Sunbeam Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 546 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We
will not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any labor organization.
CHARMAN SERVICE CORPORATION,
Employer.
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.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION and. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO
SUNBEAM CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA. Cases Nos. 13-CA-637 and 13-CA-653.
June 6, 1952
Decision and Order
•
On April 27, 1951, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of
these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations, only insofar as they are consistent
with our findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to bargain with
the UE, which had been certified by the Board as the exclusive collec-
tive bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit,
and by entering into a "members only" collective bargaining agreement
with the IAM on August 21, 1950. In view of the Board's recent Sup-
plemental Decision and Order 1 setting aside our certification of the
1 Sunbeam. Corporation, 98 NLRB 525.
99 NLRB No. 89.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 547
UE and vacating our previous 8 (a) (1) and (5) finding against the
Respondent, we shall reverse these findings.
There remains for consideration the Trial Examiner's additional
finding that the Employer rendered illegal support to the IAM in
violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act by making the August 21,
1950, "members only" agreement with that labor organization. As
the complete facts necessary to the consideration of this issue in the
light of our recent determination that the UE certificate was invalid
do not appear in the Intermediate Report, it is necessary to set forth
here a full statement of the facts.'
Despite the Board's certification of the UE as the collective bargain-
ing representative of the Employer's production and maintenance
employees on April 20, 1950, the Employer thereafter refused to have
anything to do with the UE, asserting in substance that it was not in
fact in compliance and was a Communist-dominated organization.
During the summer of 1950 three additional labor organizations-the
IUE-CIO, the IAM, and the IBEW-sought to organize the produc-
tion and maintenance unit to fill the collective bargaining void which
had existed since the last UE contract expired and the Employer
refused to continue to recognize the UE. The IUE flooded the plant
with authorization cards and leaflets passed out two or three times a
week at the entrance beginning about August 1. Cards of all three
organizations and the UE as well were left in washrooms of the plant;
management was admittedly aware of the intensive rival organization
drives being conducted among its employees. Employer's counsel at
the hearing graphically described the competitive situation arising
from the efforts of these rivals to organize, as a "pot boiling
violently."
On August 14, 1950, during these organizing drives, the Employer
made an agreement with the IAM for a relatively small fringe unit
of machine tool setup men, assembly setup leadmen, and assembly
floorladies who had not been included in the previously certified pro-
duction and maintenance unit, granting these employees wage in-
creases.3 An YAM campaign leaflet then informed the Sunbeam
employees of the successful negotiation of this contract and that in-
creases of 12 cents to 34 cents per hour were received by the employees
covered thereunder. The leaflet further urged all employees to sign
IAM authorization cards, stating : "We offer all employees in the
Sunbeam Corporation the same opportunity . . . We can guarantee
3 As the Trial Examiner properly assumed that the certificate which the Board has
issued to the UE was valid, and this provided a relatively simple basis for disposing of
both the 8 (a) (5) and the 8 (a) (2) allegations of the complaint, it was unnecessary for
him to detail all the facts which now become uecessar3 to dispose of the 8 ( a) (2) issue.
' This agreement provided that recognition was contingent upon a card check to be
conducted by Police Captain Barnes and establishing majority status in the IAM. The
record also indicates that the JAM had represented toolroom employees since 1948.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you a general wage increase, and your present bonus system will be
undisturbed." (Emphasis -supplied.) Apparently large numbers of
employees took this "guarantee" seriously. On Friday, August 18,
the JAM representative, McDonald, sent a telegram to Mr. Uhler,
director of labor relations for the Employer, claiming to represent a
majority of the production and maintenance employees. The tele-
gram ended-"Will be glad to meet with you at your convenience."
Immediately on receipt of the telegram Mr. Uhler telephoned Mr.
McDonald and asked him if he could bring his committee and meet in
the office of the Employer's attorney the following working day-
Monday, August 21, 1950. Mr. Uhler then arranged for the employee
members,of the IAM committee to be released from work without loss
of pay to attend this meeting.
At the meeting on August 21 it appears that the Employer ac-
cepted the IAM's bare claim of majority as a basis for negotiating
a contract. In approximately 2 hours' time agreement was reached
on a contract; a memorandum agreement was signed the same day.
Although recognition was specified to be for "members only," the
agreement provided that the contract should be void unless the IAM
produced authorization cards of 51 percent of the employees within
1 week, subject to check and approval by a certified public accountant .4
A new journeyman scale was agreed upon under which some em-
ployees received increases of as much as 37 cents or 40 cents per hour.
