Revere Copper and Brass Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1939

16 N.L.R.B. 437 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL #303
Case No. C-1046.Decided October 05, 1939
Copper Sheets, Bars, Tubes and Rods Manufacturing Industry-Interference,
Restraint, and Coercion: allegations in complaint alleging that- respondent has
discouraged membership in the United by threatening to lay off or discharge
members and by threatening to cut down amount of wages and work given
members, dismissed-Company-Dominated Union: formation and domination
of and support of; allowing use of meeting hall without collecting rent as
provided in leasing agreement and turning over profits of candy-vending
machines; continued domination by provisions in contract. which obstructed
change in form of organization ; union . organized at respondent's suggestion ;
disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Contract: recognizing com-
pany-dominated union as exclusive bargaining representative; respondent
ordered to cease giving effect to.
Mr. Edward D. Flaherty, for the Board.
Mr. Seth Evans, of Rome, N. Y., for the respondent.
Mr. Joseph A. Page, of Rome, N. Y., and Mr. John F. Cusack, of
Chicago, Ill, for the Intervenor.
Miss Carol Agger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND '
ORDER
STATEMENT OF -THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been duly filed by United
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local #303, here-
in called the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by Henry J. Winters, Regional ,Director for the
Third Region (Buffalo, New York) issued and duly served its com-
plaint dated June 28, 1938, against Revere Copper and Brass In-
corporated, Rome, New York, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
16 N. L. R. B., No. 44.
437
438 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL.,LABOR.RELAT,IONS BOARD,
The complaint alleged in substance that during the months of
April, May, and June, 1937, and thereafter up to the date of the
filing of the complaint, the respondent by various acts and means,
fostered, encouraged, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the
formation, enlistment of members, and administration, of a labor
organization of its employees, known as the Revere Copper and Brass
Independent Employees Union, Rome Division, herein called the
Intervenor, and contributed financial and other support thereto;
and that the respondent has, since on or about April 18, 1937, and
at. various 'times thereafter, .by.the :,aforesaid., acts... and,. means,- and,
by threatening to lay off or discharge members of the United and
by threatening to cut down the amount of wages and the amount
of work given members of the United, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees' in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
On July l,'1938, the Intervenor filed a petition to intervene is the
proceedings, which petition was granted by the Regional Director.
Thereafter, the respondent and the Intervenor filed answers to the
complaint. The respondent in its answer admitted certain allega-
tions concerning its business, denied that it had committed any of
the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, averred that if
any election of officers or representatives of the Intervenor was held
on the respondent's property during working hours, it was without
the permission, knowledge, or consent of the respondent, and peti-
tioned that the complaint be dismissed. The Intervenor in its answer
denied those portions of the complaint which alleged that the re-
spondent-bad fostered, encouraged, -sponsored, dominated, and in-
terfered with the formation, enlistment of members, and administra-
tion of the Intervenor and had contributed financial and other sup-
port thereto, and petitioned that the complaint be dismissed.
Pursuant to notices of hearing a hearing was held at Rome, New
York, on July 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15,.1938, before Webster Powell, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
respondent,'. 'and the Intervenor were represented by counsel and
participated;- in the . hearing. Full. opportunity to be heard, to ex
amine 'a'rid cross-exainilie witnesses, • and introduce evidence' bearing
on the issues was afforded all parties.-
-During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions, on requests for the issuance of subpenas,l and
on objections to the achliission of evidence. At the conclusion of the
'1 The Intervenor contends in its brief filed in support of its Exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report that it was denied it fair hearing before the Trial Examiner by reason of his,
refusal to issue a .autbpgna daces teorun directing the United to produce all books of
record , membership records, books of account , financial records , minute books , constitution
and bylaws, and correspondence filed by the United, with it record of the payment of initia-
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 439
hearing the complaint was amended to conform to the proof. At
the conclusion of the hearing the respondent and the Intervenor
moved that the complaint be dismissed. The Trial Examiner denied
the motions in his Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby, affirmed.
On November 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report. He found 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 Act, and recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action to remedy the situation brought about by
the unfair labor practices. Thereafter the respondent and the In-
tervenor filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in
support of the exceptions.
On January 16, 1939, the Intervenor filed with the Board a peti-
tion alleging that at the time of the hearing certain vital exhibits
were mislaid and could not be found by the attorneys for the Inter-
venor despite a diligent search; that these exhibits contained infor-
mation regarding certain payments by the Intervenor to depart-
mental representatives for time expended in attending certain
meetings; that the exhibits had been discovered; and requesting that
the Intervenor be given leave to offer the exhibits in evidence. On
January 16, 1939, the Board issued an order reopening the case.
On February 10, 1939, the Board's Regional Attorney filed a peti-
tion with the Board requesting that the case be reopened for the
.presentation of certain newly discovered evidence. On the same
day, the Board issued an amendment to the order reopening the
case and on February 14, 1939, the Board issued a supplemental
order reopening the case. Upon notice duly given, a supplemental
hearing was held on'February 16, 1939, in Rome, New York, before
Webster Powell, the Trial Examiner duly designated,by the Board.
The Board, the respondent, and the' Intervenor were represented
by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties; During the course of the supplemental hear-
ing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and objec-
tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
tion fees and dues , and copies of any contracts or correspondence between the United and
the respondent . The Intervenor does not state , either in its application for subpena or
elsewhere in the record , any reason why these documents were required or the manner in
which it was prejudiced by the Trial Examiner 's ruling, nor is any prejudice apparent to us.
24 7383-40-vol. 16--29
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 11, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental
Intermediate Report reaffirming the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations contained in his Intermediate Report, and making
certain supplemental findings with respect to the payment of em-
ployees by the respondent for time spent in attending certain meet-
ings of the Intervenor. On April 21, 1939, the respondent and
the Intervenor filed their exceptions to the Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report and on May 20, 1939, they filed supplemental briefs
in support of the exceptions.
