldstein had
understood as to the Local 815 position, he, Floyd, had no word from Local 815
as to any change in position. Goldstein told Ferland to go to work anyway but the
men in the warehouse department again engaged in a work stoppage and Foreman
Novy so informed Ferland. Ferland thereupon changed clothes and left the plant.
Unlike the June 24 situation, Ferland was not expressly told by the Company to
leave his job.
Respondents take the position that this was a voluntary quitting. General Counsel,
on the other hand, urges that considered in its total context, including the events
of the preceding week, the work stoppage in the warehouse, and Foreman Novy's
statements to Ferland, the latter was in effect constructively discharged. Under
comparable circumstances the Board has found a constructive discharge. See D. W.
Newton, an individual, d/b/a Newton Brothers Lumber Company, 103 NLRB 564,
567, enfd. 214 F. 2d 472 (C.A. 5); International Union of Operating Engineers,
Little Rock Local 382-382A, AFL-CIO (Armco Drainage & Metal Products, Inc.),
123 NLRB 1833. As the Board said in the Newton case at 567:
The Board and the courts have frequently held that an employer who acquiesces
in the exclusion of employees from its plant by an antiunion or rival union
group will be regarded as having constructively discharged such employees in
violation of Section 8(a) (3), for the reason that the Act imposes an affirmative
duty to insure that its right of discharge is not surrendered to any union or
antiunion group. Moreover, an employer cannot avoid the responsibilities
imposed by the Act on the ground that it had no knowledge of the exclusion
of employees until after the event occurred.. . .
In the instant case Foreman Novy, if not Goldstein himself, was completely
conversant with the situation. Instead of taking steps, however, to assure Ferland
that his rights would be protected, Foreman Novy emphasized to Ferland that his
continuance at work had given rise to a work stoppage in the warehouse Goldstein,
for his part, busied himself largely with other matters until after Ferland's depar-
ture. In view of this apparent acquiescence by the Company in a work stoppage,
the purpose of which was to effect Ferland's removal. Ferland could properly regard
his position as untenable. I find, therefore, that Ferland was constructively dis-
charged on this occasion. I find further that by their conduct in th;s regard the
Company and Local 815, respectively, further violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) and
8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the act io
The unlawful character of the assignment of Ferland to "yard" work on July 18
and 14 calls for little documentation. Goldstein admitted that he assigned Ferland
to "outside work" to avoid friction and another work stoppage which would result
if Ferland were restored to his normal duties. The soundness of Goldstein's fears
was quickly revealed when Ferland because of heavy rain was detailed temporarily
to an "inside" job. Shop Steward Floyd then made it clear that pursuant to his
instructions from Local 815, Ferland could not work inside the plant. Accordingly,
Goldstein told Ferland there was nothing left for him to do. The Board has held
in El Diario Publishing Co., 114 NLRB 965, that an assignment to a different job,
even where no loss of pay or additional hardship is involved, is discriminatory within
10 The validity of these findings is not impaired by the fact, already noted, that the
Company later gave Ferland vacation pay for .the period here involved. Such payment
bears only on the amount that would be required to make Ferland whole for loss of earn-
ings suffered by him as a result of Respondents' unfair labor practices, a matter properly
left for subsequent negotiations or proceedings relating to compliance.
MONTAUK IRON & STEEL CORP. 1007
the meaning of the Act if the assignment is made to encourage or discourage union
membership. Here, it is clear that the Company assigned Ferland to "yard" work
only because of Local 815 pressure and, when weather conditions made "yard"
work impractical , told Ferland there was nothing left for him to do . I find that by
this conduct the Company and Local 815 further violated the Sections of the Act
heretofore cited.ii
In sum, I find upon the entire record that the allegations of the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, have been sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Company and Local 815, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company , described in
section I, above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States sand tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Pursuant to the mandate of Section 1,0(c) of the Act, I shall recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from the labor practices found.
The circumstances of this case, however, call for a modification in the affirmative
remedy which would otherwise be appropriate here. Thus, Local 815 notified the
Company and Ferland in writing on July 30, 1959, that it had no objection to Fer-
land's continued employment with the Company and the Company thereupon rein-
stated Ferland to his former job. It is undisputed that Ferland has not been dis-
criminated against since his reinstatement . Accordingly , an affirmative order re-
quiring Local 815 to withdraw its objections to Ferland's employment and requir-
ing the Company to reinstate Ferland would be superfluous and would serve no
useful purpose not already served by the cease-and-desist order. However, it does
not appear that Ferland has been made whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him . Accordingly, having found that
the Company and Local 815 were both responsible for that discrimination, I will
recommend that the Company and Local 815, jointly and severally, make Ferland
whole for such loss of pay by payment to him of the sum of money he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of the initial discrimination against him
on June 24, 1959, until his reinstatement to his former job following the July 30
letter of the Company and Local 815, less his net earnings during that period. The
loss of earnings will be computed in accordance with the quarterly formula set
forth by the Board in F. W. Woollviorth Company, 90 NLRB 289. The Company
will also be directed to make available to the Board upon request payroll and other
appropriate records in its possession to facilitate determination of the amount due.
It also does not appear that Local 815 and the Company have rectified whatever
prejudice may have resulted to Ferland by the discriminatory withholding of con-
tributions in his behalf to the welfare and pension funds. Accordingly, it will be
directed that the Company resume such contributions, that Local 815 notify the
Company and the New York Affiliated Fund that it withdraws all objections to the
participation of Ferland to the benefits of said Fund, and that the Company and
Local 815 take all necessary steps within their control to effectuate the restoration
of any rights of Ferland in the welfare and pension funds of which he may have
been discriminatorily deprived.
In my view the remedial action already undertaken by the Company and Local
815 argues against the necessity of a broad cease-and -desist order herein . Accord-
ingly, I shall recommend only that the Company and Local 815 cease and desist
from engaging in the unfair labor practices found and from like or related unfair
labor practices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record of the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Montauk Iron & Steel Corporation is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11 As already noted an attempt on July 20 by Ferland to return to work for the Company
was rebuffed by Foreman George Novy . On July 30, 1959, after the Company and Local
815 were respectively notified of the filing of unfair labor practice charges, they per-
mitted Ferland to resume his former employment and no unlawful discrimination occurred
thereafter
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , Independent , is a labor organization within the meaning of
.Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, terms, and conditions of employ-
ment of Louis A. Ferland to encourage or discourage membership in a labor
organization, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By causing the Company to discriminate against Ferland in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, Local 815 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing Louis A. Ferland in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, Local 815 has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (AO) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
,[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
,Star-Brite Industries , Inc. and Aluminum Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-1454. June 3, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 12, 1959, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case. We find merit in the ex-
ceptions and accordingly adopt the findings and conclusions of the
Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent with our decision
herein.
The essential facts are as follows :
On January 2, 1958, the Respondent began operation of its alu-
minum furniture manufacturing plant in Benton, Kentucky. During
the following month, the Union started an organizing campaign
among the Respondent's employees. Active in this campaign on be-
half of the Union were employees Joe Pat Hill and James Thompson.
Shortly after the campaign began, a number of employees told the
Respondent's plant manager, Archie Guess, of visits to their homes
by union organizers, and these employees asked Guess if these visits
had been caused by the Respondent. In order to explain the Re-
.spondent's position, Guess held group employee meetings in his office.
He informed each group, in substance, that the Respondent had not
sent the union organizers to them, that he had nothing to say either
for or against the Union, and that the employees could join the Union
127 NLRB No. 131.