The smallest increases, received by unskilled employees, were 11 cents
per hour. The complete, definitive contract, which was not signed
until sometime in September, contained the same provisions as had
the old UE contract except for the new provisions on wages, welfare
plan, and holiday pay. Although purporting to be a "members only"
contract, with one exception 5 all the benefits were accorded all em-
ployees; all were subject to the elaborate and comprehensive separate
provisions on wages, hours and overtime, arbitration, seniority, vaca-
tions, group insurance, incentive system, miscellaneous provisions,
etc., contained in this 25-page single space contract. In other words,
for all practical purposes this was an exclusive bargaining contract
despite its label to the contrary. The contract also provided a union-
security clause to be effective when the IAM had been certified as
bargaining representative and after a UA election. It further con-
9 The certified public accountants subsequently inspected 2,493 cards submitted by the
IAM After discarding over 500 representing "duplications , deceased persons, unsigned
forms , forms of ineligible employees , etc.," the accountants determined that there were
1,934 %alid cards. Accepting the Employer 's records as showing 3,59.1, employees in the
unit, the accountants certified that the valid authorizations represented 53.S percent of the
employees.
s Mi. Uhlir testified that only IAM members would be permitted to utilize the grievance
procedure with departmental stewards provided thereunder : "I will not permit anybody
to speak for anybody but themselves , unless they are members of the IAM, and are repre-
sented by a steward who is certified to speak as a steward of the department involved."
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 549
tained a presently effective checkoff provision on the basis of indi-
vidual written authorizations. This section likewise required the
company to post a notice to employees stating that it had made a
contract with the TAM "for all its members," that no employee was
required to join but that "any employee is free to join the Union
at any time," and explaining the meaning of the checkoff provision.
What was happening to the IUE and the IBEW during this period?
Mr. Glass, the IUE international representative, testified that during
the week of August 14 he received a tip that the Employer was making
a deal with the IAM and that he then tried to reach Mr. Uhler. He
first called Uhler's office and left his name, but "received no call
back." On August 22 Glass went to Uhler's office but was there told
that Uhler was out and would not be in. The following day Glass
came back and "told my purpose" to the lady at the desk, who dis-
appeared for about 5 minutes; when she returned she told Glass that
the Employer had already signed a contract and there was no use in
Mr. Uhler seeing him. Glass then called Mike Mann, C. I. O. regional
'director in Chicago, for assistance. Mann succeeded in reaching
Uhler on the telephone and asked him to agree to an election to choose
a bargaining agent, to be conducted by an outside party such as
Cardinal Stritch, stating that McDonald (the IAM representative)
would agree to one. Uhler refused, stating that the Employer would
not agree to an election for that purpose until the controversy over
the UE certificate was determined in court. The IUE at that time
had authorization cards from 1,200 employees-one-third of the
number in the unit.
The record contains admissions of Uhler which conclusively show
that although the IBEW made a claim of representation it too re-
ceived the "brush off" treatment from the Employer.
Q. Did the AFL during this period telephone or communicate
with you claiming representation?
A. They did.
Q. Did they ever offer to submit any evidence with respect to
their claim?
A. They did not.
Q. What was done with those requests?
A. Nothing was done with the request. We just ignored them.
[Emphasis supplied.]
When specifically asked whether he entered into any negotiations
with the IBEW for a "members only" contract similar to the IAM's,
Uhlir testified : "No, sir, because the IBEW lost an election." 6
This was the election of December 13, 1949, on which the UE certificate of April 21,
1950, was based . Although the UE won the election with 1,488 votes , the IBEW (the
only other union on the ballot in this unit ) polled 1,016 votes. There were then 2,875
employees eligible to vote.
215233-53-36
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The objective facts above which show the disparate treatment
which the Employer accorded the different rival unions, are illumi-
nated by the astonishingly frank admissions by Mr. Uhler as to what
the Employer's policy was. Uhler pointed out that the UE had been
causing trouble on some of the production lines since the refusal to
recognize its certification, and management felt that if it found
that a majority of the employees wanted a particular union (other
than the UE) "we decided we had better recognize them so that we
can get production going." 7 (Emphasis supplied.) Mr. Uhler
testified that the only reason a "members only" clause was put in
the IAM contract despite its cards showing majority representation,
was "because of the outstanding controversy before the Board in
which a certification [UE] was in question." 8 He made it very
plain that the Employer's policy would not permit it to extend mem-
bers only" recognition to any other union, because it believed that
having more than one union representing employees in the same
unit would create a confused situation. When specifically ques-
tioned whether he would sign a "members only" contract with the
IUE if it represented 1,200 employees and asked for one, Uhler re-
plied that he would not! He explained the reason for this policy
in these words: "You can't have 20 different unions for the same
unit. It would be silly. You would have a chaotic condition in the
plant."