Oral argument was held before the Board on July 20, 1939, follow-
ing notice duly served upon all parties. The respondent and the
Independent participated in the oral argument, but the United did
not appear.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and the Supplemental Intermediate Report, together with
the briefs in support of the exceptions, and finds that, except so
far as they are consistent with our findings and conclusions below,
the exceptions are without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Revere Copper and Brass Incorporated, is a corporation organ-
ized under the laws of the State of Maryland, with, its principal
offices in New York, New York. The respondent operates manu-
facturing plants in Chicago, Illinois, Detroit, Michigan, Baltimore,
Maryland, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Rome, New York.
Only the Rome, New York, plant, known as the Rome Division,
is here involved. In addition to these manufacturing plants, the
respondent maintains sales offices in the principal cities of the
United States.
At its various manufacturing plants, the respondent engages in
the manufacture of copper sheets, rods, bars, and tubes. The gen-
eral nature of the processes performed on the raw materials, con-
sisting of copper, alloys of copper and other metals, is casting,
rolling, drawing or extrusion and other processes incidental to the
general methods of manufacture.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent at the Rome
Division are copper, zinc, nickel, tin, and lead. The respondent
causes these and other materials used by it in the manufacture of
copper and brass products to be purchased and transported in inter-
state commerce, from and through States other than the State of
New York to the Rome Division. During the year 1937 the re-
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 441
spondent purchased raw materials valued at $10,009,433 for use at
the Rome Division, of which 75 per cent was shipped to Rome via
the Barge Canal, rail, freight, and trucks. During the same year
49.4 per cent of the finished products manufactured at the Rome
Division was shipped to points outside the State of New York via
rail, rail and boat, trucks, parcel post, and express.
The average number of employees employed at the Rome Division
during 1937 was 2,623, these employees being grouped in the follow-
ing classifications: supervisory and clerical, 360; maintenance, 309;
production, 1,941; outside salesmen, 13.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
#303 is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization. It admits to membership production and
maintenance employees, except those in supervisory positions, em-
ployed in metal industries in the city of Rome.
Revere Copper and Brass Independent Employees Union, Rome
Division, is a labor organization unaffiliated with any other labor
organization. It admits to membership the respondent's employees
in the Rome Division who have been so employed for 30 days and
who do not have disciplinary powers or the authority to hire or
discharge and who are not members of any other employees' union,
association, or group.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference with, domination, and support of the Intervenor
1. Chronological statement of events
In 1920 the Rome Brass and Copper Company, the respondent's
predecessor, organized a plan of employee representation known
as the Brass and Copper Industrial Council, herein called the Coun-
cil. When the respondent bought the plant in Rome in 1928, it
continued the operation of the Council. The Council's charter, pro-
vided for an "advisory legislative body" made up of equal numbers
of elected employee representatives and appointed employer repre-
sentatives. Employee representatives were elected from the elec-
toral divisions into which the plant was divided. Non-supervisory
factory employees who had been on the pay roll for 1 month were
entitled to vote in elections of representatives. The charter required
that to be eligible as a representative, a person must have been an
employee of the respondent for a year, 21 years of age, able to read
and write English, and a citizen of the United States. The Council
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was granted the power to investigate, advise, and confer with the
management, and to pass "legislation" referring to Wages, hours,
working conditions, and other matters of mutual concern. Meas-
ures passed by the Council were not effective until approved by
the respondent's president. In the event of a deadlock between
the Council and the president, the charter provided that arbitration
could be resorted to by the Council. Since half the members of
the Council were management representatives, the Council could
not proceed to arbitration without the consent of at least one man-
agement representative. The charter could be amended by a two-
thirds vote of the Council and with the approval of the manage-
ment. It made no provision for general membership meetings.
On June 28, 1935,.a revised charter was issued by the respondent 2
which made two material alterations in the original plan : The pro-
visions for employer representation in the Council and for manage-
ment approval of amendments to the charter were deleted. The
revised charter governed the employer-employee relationship in the
respondent's plant at Rome until some time in 1937.3
Although by the charter revision of June 1935, the respondent
removed two methods of control from the plan of operation, never-
theless the respondent could still exercise control over the Council.
The respondent by discharging an employee could prevent him from
:acting as, a representative since. all representatives were reduired to
be employees. Nor were other changes made in the charter which
would have been necessary to an independent existence. No dues
were provided for, and the respondent continued to supply meeting
space and necessary services to the Council. The respondent also
paid the employee representatives for the time lost from work by
reason of their attendance of Council meetings. It is apparent from
the foregoing, and we find, that the Council was originally organized
by the respondent's predecessor, that it was reorganized by the re-
.spondent, that at all times after 1928 it remained subject to the
respondent's domination and control, and that the respondent inter-
fered with, dominated, and -contributed support to the formation
and administration.
"The record does not fully disclose the procedure followed in revising the charter.' How-
ever , it appears that the action was taken upon the initiative of the management and we
so find . Works Manager Richmond testified that the charter was amended because, "It
was felt that under' the old set-up, . although the men were free to talk at the meetings
where equal representation was present , that possibly the men did not talk as freely as
they would like to . . Counsel for the respondent then asked :
Q. Wasn't it also due to the fact that the company believed it 'would be more in
keeping with the Wagner Act, which had recently been passed?
A. Yes, that is right.
3' The date when'the council fell into disuse is a matter of dispute and is discussed below.
REVERE COPPER AND'BRASS INCORPORATED 443
On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court of the United States decided
the Jones d Laughlin case 4 upholding the constitutionality of the
Act as applied to certain manufacturing enterprises. Works Man-
ager Richmond testified that after this decision was handed down
he was notified by the respondent's New York office that the re-
spondent could no longer participate in the activities of the Council
as it then existed and that he, therefore, called a meeting of the
employee representatives on May 17, 1937. According to his own
testimony, Richmond notified the representatives that the respondent
could no longer operate under the Council as it then existed. The
minutes of this meeting 5 read in part as follows :
Mr. Richmond announced that certain changes would have to
be made in the Council; that most of the men knew, from reading
the papers, that this change is caused by recent laws enacted in
Washington.
The first change would be that Mr. Bow would no longer act
as Assistant Secretary.
Second : No official of the company can attend meetings except
on special invitations ...
Third : The company cannot supply stenographic services,
paper, or anything of this nature.
Fourth : The company can no longer pay employees for the
time they are attending meetings, unless a meeting is called on
request of the company to make some announcement to the men.
Fifth : The company will have to make a charge for the room
,in which meetings are held. We also may have to make a small
charge for the space occupied by the vending machines 6 thruout
the mill, as the profits from these machines go to the men.
Sixth : As you have no money at present to operate on, we
will turn over to the Treasurer of the Council the money that
is now being held, which represents the profits from the vending
machines, and hereafter, instead of Mr. Beasley, Mr. Phillips
and myself acting as trustees for this money, it will be turned
over to your Treasurer monthly.
If, at any time, you want me, I will always be available to
attend any meeting where my presence is desired and, as in the
past, will be glad to do anything for you within my power .. .
The respondent contends and some witnesses testified that in addi-
tion to the remarks noted in the minutes, Richmond stated among
other things that the Council was disbanded or would have to be
0
* National Labor Relations Board V. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1.
5 Richmond testified at the hearing that the minutes were substantially correct.
8 These are machines placed around the mill for the stile of candy, salted peanuts, and
the like.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disbanded. Richmond testified that he thought he made no state-
ments other than those appearing in the minutes. That the re-
spondent did not then propose that the Council be disbanded, or
believe, as it now contends, that the Council was disbanded on May
17, is shown by the fact that on May 22, 1937, it entered into a leasing
agreement with the Council for meeting space and space for "the.
use and occupancy of vending machine units of the Council." 7 Fur-
thermore, we are of the opinion that the minutes provide a more
reliable version of the meeting than testimony of witnesses based
upon their recollection of events occurring more than a year before.
We find, therefore, that the minutes state the substance of what
Richmond said at the meeting.
At the conclusion of his talk, Richmond left the Council meeting.
The representatives then discussed the formation of a new organiza-
tion and appointed a committee of three 8 of their number to consider
the future course of action. This committee held one or two meet-
ings within a few days of its appointment, made no progress, and
never met again. I
Within a week of the May 17, 1937, meeting with Richmond, a
new committee, herein called the committee of five, was organized
to take the initiative in the formation of a new organization.9 The
only evidence as to just how the committee of five was organized
is found in the testimony of Lamphier 10 He testified that within
a week of May 17, 1937, the individuals who had been representatives
in the Council had a meeting in a part of the respondent's property
known as the Riverdale Clubhouse. Those present at the meeting
decided that the five council members named above should constitute
` the organizing committee for a new organization. In the absence
of other evidence concerning the formation of the committee of five,
we accept Lamphier's testimony and find that the committee was
organized as stated above.
By June 8, 1937, Mead, one of the committee of five, had had red,
white, and blue cards printed which read in part as follows :
INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF REVERE COPPER
AND BRASS INCORPORATED
I agree to join the Independent Employees Association which
is being formed by the Committee whose names appear below.
The names listed were those of the committee of five. These cards
were passed out to the employees by the committee of five and by
7 This leasing agreement is discussed below under the heading of "financial assistance
.to the Intervenor."
'The committee consisted of Sherman Taylor , Anderson , and De Matteo.
O The committee of five was made up of Spado , Mead , Natali, Lamphier , and Anderson.
11 Sometimes referred to in the record as Lamphear.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 445
other Council representatives. The Intervenor contends that the
cards were passed out only by the committee members, but there is
evidence that Thomas Sherman, De Matteo, Miraballi, Murphy, and
Sherman Taylor, all Council representatives, also passed out the
cards. We find that the committee was assisted in procuring signa-
tures to the cards by at least some of the Council representatives.
While there is evidence that a number of signatures were procured
upon the respondent's premises during working hours, the record
contains no substantial evidence that these activities were observed
by supervisory officials. The record does not disclose the number
of employees who signed the card but it appears that a large number
of signatures was obtained.
No "Independent Employees Association of Revere Copper and
Brass Incorporated" was ever in fact formed. The Intervenor con-
tends that the purpose of the card was to test the sentiment of the
employees to determine whether a sufficient number was interested
in the formation of an independent labor organization, and that no
organization of that name was contemplated. This contention is
not in harmony with the appearance or wording of the card which
on its face appears to be an application to or an agreement to join
a particular organization then being formed by a committee. How-
ever, we make no finding on the matter.
The Intervenor states in its brief in support of exceptions to the
record and Intermediate Report that "on or about June 10, 1937,
William Anderson [a member of the committee of five] went to
Attorney Joseph A. Page [one of the attorneys representing the
intervenor in these proceedings] and retained him for legal services
in connection with the organization of such an independent group.
Anderson told Page that a committee would wait on him within a
few days thereafter, to make all necessary arrangements, and dur-
ing the following week met with him two or three times, in his
office." The record, however, contains no evidence concerning the
retention of Page by the committee or any conferences between him
and Anderson. The record does show that on or about June 19,
1937, a group of 21 men conferred with Page. Taylor, one of the
men present testified that all these men had been Council representa-
tives. The Intervenor urges that those present at Page's office were
never identified as representatives of the Council and that they were
departmental representatives picked by the organizing committee
throughout the plant. There is no evidence in the record to support
this contention. Taylor's testimony is the only evidence on the point
in the record and we find that the persons attending the meeting
were Council representatives.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Apparently, as the Trial Examiner found, measures to be taken
in connection with the formation of an independent labor organiza-
tion were discussed with Page. Thereafter, on June 24, 1937, Mead
had another set of cards printed. The cards were applications for
membership in Revere Copper and Brass Independent Employees
Union, the Intervenor. The record does not disclose how, when, or
by whom the name was chosen. However, since the committee of
five was the organizing force behind the Intervenor, it is probable
that the name was chosen by the committee. Signatures to the ap-
plications were procured by the committee members, with the assist-
ance of some persons who had been Council representatives in much
the same way as signatures were obtained upon the first set of cards.