What is the law with respect to the rights and obligations of an
employer whose employees are simultaneously being organized by
two or more labor organizations, the condition which confronted
Sunbeam in August 1950? The doctrine has long obtained with-
out question that the employer must be strictly neutral-he cannot
give any form of support to one of the rival unions; if he does he
violates Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. As the Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit stated in Harrison Sheet Steel Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 194 F. 2d 407, "He must maintain a strictly neutral
attitude. Especially is this so where the adherence of the employees
is being sought by rival labor organizations ." That the making
of a contract with a union is the most potent kind of support
imaginable cannot be doubted. This Board has also long recog-
nized that authorization cards are a notoriously unreliable method
of determining majority status of a union as a basis for making
a contract where competing unions are soliciting cards, because of
T " . and with the chaotic conditions we had in our plant in the first part of August,
it made it imperative that we take some action , and if the employees felt that they wanted
to be represented by any particular union, if we found that a , majority of our employees
wanted that union , we decided we had better recognize them so that we can get production
going." [Emphasis supplied ]
8 Apparently the Employer had the notion that it would be less vulnerable should the
UE certificate ultimately be held valid, if it had made a "members only" instead of an
exclusive contract with the IAM
,SUNBEAM CORPORATION 551
the duplications which then occur. Thus as the Board said in Mid-
west Piping and Supply Company:'
.. , it is well known that membership cards obtained dur-
ing the heat of rival organizing campaigns like those of the
respondent's plants do not necessarily reflect the ultimate
choice of a bargaining representative; indeed, the extent of
dual membership among the employees during periods of in-
tense organizing activity is an important unknown factor affect-
ing a determination of majority status, which can best be resolved
by a secret ballot among the employees.
Accordingly, the doctrine laid down in earlier cases 10 and reiterated
in Midwest Piping and Supply Co., is that, "A neutral employer,
when faced with the conflicting representation claims of two rival
unions, would not negotiate a contract with one of them until its
right to be recognized as the collective bargaining representative
had been finally determined under the procedures set up under
the Act." The Board subsequently rationalized the basis for this
doctrine in these words :
Congress has clothed the Board with the exclusive power to in-
vestigate and determine bargaining representatives. Conse-
quently an employer may not disregard the jurisdiction of the
Board and preclude the holding of an election under Board
auspices, by resolving the conflicting representation claims on the
basis of proof which the employer deems sufficient but which is
not necessarily conclusive. Moreover, the effect of such conduct
is to accord unwarranted prestige and advantage to one of two
competing labor organizations and thereby prevent a free choice
by the employees.:':' [Emphasis supplied.]
One qualification or proviso exists to this doctrine, however. The
Board has said that, "The Employer faced with rival demands, may
without violating the Midwest Piping doctrine, grant recognition to
each of the claimants on a members only basis." 12 [Emphasis sup-
plied.] But while an employer may lawfully make "members only"
contracts with each competing union, where he makes such a contract
with only one of the unions and withholds parity of treatment for
others, he renders potent illegal support to the favored union. This
was made clear as long ago as Carborundwm Company, 36 NLRB 710,
731, in which the Board said:
Moreover, following its execution of the members-only contract
with the CEU, the Respondent delibbrately and in bad faith
63 NLRB 1060, 1070.
10 See e. g, Elastic Stop Nut Corporation , 51 NLRB 694, 702.
"Tenth Annual Repoit , page 39
12 Hoover Company, 90 NLRB 1614, 1618.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
withheld parity of treatment of the Union . . . The contrasting
treatment accorded to the CEU and the Union with respect to
the execution of a members-only contract constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion and potent support of CEU.
In what way did the Employer here violate its obligations under
Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act in the light of the facts detailed above,
and the applicable law? Summarizing the facts, we have an Employer
fully aware that the IAM, the IUE, and the IBEW are competing to
organize its production and maintenance employees.13 It has decided
as a matter of policy to make a contract with only one union which
can show a majority on the basis of cards. Having received a claim
of representation from the IAM, the Employer assumes the initiative
in seeking immediate negotiations the following working day. With-
out stopping to verify the IAM's claim of majority, the Employer
rushes into a memo agreement with it at the first meeting, albeit on
a condition subsequent that the IAM produce cards to be verified by
certified public accountants establishing majority status within a
week. A few weeks later it executes a final definitive comprehensive
contract fixing terms and conditions of employment for all employees.