Although a number of those soliciting signatures deny that they
ever did so during working hours the record discloses that at least
some signatures were obtained on the respondent's property during
working hours," and we so find.
While there is no evidence that the supervisory staff generally
knew that the solicitation was going on during working hours, one
incident occurred in which a foreman lent his assistance to Mead
who was procuring signatures to the application cards in his de-
partment. Ewanyk, an employee, testified that he observed Mead
come into his department and stand at Foreman O'Brien's desk for
awhile talking. Mead carried a stack of application cards. After
some discussion with Mead, O'Brien approached Ewanyk and said,
"Go ahead, he wants you to sign [up for] the union." Ewanyk
proceeded to the desk where Mead asked him to join the Intervenor.
Ewanyk protested that the Intervenor was a "company union" and
Mead explained that it was not. O'Brien stood at the desk during
the conversation which, according to Ewanyk, made him "a little
afraid." Ewanyk said he would think it over and subsequently did
join. After Ewanyk's conversation with Mead, the other employees
in the department went up to the desk, one by one, and talked to
Mead. O'Brien did not testify. Mead's testimony on the point
was as follows :
Q. Did you ever sign anyone up in his [O'Brien's] department?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you ever at his desk in his department?
A. No sir.
Q. Never?
A. No business beyond when I delivered tools.
"The record also contains evidence that some months later persons interested in the
United solicited membership in the plant during working hours.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 447
Q. Were- you there during lunch hour signing anybody up?
A. Yes.
Q. How long were you at the desk?
A. A very few minutes.
We find that Ewanyk's version of the incident is substantially cor-
rect although he may have overstated the time spent by Mead in
signing up the men.
The respondent objects that Ewanyk's testimony does not show
that he joined the Intervenor as a result of the interference or coer-
cion of any supervisory official, (1) because Ewanyk did not join
the Intervenor for several months thereafter and (2) because he
testified that O'Brien did not tell him that he must join the Inter-
venor and that no supervisory official told him that he, must join the
Intervenor to keep his job. We cannot subscribe to this view of the
incident. O'Brien's cooperation in getting cards signed by send-
ing the men up to his desk for an interview obviated any necessity
of telling any of them that they must join; he had sufficiently indi-
cated his desires in the matter. Ewanyk did not forget the incident
for he testified that when he did join the Intervenor some months
later he did so to "protect" his job, although, as the respondent
points out, no one had told him that he must join the Intervenor to
protect his job. Ewanyk drew a reasonable inference from
O'Brien's acts and we do not feel that the fact that he did not act
immediately upon the inference negates our conclusion that Ewanyk
was influenced by his foreman to join the Intervenor by the coercion
implicit in the foreman's acts, and- we so find. Independently of
our conclusion that Ewanyk was coerced by O'Brien's acts, we can-
not accept the contention that an unsuccessful attempt to interfere
with the freedom of Ewanyk and of other employees in the depart-
ment in their choice of a labor organization does not constitute a
violation of the Act.
On June 26, 1937, a mass meeting of employees was held by the
committee of five. The second application cards, referred to above,
were passed out at that meeting and a substantial number were
signed at that time. The Intervenor's constitution and bylaws,
which had already been prepared, were presented to and accepted
by those in attendance at the meeting. The constitution so adopted
bears a general resemblance to the Council's charter in the type of
organization contemplated although a number of the details are
dissimilar. Both documents limit membership to those of the re-
spondent's employees who have been on the pay roll for 30 days;
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provide for an employee's representation plan and for the election
of departmental representatives; and make similar eligibility re-
quirements of age, citizenship, and employment service with the
respondent for employee representatives.12
The departmental representatives make up the Board of Repre-
sentatives in which the constitution vests all "powers of this Union
and full and complete authority to act in all matters, except such
powers and authority as are herein reserved to the members and
herein delegated to and vested in the officers." Generally, the Board
of Representatives is the governing body of the organization.
Among other powers vested in the Board of Representatives is that
of deciding by a majority vote whether or not to submit to the mem-
bership the question of whether a strike should be called. The
constitution provides that if two-thirds of all the members voting,
which must be at least a majority of all members in good standing,
vote to authorize the Board of Representatives to call a strike, the
question shall be again submitted to the Board of Representatives;
and that the Board of Representatives may, at any time thereafter,
call a strike by the vote of the majority of the Board of Represen-
tatives.
The constitution makes no provision for regular 'membership
meetings except an annual meeting, but provides that such meetings
may be called as determined by the Board of Representatives or on
the petition of 50 members. The Board of Representatives is also
authorized to appoint committees and assign duties to them. Dues
of 25 cents a month for the first year and thereafter 25 cents every
3 months are also provided.
The constitution further provides for the maintenance of member-
ship in the Intervenor by employees. discharged "without just cause"
until the Board of Representatives has investigated and determined
his status and determined what action is to be taken. The Council's
charter made no such provision for continuing membership.
On July 24, 1937, a general membership meeting was held for the
election of officers of the Intervenor. Edwin Hamilton was elected
to the Intervenor's presidency. On July 26, 1937, Hamilton went to
see Works Manager Richmond and they discussed the possibility of
an agreement between the respondent and the Intervenor. Rich-
mond, who testified that he had been advised by a member of the
committee of five, even prior to the organizational meeting on June
26, 1937, that an independent union had been or was being organized,
obviously anticipated Hamilton's visit. He gave Hamilton a copy
is The Council's charter required representatives to have been employees for 1 year. The
Intervenor's constitution, a typewritten copy of which was introduced as an exhibit at the
hearing, provides for a 3-year employment period. The words "(1 year)" are written in
pen and ink in the margin adjacent to this provision. The change, if ever made , is not,
explained.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 449
of a proposed agreement he had prepared and told Hamilton that he,
Richmond, would have to be sure that the Intervenor represented a
majority of the employees before he would enter into a contract.
The proposed contract provided for the recognition of the "Inde-
pendent Employees' Union" as the exclusive bargaining agent of
hourly rated employees with certain specified exceptions not here
material and included provisions relating to hours of work, rates of
pay, overtime, seniority, and vacations. The proposed contract fur-
ther provides that "Department representatives will be selected by
union members working in the department which the department
representative represents"; "that no one shall be selected to the posi-
tion of department representative unless he has been continuously in
the Division [respondent's] employment for at least three (3) years";
and that "the grievance committee shall be composed of not more
than five (5) employees who have been continuously in the Division
employment for at least - years . . "
Between August 1 and 5, 1937, the election of departmental
employee representatives was held in the plant. Ballots were passed
out to the employees in the various departments in the plant either
at noon or as they punched their time cards in on their way to work.
It is denied by none of the parties that they were given out on the
respondent's property. There is considerable conflict in the evidence
as to whether some of them were given out during working hours
and this does not appear to have been the general practice. Ballot
boxes were placed under the time-clocks in the several departments
and although Hamilton testified that all departments were instructed
to hold the election at noon, it appears that in some departments the
men placed their ballots in the boxes on their way out at the end of
the shift. The foreman habitually stood at the time-clocks as the
men punched in and out. In one department the ballot box was
locked in Superintendent Tietz's office over night until it could be
collected in the morning. A second election of representatives was
held in February 1938, in about the same manner. Richmond testi-
fied that any elections of representatives held in the plant were held
without his permission and that had his permission been sought, he
would have refused it. However, it is apparent that. the foremen
knew that the elections were going on and while there was no express
permission granted to the Intervenor to hold the elections in the
manner described above, no objection, was made.
On August 5, 1937, the newly elected representatives met and dis-
cussed the provisions of the proposed contract which had been sub-
mitted. On the following day, Hamilton presented to Richmond a
petition asking recognition of the Intervenor as the sole bargaining
agent and claiming to represent 90 per cent of the employees. On
the same day Mead, together with Beasley, the respondent's per-
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sonnel director, checked application cards against the names and sig-
natures of the hourly rated employees on the pay roll. The check
disclosed that 61 per cent of the hourly rated employees on the pay
roll or 77 per cent of the employees who were actually working that
day had signed membership applications.
On August 10, 1937, a second meeting of the representatives was
held-to discuss the proposed contract. The Intervenor contends that
Richmond was present at this meeting. The minutes do not disclose
that Richmond was there, Richmond himself could not remember,
and there is considerable conflict in the testimony of those who testi-
fied concerning the meeting. The Trial Examiner found that Rich-
mond was not present. In view of our conclusions below Ave find it
unnecessary to make any finding concerning the correctness of his
determination.
On August 12, 1937, Richmond wrote a letter to the Intervenor
recognizing it as the sole bargaining agent. Thereafter, Richmond
received from the Intervenor. a written counterproposal in the form
of a contract. Among, the suggestions made by the Intervenor in
its counterproposal was one for higher hourly minimum rates than
those provided in the respondent's original July 26th draft of a
proposed contract. On August 16, 1937, Richmond met with the
representatives to discuss the Intervenor's counterproposal. The
discussion' at the meeting centered upon the wage question and the
representatives ultimately decided to accept the rates contained in
the respondent's original proposal. Other meetings were held to
discuss the various provisions of the contract but the record does
not disclose the dates upon which they were held. By August 21,
1937,: the, respondent and the Intervenor had come to an agreement
upon the terms of the contract and it was signed. On the same day
the respondent and the Intervenor executed a leasing agreement for
meeting space and vending-machine space, identical with the lease of
May 22, 1937, between the respondent and the Council referred to
above. _
The record discloses no further activities on the part of the Inter-
venor, with the exception of an employees' picnic given in August
1937, from the date of the execution of the contract until the early
months of 1938 when the Intervenor held an election to determine
whether the respondent should be allowed to initiate certain wage de-
creases. In February 1938 a charter was issued to the United 18
18 Louis Torre, organizer for the United, testified that this was the date of the issuance
of the charter. On March 11, 1939, the attorneys for the respondent, the Intervenor, and
the Board entered into a stipulation that a charter was issued to the United "as of
February 25, 1937." In view of Torre's testimony and in view of the fact that the record
discloses no United activity in the plant until the spring of 1938, we are of the opinion
that the stipulation may contain a typographical error and that 1938 rather than 1937
may have been meant. In any event the date of the issuance of the charter is not impor-
tant , the record being clear that no substantial organizational activity took place until
after the beginning of 1938.
REVERE COPPER AND BRAS'S' INCORPORATED 451.