Meanwhile the Employer has frustrated the efforts of the IUE repre-
sentative even to talk to it. On August 23, it conveys word to him
that there was no point in seeing him as a contract has been signed.
It has spurned the proposal of the CIO regional director that a con-
sent election be conducted by an impartial outsider to select a majority
representative by secret ballot. It admits the receipt of a claim of
representation from the A. F. L. (IBEW) but instead of manifesting
a willingness to make a "members only" contract with it, pursuant to
its formulated policy of recognizing only one union, it baldly admits
that it "just ignored" the IBEW's claim.
Clearly, in this complex and confused organizational picture where
the UE had won an election, the IBEW had polled 1,016 votes as the
loser, and the IAM and the IUE had then entered into the race for
authorization cards (the latter having secured 1,200), the usual possi-
bilities of duplication of cards between two rival organizations are
so enhanced that the mere tender of cards by the IAM signed by
53.8 percent of the employees cannot possibly be considered satisfac-
tory evidence that the IAM was in fact the "ultimate choice" of a
majority of the employees. This is plainly a case for the application
of the doctrine that an employer who undertakes to resolve the con-
flicting claims presented in such a situation by a necessarily incon-
clusive card check, and who concludes a contract on such a basis, has
" We can avoid unnecessary complications by assuming , arquendo , that the 17E, whose
certificate has recently been invalidated , had no collective bargaining rights to be respected
by the Employer. Thus we would consider the latter's conduct only from the standpoint
of disparate treatment as between the IAM , the IUE, and the IBEW.
SUNBEAM ,CORPORATION 553
accorded "unwarranted prestige and advantage to one of two [here
more] competing labor organizations and thereby prevent[ed] a free
choice by the employees." This would be true regardless of the purity
of the employer's motives, because of the effect of the conduct. But
plainly the Employer's extraordinary haste in consummating an
agreement with the IAM after a bare claim of majority, and the con-
trasting treatment acorded the IBEW when it made a claim of rep-
resentation and to the IUE when it sought first an audience and then
proposed a resolution of the questions of representation by a secret
ballot, demonstrates that the Employer fully intended to bestow this
prestige and advantage on the IAM to the disadvantage of its rivals.
Even assuming, arguendo, contrary to the facts, that the IAM con-
tract was a true "members only" contract, the Employer nevertheless
engaged in unlawful disparate treatment of the rival organizations
by making such a contract with the IAM and intentionally withhold-
ing parity of treatment from its rivals. As above noted the right to
make "members only" contracts in such situations is the right to make
them with each competing organization.
We are not unaware of the fact that neither the Employer nor any
of the labor organizations could have sought the aid of the Board in
the summer of 1950 to resolve the questions concerning representation
in a Board-conducted election. The Board would have dismissed any
petition because it then regarded the UE certificate-less than a year
old-as valid. But that fact does not license the Employer to engage
in conduct constituting illegal support to one of the competing labor
organizations. Several other courses were open to the Employer.
It could have refused to recognize any other labor organization be-
cause of the outstanding UE certificate until such time as that certifi-
cate was revoked by the Board. Instead of selecting only one union
to deal with on the basis of a card check which was necessarily incon-
clusive, it could have made true "members only" contracts with each
of the competing labor organizations. Or, giving effect to its deter-
mination that its interests would be best served by dealing with only
one union, if it had even accepted the proposal of the IUE to have a
consent election conducted by an impartial body to determine by
secret ballot the bargaining representative 14 (a proposal which seems
reasonable under the peculiar circumstances of this case where none
of the parties could have had access to a Board-conducted election),
it would have avoided the vice of preferential treatment and support
of one competing union inherent in the course it followed.
Unless we find and remedy the violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of
the Act which the record here discloses has taken place, this Employer
will have been permitted by preferential treatment to entrench one
14 The Employer had already elected to.assume • the,risk that the UE certificate . might be
held valid.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of several unions as a bargaining representative to such an extent that
it would be impossible today to hold an election in which there could
be a free choice. The IAM has received the credit for the substantial
wage increases which it guaranteed to the employees it could procure.
The collective bargaining contract which it negotiated fixes the terms
and conditions of employment of the employees. It has been installed
as the sole bargaining representative; no other union can represent
its members in any way-even in their grievances 15 Pursuant to the
contract the posted notice informs employees that "any employee is
free to join the Union [IAM] at any time." (Emphasis supplied.)