There is evidence that persons interested in the United occasionally
solicited membership on the respondent's property during working
hours. There is no evidence that this solicitation was observed by the
respondent's supervisory officials. The United posted its literature on
the respondent''s bulletin boards from time to time. It was and has
been the practice of the Intervenor to make a similar use of the re-
spondent's bulletin boards. The respondent apparently took no
action concerning the use of the boards although Richmond testified
that neither he nor any supervisory employee had consented,to the use
of the bulletin boards by either labor organization 14
2. Conclusions
Domination of and interference with the formation and
administration of the Intervenor
We have found above that on May 17, 1937, Richmond told the
Council representatives that certain changes would have to be made
in the Council and stated that the accumulated profits from the.
vending machines would be turned over to the Council to enable it
to continue to operate.-' The first change which Richmond said was
necessary was that Bow could no longer act as assistant secretary of
the Council. Bow. was the respondent's treasurer. The second
change was that no official of the respondent could attend meetings
except on special invitation. The necessity of such a change is not
apparent unless the respondent's officials had been accustomed to
attend without invitation.16 Richmond also said that the respondent
could no longer supply stenographic services or paper or pay the
employees for time spent in meetings. Richmond's statement in-
formed the Council representatives that the respondent desired and
expected the Council, or an organization similar in its general outline
to the Council, to continue in existence. The statement also informed
the Council representatives as to the specific practices which would
have to be discontinued. While certain support and financial assist-
ance were to be withdrawn, Richmond told the Council representives
.
14 The respondent also allowed employees to leave their work to carry on the Intervenor's
business . Natali , one of the representatives , sometimes left his work for 2 hours at a
time to post notices about the plant or to notify other representatives of meetings. Rep-
resentatives were also allowed to leave their work to attend meetings . With certain
exceptions noted below , the respondent did not pay the employees for the time lost while
they were away from their duties . They were paid for this time by the Intervenor. There
is no evidence that United members took time off in the same manner or that they ever
requested the privilege of doing so.
16 The accumulated profits from the vending machines were not In fact turned over to
the Council . Their ultimate disposition is discussed below under the heading of "Financial
assistance to the Intervenor."
10 It is noted that this change was said to have been made In 1935 when the Council's
revised charter , which abolished management representatives , was issued . It appears,
therefore , that the change was made only in the charter and not in the practice.
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the respondent would turn over the accrued and future profits
of the vending machines to the Council or to a similar type of organ-
ization. Further indication of the respondent's wishes and assurance
of further support if such wishes were observed, was given to the
Council representatives by the execution, on May 22, 1937, of a leasing
agreement with the Council for a meeting place and for space for
the vending machines. 17
The respondent having made clear to the representatives, who had
been elected under a plan interfered with, dominated, and supported
by the respondent for many years, that it desired the Council or a
similar type of organization in the plant, gave the employees as a
whole no notice that they were free to change the form of representa-
tion which the respondent had initiated and maintained over a long
period of time. They were not informed that the respondent in-
tended to abide by the Act's which it had been disregarding for
almost 2 years in its activities with respect to the Council. The em-
ployees generally were not even informed that the respondent in-
tended to terminate those particular forms of domination of,
interference with, and support of the Council, mentioned by Rich-
mond at the May 17 meeting. We are of the opinion that the re-
spondent made no such announcement to its employees because it
expected and desired an organization like the Council to continue
and had taken steps to insure such a result.
That the respondent desired that the Council representatives form
an organization similar to the Council and sought to encourage the
formation of such an organization, is further demonstrated by Rich-
mond's willingness in June 1937, to enter into preliminary negotia-
tions with the Intervenor concerning a contract before any proof of
majority was made or offered.
We find that the Intervenor was organized by Council representa-
tives who had been elected under a plan interfered with, dominated,
and supported by the respondent, at the instance of the respondent,
with the promise of the respondent's support, and that the respondent
furthered the organization of the Intervenor by refraining from
giving notice to the employees as a whole that the respondent con-
templated any change in its policy of disregard of the Act by ceasing
17 The nominal character of the charges provided for in the lease is discussed below
under the heading of "Financial assistance to the Intervenor."
19 The respondent introduced into the record a letter dated June 18, 1937, which was
sent from its New York office to the managers of its various plants. Richmond received
such a letter. The letter instructed the managers as to their conduct in dealing with
employees and their representatives, informed them that the respondent intended to abide
by the Act, and instructed them not to interfere with or assist in the organization of
employees. Richmond testified that he attempted to follow the instructions contained in
the letter . However, it is noted that these instructions were not given Richmond until
about 1 month after the meeting with the Council of
communicated to the employees.
May 17, 1937, and were never
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 453
of its support of the Council, or otherwise. That the respondent
favored and encouraged the Intervenor is further shown by the ac-
tivities of Foreman O'Brien in assisting Mead in his solicitation of
members for the Intervenor.
As stated above, under the provisions of the Intervenor's constitu-
tion the department representatives make up the Board of Represent-
atives which is the general governing body of the Intervenor and in
which, among others, the power to initiate strike votes, and appoint
committees and fix their duties is vested. The contract's entered into
on August 21, 1937, by the respondent and the Intervenor, which
appears to be still in effect, in addition.to terms dealing with wages,
hours, and working conditions, provided that department representa-
tives be elected by members of .the Intervenor working in the partic-
ular department; and that no one be elected as department representa-
tive unless he had been continuously in the respondent's employment
for at least-1 year. As we have noted above the proposed contract
submitted by the respondent to Hamilton on July 26, 1937, contained
identical provisions except that the respondent provided that an em-
ployee to be eligible to become a department representative must have
been in the respondent's employment for 3 years. It is apparent and
we find that upon the respondent's initiative and suggestion the de-
partmental plan of employee representation and the requirement that
department-employee representatives who made up the governing
board of the Intervenor be elected by departments and by employees
who had been employed for a specified length of time were made a
matter of contract between the respondent and the Intervenor. By
the terms of the contract, the Intervenor was bound to maintain in
existence officials known as departmental representatives who were
employees of 1-year standing. The membership of the Intervenor, if
it desired, for example, to have its governing board made up of em-
ployees chosen upon a different basis, could do so by transferring the
powers now vested in the Board of Representatives to an entirely
different body, thereby leaving the departmental representatives with
a title but no duties within the organization. Since this move would
require a complete reorganization of the organic structure of the In-
tervenor, it is unlikely that it would be taken. As a practical matter,
the incorporation of the above provisons in the contract places an
obstacle in the way of a change and minimizes the likelihood that the
organizational pattern of the Intervenor would be changed, since the
contract under which the Intervenor was operating contemplated the
continuance of that pattern which may be generally described as an
19 The contract provided that it was to be in effect for 1 year from the date of its
execution and that it was to be continued thereafter from month to month until terminated
pursuant to 30 days ' notice given by either party. The record does not disclose that any
notice of termination has been given.
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees' representation plan. This form of organization was ini-
tiated by the respondent's predecessor and maintained by the re-
spondent under the Council. The same form of organization was
continued by the Intervenor at the respondent's direction. Again
upon the respondent's initiative, provisions were inserted in the con-
tract which contemplate the continuance of that type of organization.
The action of the respondent, in proposing those provisions and enter-
ing into a contract. which contained them, further assured the respond-
ent's continued domination of and interference with the administra-
tion of the Intervenor.
Financial assistance to the Intervenor
As we have found above, Richmond at the meeting of May 17, 1937,
assured the Council of financial support by offering to turn over to it
the accumulated profits from the vending machines and to enter into
a lease for the space used by the machines, and such 'a lease was
entered into between the respondent and the Council on May 21,
1937.20 At that time the profits which had accrued from the machines
were held by three officials of the respondent as trustees, with the pur-
pose of using them for a picnic for the employees.
The respondent and the Intervenor contend, and, for the purposes
of the case, we assume, that the funds continued to be held by the
three trustees until August 1937, when all the money except some $28
was spent on the picnic.21 Richmond testified that at some time after
the meeting of May 17, 1937, he had a discussion with "someone" con-
cerning the vending-machine funds. Richmond could not recall with
whom he had the discussion and stated at the hearing that the upshot
of the discussion was that "it was the desire that we continue to act
as trustee of the fund, so there was no mention at that time to turn
over, no money was turned over." The record does not disclose
whether this desire was on the part of the management or on the part
of the Intervenor and we find the explanation somewhat unsatisfac-
tory. In any event the fact that ultimately the accumulated profits
were not turned over to the Council or the Intervenor, does not nega-
tive our finding of support. For the promise of funds in itself, and
at once, was a substantial and potent assurance of assistance. That
20 The machines themselves are owned by a company which services them and takes a
percentage of the profits , returning the rest to the Intervenor . This return was formerly
made to the respondent.
21 There is some evidence in the record that at least $16 . 80 of these funds was used by
Mead in behalf of the Intervenor . However, this is denied by Mead. The record is
insufficiently clear concerning the funds arising from the vending machines prior to
August 1937 and concerning the funds collected as dues for the Intervenor to enable us
to make a finding as to whether ' or not any of the organizational expenses of the Intervenor
were met out of these profits from the vending machines . We, therefore ., make no finding
on the matter.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 455
for reasons not apparent upon the record the assistance did not ripen
into a cash contribution should be and has been given due considera-
tion, but hardly overcomes the import and significance of the respond-
ent's initial action.
The lease arrangement executed by the Council and the respondent
on May 21, 1937, never became operative, and was superseded by an
identical lease entered into between the respondent and the Intervenor
on August 21, 1937. On August 5, 1937, at least, and perhaps on other
occasions prior thereto, the Intervenor's representatives met on the
respondent's property.22 There is no evidence in the record that
payment was made for the meeting space on this occasion, or for any
other meetings which may have been held prior to the execution of
the lease on August 21, 1937.
The receipts from the vending machines accruing after July 1937,
together with the $28 remaining after the expenses of the picnic had
been met, were turned over to the Intervener.23 They are kept in
an account separate from the Intervenor's general funds. All the
witnesses who testified concerning them testified that it was under-
stood that these funds were to be used for a picnic for all employees.
How this understanding came about, and between whom it existed,
the record does not show. There is no evidence that the respondent
so instructed the Intervenor or that the lease for machine space entered
into on August 21, 1937, was made upon any such condition. The
Trial Examiner found that the proceeds were turned over to the
Intervenor without any limitation as to their use and we conclude
that this finding is correct.
The respondent, in renting the machine space to the Intervenor,
provided the Intervenor with a convenient source of an income which
must have amounted to $1000 a year.24 The respondent thereby gave
the Intervenor indirect financial support by providing it with facili-
ties to augment its income. Even though the Intervenor was obli-
gated to pay rent of 50 cents a month for each of the 12 machines, it
received a substantial income in return. The Intervenor was sub-
22 The meetings of August 10 and 16 , 1937, were also held on the respondent 's property.
However , the record is clear that Richmond attended the August 16 meeting , and he may
have attended the August 10 meeting.
23 It was stated by the respondent and the Intervenor at the oral argument before the
Board that after the Board decided Matter o f Iowa Packing Company and United Packing
House Workers Local Industrial Union No. 144, 11 N. L. R. B. 986, March 9, 1939,
wherein a somewhat similar issue was presented , the lease for the vending-machine space
was cancelled by the mutual consent of the Intervenor and the respondent and the profits
are no longer turned over to the Intervenor . We do not consider that the fact that the
respondent may no longer render indirect financial assistance determinative of the ques-
tion of whether or not such assistance was rendered in the earlier stages of the Intervenor's
development.
24 The income from the machines was over $700 from November 1936 to June 1937.
247383-40-vol. 16-30
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jetted to no risk in the undertaking; it merely took over machines
which had been operated profitably by the respondent in the past and
paid a small rent therefor.
It further appears that no rent was ever paid for the use of the
meeting place prior to August 21, 1937. The respondent by allowing
the Intervenor to hold at least one meeting in the hall without charge
during this period clearly gave it financial support.