Employees are not even advised that they are similarly free to join
any other union. It is inevitable that with the passage of more than
a year and a half under such conditions the membership of other
unions would have dwindled to the point where they might not even
be able to muster a showing of interest to support a petition for an
election today let alone compete with the IAM in an election on the
equal basis which existed prior to the Employer's illegal support to
that organization in August 1950. The only way the freedom of
choice in selecting a bargaining representative which the Act guaran-
tees to the employees in these plants can be restored to them, is to
issue the customary order used in cases where we find illegal support
of a labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (2). This would
require withdrawal of recognition from the IAM for employees (even
its own members) in the production and maintenance unit found
appropriate by the Trial Examiner and covered by the August 21,
1950, contract, unless and until certified after a free election, and the
posting of the usual notices. After the atmosphere has been purged
of the effects of the Employer's illegal support to the IAM, it would
then be possible to hold a free election on an appropriate petition.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we find that by entering
into a collective bargaining agreement with the IAM on August 21,
1950, the Employer contributed support to that organization in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act and interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondent , Sunbeam Corporation ,'Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall :
"The denial of the use of the departmental stewards in grievance procedures to em-
ployees unless they are members of the IAM, will, of course , operate to encourage employees
to join the IAM in order to be represented in the prosecution of grievances.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 555
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Recognizing Local Lodges No. 48, 49, 50, and District 8, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, as the representative of any of
its employees in the following described production and maintenance
unit :
All production and maintenance employees at its plants located at
5600 W. Roosevelt Road, 5444 W. Roosevelt Road, and 4433 W. Ogden
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, but excluding toolroom employees and
experimental toolroom employees, tool crib attendants, maintenance
machinists and helpers, machine repairmen and helpers, pattern-
makers, apprentices. and helpers, stationary engineers, outside truck
drivers, office, factory office, and shop clerical employees, draftsmen
and designers, cafeteria employees, stock chasers and checkers, watch-
men and guards, inspectors, supervisors, setup men, line supervisors,
foremen and assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act, for the purpose of collective bargaining with it in respect
to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment, unless and until said labor
organizations shall have been certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
(b) Performing and giving effect to its agreement of August 21,
1950, with Local Lodges No. 48, 49, 50, and District 8, International
Association of Machinists, or to any modification, extension, supple-
ment, or renewal thereof or to any superseding agreement with said
labor organizations involving the aforesaid unit of employees, unless
and until said organizations shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board 16
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self -organiza-
tion to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local Lodges 48,
49, 50, and District 8, International Association of Machinists, as the
ae However, nothing herein shall be construed to require that the Respondent vary or
abandon the terms or conditions of employment established in said agreement of August
21, 1950, or any modification, extension , supplement , or renewal thereof , or any supersed-
tng agreement , or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights they may have
thereunder.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of any of its employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with it in respect to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other-
conditions of employment, unless and until said organizations shall
have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Post at its plants located at 5600 W. Roosevelt Road, 5444 W.
Roosevelt Road, and 4433 W. Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 17 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consid-
eration of the above Decision and Order.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 our employees that :
WE WILL NOT RECOGNIZE LODGES 48, 49, 50, AND DISTRICT 8,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, as the representa-
tive of any of our employees in the following described unit :
All production and maintenance employees at our plants
located at 5600 W. Roosevelt Road, 5444 W. Roosevelt Road,
and 4433 W. Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, but excluding
toolroom employees and experimental toolroom employees,
tool crib attendants, maintenance machinists and helpers,
machine repairmen and helpers, patternmakers, apprentices
and helpers, stationary engineers, outside truck drivers, office,
factory office, and shop clerical employees, draftsmen and
"In 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."
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 557
designers, cafeteria employees, stock chasers, and checkers,
watchmen and guards, inspectors, supervisors, setup men,
line supervisors, foremen and assistant foremen, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act,
for the purposes of collective bargaining with us in respect to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until said
labor organizations shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT perform or give effect to our agreement dated
August 21, 1950, with LODGES 48, 49, 50, and DISTRICT 8, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, or to any modification,
extension, supplement, or renewal thereof, or to any superseding
agreement with said labor organizations involving the aforesaid
unit of employees unless and until said labor organizations shall
have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from
any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from LocAL
LODGES 48, 49, 50, and DISTRICT 8, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
of MACHINISTS, as the representative of any of our employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with us in respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
unless and until said organization shall have been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION,
Employer.