It further appears that no rent was paid by the Intervenor either
for the meeting place or for the space for the machines for the period
beginning August 21, 1937, until May 10, 1938, at least 6 days after
the Intervenor knew that charges had been filed. Even then the
respondent made no request for payment. The Intervenor urges that
the amount involved was comparatively small and that the respond-
ent would be in no fear of insolvency for failure to collect the rent.
We, however, are of the opinion that independent parties dealing at
arms length do not ordinarily allow bills to run for over 8 months
without taking some action. The respondent, by not requiring
prompter payment of the obligations under the leasing agreement, at
least extended credit to the Intervenor. The respondent urges that
the execution of the lease and the action taken thereunder are without
significance since no other labor organization was in existence among
its employees at the time. Whatever may be the validity of such an
argument when the employer's assistance has been of a very minor
character or has taken the form of tolerating certain practices adopted
by a labor organization, it does not follow that an employer is free
to give substantial aid and support to a labor organization merely
because no competing union has appeared. Where the employer
gives a labor organization sufficient support, the possibility that a
competing organization will get a foothold is measurably lessened.
We find that the respondent by transferring to the Intervenor,
upon a nominal charge, a source of an income of at least $1000 a year
in the form of the proceeds of the vending machines, gave substantial
financial support and assistance to the Intervenor. We further find
that by allowing the Intervenor free use of the hall on at least one
occasion and thereafter by making no requirement for the prompt
payment of rent for the meeting place and space for the vending
machines the respondent gave further financial assistance to the Inter-
venor.26 The action of the respondent in permitting the Intervenor,
during the period of its organization and first months of existence,
25 We have found that the Intervenor was not obligated to employ these funds for the
picnic for all employees. However, it appears that this was the intent of the Intervenor.
We do not find this is a material consideration. If the Intervenor thought it could best
maintain its prestige or retain the employees' good will by making such use of the money,
It is in no way in contradiction of our finding that the respondent gave the Intervenor
financial support.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED 457
the use of the respondent's property without charge as a meeting
place and allowing the continued use thereof for such purpose and
for the purpose of securing revenue without requiring payment of
agreed rent must be found to have furthered the organization of the
Intervenor even beyond the amount of money involved in the financial
support thereby rendered. Employees, because of their economic
dependence upon employers, are sensitive to the •latter's wishes, and
the respondent's employees could hardly have failed to interpret such
financial assistance as a clear indication of the respondent's wish that
the Intervenor be organized and continued. Moreover, the conduct
of the Intervenor in accepting such financial support plainly discloses
that it understood from the respondent's actions that the Intervenor
succeeded to the privileged status formerly accorded the Council.
A considerable portion of the record is devoted to the question of
whether or not certain of the Intervenor's representatives were paid
by the respondent for time spent at meetings on August 5 and 10,
1937, and whether or not Richmond attended the August 10, 1937,
meeting. Although it appears that one representative, Whitman,
who attended the August 5 meeting and two representatives, De
Prospero and Laurie, who attended the August 10 meeting, were
paid by the respondent for the time they spent at the meetings, it
was not the respondent's practice after May 17, 1937, to pay. the
representatives for time lost. It is quite possible that these repre-
sentatives were paid as a result of an oversight on the respondent's
part or the accidental or deliberate failure of the representatives to
ring out their cards when they left for the meeting. Accordingly,
we give no weight to the matter.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Intervenor, and has contributed
support to it, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 _(2) of the Act, and by these acts the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. Other alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleged that the respondent had attempted to dis-
courage and has discouraged membership in the United by threatening
to lay off or discharge its members and by threatening to cut down the
amount of wages and the amount of work given to members of the
United. The Trial Examiner found that these allegations were not
supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. The finding
of the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed.
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
THE REMEDY
We have found that .. the respondent has dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Intervenor and
has contributed support to it. In order to effectuate the policies of
the At and free the employees of the respondent from such dom-
ination and interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute
a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of rights
guaranteed by the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw
all recognition from the Intervenor, to disestablish it as a repre-
sentative of the employees for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and to cease giving effect to the contract with the Intervenor.21,
The respondent will, in addition, be ordered to cease and desist
from dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of and from contributing support to the Intervenor or any
other labor organization; and to cease and desist from interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection.
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
Local No. 303 and Revere Copper and Brass Independent Employees
Union, Rome Division, are labor organizations, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Revere Copper and Brass Independent
Employees Union, Rome Division, and by contributing support to
said organization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. ,
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, 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.
21 National Labor Relations Board v . Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines , Inc., 303 U . S. 261 ;
National Labor Relations Board v. Ronni Parfum , Inc. and Ey-Teb Sales Corp., 104 F.
(2d) 1017 (C. C. A. 2d, 1939) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Stackpole Carbon Com-
pany, 105 F . ( 2d) 167 (C. C. A. 3d, 1939).
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED
ORDER
459
Upon the basis of. the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Revere Copper and Brass Incorporated, Rome, New
York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from : .
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the admin-
istration of Revere Copper and Brass Independent Employees Union,
Rome Division, or with the formation or administration of any
other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing
support to said Revere Copper and Brass Independent Employees
Union, Rome Division, or to any other labor organization of its
employees;
(b) In any manner giving effect to its contract, heretofore de-
scribed, with Revere Copper and Brass Independent Employees
Union, Rome Division, to any renewal therof, or to any successor con-
tract it may have entered into with said Revere Copper and Brass
Independent Employees Union, Rome Division, in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Revere Copper and Brass In-
dependent Employees Union, Rome Division, as a representative of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con-
-cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely dis-
establish Revere Copper and Brass Independent Employees Union,
Rome Division, as such representative;.
(b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant, and maintain such notices for a period of sixty (60) consec-
utive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the
manner set forth in 1 (a), -(b), and (c) and that it will take the
affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent attempted to
discourage and has discouraged membership in the United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local .$303, by threat-
ening to lay off or discharge members of said organization and by
threatening to cut down the amount of wages and the amount of
work given to such members.