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.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed September 1, 1950, by United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, herein called the UE, and a charge filed August 21, 1950, by
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, herein
called the IUE, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the General Counsel and the Board respectively, by the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued his consolidated complaint
dated December 13, 1950, against the Sunbeam Corporation, 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 (a)
(1), (2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the consolidated
complaint, the order consolidating the cases, and the charges were duly served
upon the parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent: (1) On or about April 21, 1950, and at all times thereafter,
refused to recognize and bargain with the UE as the exclusive bargaining rep-
presentative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit ; and (2) by its
officers, agents, and supervisors interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act
(a) by applying plant rules in a discriminatory manner so as to assist the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, herein called the IAM, and to impede the UE
and the IUE in organizational activities, (b) by actively soliciting or permitting
solicitation of employees during working hours to join the IAM while refusing to
permit such activities for the UE or the IUE, and (c) by entering into a collective
bargaining agreement on or about August 21, 1950, with the IAM as the bargaining
agent for all its members among the production and maintenance employees of
Respondent.
In its answer dated January 3, 1951, Respondent admitted certain allegations
of the complaint but denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Admitting that it refused to bargain with the UE, the answer alleged as reason
therefor that the UE is an organization created, dominated, and operated by the
Communist Party and that its objectives are inconsistent with and contrary to
the purposes of a bona fide labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The
answer also denied that a majority of the employees in the unit in question have
continued to designate the UE their bargaining representative but that as of
August 21, 1950, a majority of the employees in the unit had designated the
IAM their bargaining agent as confirmed by an audit of the Arthur Young &
Company, certified public accountants. The answer further alleged that it
is unlawful for the Board to compel or attempt to compel Respondent to bargain
with an agency of the Communist Party ; that the complaint filed by the IUE
was not filed in good faith ; that the IAM has had a substantial following in
Respondent's plants for many years as evidenced by the carving out of succes-
sive craft units in various elections and that the UE attempted to stir up confu-
sion, work stoppages, and class hatred and that both the UE and the IUE appar-
ently tried to sell themselves on the basis of fear and hatred of Respondent while
the IAM apparently sought to sell itself on its successful record with Respondent.
Finally the answer alleged that the proceeding is improperly or in the alternative
prematurely brought by reason of the pendency of Case No. 13-CA-541 before
the Board'
Prior to the hearing a motion was directed to the Chief Trial Examiner to
dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to make it more definite and certain.
The motion was assigned to Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin who denied the
motion to dismiss but granted the alternative motion in part.
I This case was recently decided by the Board . Sunbeam Corporation, 93 NLRB 1205.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 559
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on January 11
and 12, 1951, before Eugene E. Dixon, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, Respondent, the UE,
the IUE, and the IAM were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the beginning of the hearing Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint
was denied. The General Counsel's motion to strike substantial portions of the
answer was granted.
A stipulation was entered into by the parties incorporating, by reference, the
entire record and Intermediate Report in consolidated Cases Nos. 13-CA-365 and
13-CA-541. At the end of the hearing, rulings on various motions to dismiss
were reserved and are disposed of herein. The General Counsel's motion to con-
form the pleadings to the proof in matters not of substance was granted without
objection.
Although given the opportunity, none of the parties offered oral argument and
only the Respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Illinois corporation whose principal office and three of its
plants are located in Chicago, Illinois. In addition to the Chicago plants, it
operates a plant in Canada and one in Australia. At its three Chicago plants,
the only ones with which we are here concerned, the Respondent is engaged in
the manufacture of electrical appliances, electrical furnaces, and other small
electrical equipment which is sold and distributed throughout the United States.
Respondent, in operation of its business, causes and has continuously caused
large quantities of raw materials, machinery, and equipment to be purchased
and transported in interstate commerce to its Chicago plants from other States
of the United States other than the State of Illinois. During the calendar year
1949, the value of raw materials, machinery, and equipment so purchased and
transported by Respondent was in excess of $2,000,000, of which more than 50
percent was shipped and transported from points outside the State of Illinois to
the Chicago plants. During the same period Respondent's sales of finished
products were valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which dollar value more than
50 percent was received from the sale of products shippe,l and transported from
its Chicago plants into and through States of the United States other than the
State of Illinois.
I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, and Local Lodges 48, 49, 50, and
District 8 of the International Association of Machinists 2 all are and at all times
herein pertinent have been labor organizations admitting employees of Respondent
to their membership!
2 Mr. Denny entered an appearance and participated in the hearing without objection.
S The Respondent 's contention that the UE is not a labor organization within the Act is
hereinafter disposed of.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
a. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that all production and mainte-
nance employees of Respondent's plants located at 5600 W. Roosevelt Road,
5444 W. Roosevelt Road, and 4433 W. Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, but ex-
cluding toolroom employees and experimental toolroom employees, tool crib at-
tendants, maintenance machinists and helpers, machine repairmen and helpers,
patternmakers, apprentices and helpers, stationary engineers, outside truck
drivers, office, factory office, and shop clerical employees, draftsmen and designers,
cafeteria employees, stock chasers and checkers, watchmen and guards, inspectors,
supervisors, setup men, line supervisors, foremen and assistant foremen, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act constitute and at all times material herein
did constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
I find that the above-described unit constitutes an appropriate unit of Respond-
ent's employees for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation of a majority of the employees in the unit
On April 15, 1950, the Board issued its Second Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representatives 4 certifying that in an election by secret ballot
held on December 13, 1949, the UE had been designated and selected by the major-
ity of all the employees in the above-described unit as their representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act
the said organization was the exclusive representative of all such employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
The complaint alleges that on or about April 21, 1950, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent failed and refused and has continuously jailed and refused to bargain
collectively with the UE as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the above-described unit and failed and refused and has continu-
ously failed and refused to recognize the UE as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in said unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. Respond-
ent's answer admits the above allegation of the complaint and further admits
as alleged in the complaint that on August 21, 1950, Respondent entered into a
written collective bargaining agreement with the IAM for its members. The
evidence shows that this agreement covered all production and maintenance
employees of Respondent who were members of the IAM.
The contentions raised by Respondent in defense to this refusal to bargain
as appear in this record and in the record of consolidated Cases Nos. 13-CA-365
and 13-CA-541 recently decided, and reported in 93 NLRB 1205, are that the UE is
"A creature of and existed solely for the purpose of carrying out the dictates of
the communist party," and further that the UE is not a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. These and similar contentions including the matter of
the Union's compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act have been twice passed
4 Sunbeam Corporation , 89 NLRB 469.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 561
upon by the Board 6 and found to be without merit. Accordingly, I find that from
April 21, 1950, the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively with
the UE as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit thereby
interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
I also find that by entering into a collective bargaining agreement on August
21, 1950, with the JAM, Respondent in like manner violated the rights of its
employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act
b. The illegal assistance to the IAM
Having found that Respondent's defense to the refusal to bargain with the
UE is without merit, it is clear that Respondent illegally assisted the JAM when
it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with that organization in the
face of the Board's certification of the UE as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of Respondent 's employees! I so find.
In addition to the above assistance by Respondent of the IAM there remains
two additional issues to be resolved-(1) whether or not Respondent discrim-
inatorily applied plant rules to assist the IAM and to impede the UE and the
IUE in organizational activities; and (2) whether or not Respondent solicited
or permitted solicitation of the employees during working hours on behalf of the
JAM while refusing to permit such activities on behalf of the UE and the IUE.
With respect to these issues the following facts appear :
Employee Laura Ellison testified that during work time, on or about August 17,
Tom Jack, an inspector, had tried unsuccessfully to get her to sign an IAM card.
The next day she reported this incident to her foreman, Arro Siik. On the
same day that she made this report to Siik, Joe Miehle, another inspector, also
attempted to get her to sign an IAM card telling her that Jack had bet him it
quart of whiskey that he could not convince Ellison to join the IAM. This inci-
dent she also reported to Siik, asking if employees were allowed to engage in
such activity during working hours. Silk informed her that they were not.
Thereafter, she had no further overtures.
In his testimony Siik admitted Ellison's having mentioned these incidents to
him and told her that he,would watchxfor such activity in the future. He further
admitted that he did not report the incident to Uhler 8 or mention the matter to
either Jack or Miehle, nor did he take any other action with respect thereto. Siik
testified that the departments he supervises, 27, 30, and 21, are so extensive in area
that he cannot see from one end to the other and that in addition, by reason of
machines and stock, it is impossible to survey the whole department at one time.
I In the "R" proceeding Sunbeam Corporation, 89 NLRB 469 , and the previous consoli-
dated complaint case Sunbeam Corporation, 93 NLRB 1205. This decision, of course,
disposes of all arguments , rulings, motions, and offers of proof presented by that record
and incorporated in the case at hand.
Although , as revealed by a card check conducted by certified public accountants, the
majority of the employees in the unit had designated the,IAM as their bargaining repre-
sentative at the time the formal contract was signed and although the previous tentative
agreement provided that it was not to be effective unless a majority of the employees desig-
nated the IAM to ,represent them, these facts did not relieve Respondent of its obligation
to recognize and bargain with the UE. " . . . employees join labor unions in order to
secure collective bargaining If the employer defeats this purpose by refusing to bargain
with the freely chosen representative , the employees must perforce turn to another agent,
acceptable to the employer, or forego collective representation altogether." Jasper
National Mattress Co , 89 NLRB 75 See also Capital Automatic Music Co , Inc., 47' NLRB
639; Aldora Mills, 79 NLRB 1.
7 Jasper National Mattress Co , supra
8 Uhler is Respondent's director of labor relations.
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the week of August 14, according to the testimony of James Owens
of the motor assembly department , "maintenance men were more or less all
over that department soliciting for the IAM and gathering up cards, and talking
people into signing them ." The setup men were similarly active. One of these,
Bill Salewa , informed Owens that the Company had promised them a raise if
they could talk enough people into signing IAM cards . Although Owens' fore-
man, Adams , was on duty at the times these things were occurring , Owens did
not know if Adams had witnessed any of them . Owens had been designated by
the CIO in a letter to Respondent as a CIO organizer and had himself been
engaged in CIO soliciting in the plant, some of it during his working time.'
Foreman Adams testified that he saw IAM cards on the floors and in work
boxes in the plant during August, but that he saw no solicitation nor did he
make any inquiry as to who passed out the cards. There are about 485 people
in Adams' department , and it is impossible to view the entire department at any
one time from any one point . Adams also testified that for years it has been
a common occurrence to find cards from different unions on the floors and in the
washrooms.
Madeline Cable, employed in the inspection department , testified that during
the week of August 14 some person gave her a pack of union cards with the
request that she get employees to sign them ; that at that time she observed cards
being passed out and collected during working time;'* that two group leaders,
identified as Rose and Peggy, had been engaged in union solicitation and that
she had asked her superior , Dick Marose , who she could talk to regarding "what
the new union" could do for her own group . Marose told her to sbe "Peggy on
the punch press." Cable did not ask permission to see Peggy at that time but
later asked permission of Marose to see one of the girls in another department.
There is no indication that she disclosed to Marose the purpose of her request.
She talked to this person with the result that the latter was to have the chief
steward ( presumably of the IAM) get in touch with Cable in order for her to
ascertain whether his Union "could do better" for the employees than for the
TUB which she was representing at this time . The steward never got in touch
with her. The fact that Cable was actively engaged in organizing the plant
for the IUE was known to Marose.
In a conversation at about this time with Marose , the subject of the signing
of an unidentified ( presumably IAM) card by an employee named Helen, gave
rise to a remark by Marose that "she knew what side her bread was buttered on."
Cable's further testimony shows that on one occasion , apparently shortly after
she had started working for Respondent which was about 2 years prior to the
hearing, the UE chief steward had just given Mary Delvalley some cards. Cable
and another employee , Lillian Monahan , were present at the time and asked what
they were . Delvalley apparently gave each a card which they began reading
when Marose came up and saw them all with cards in their hands. Marose
collected the cards and reported Delvalley for soliciting during working time
and for having possession of the cards.
Robert Dukes, a niekle plater at the time material herein , whose tenure with
Respondent dated from May 9 , 1950 , to September 17, 1950, testified on direct
examination that about August 16, his foreman , Jim Raby, asked him to sign
an TAM card. At the time Raby had a number of cards in his hand. Dukes
9 Owens testified that he engaged in his soliciting activities during his lunch hours and
breaks. Breaks are paid time and thus are considered working time.
10 There was no identification in Ellison's testimony as to who the person was or what
union's cards were involved.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 563
refused to sign saying that he was for the IUE. Dukes further testified that
he "heard" that Baby had asked others to sign IAM cards, but Dukes admitted
that he did not see him do so. According to Dukes' direct testimony, Raby
approached him about signing an IAM card "2 or 3 times" that same day.
More details about Raby's alleged solicitation were brought out * in Dukes'
cross-examination. He was on his way to the locker room when Baby called
him over to his desk where he was sitting with a handful of cards. Raby asked
him why he wanted to sign an IUE card in preference to an IAM card stating,
"There is no use in signing the IUE because the IAM is going to get in." This
occurred just before lunch, but Dukes was not definite on what date it occurred
testifying first that it was "either in August or the first of September," then
testifying that it was July and changed that to "about the first of August."
Nothing appears in his cross-examination as to any other encounters with Baby.
On redirect examinations he testified that he saw Raby only "that one evening
when he tried to" solicit Dukes. Dukes reported this alleged attempt by Raby
to solicit him to Hogan, an employee of the IUE, who took him to the Board
apparently for a statement.
It appears that Dukes was also actively engaged in organizing in the plant
on behalf of the IUE and that he took the job with Respondent at the suggestion
of his brother who was also an IUE organizer employed by Respondent.
In his testimony, Raby, who heard Dukes testify, denied soliciting anyone in
the plant to join the IAM and denied participating in organizational activity of
any kind. He further testified that he found a pack of JAM cards in his desk
and that he threw them in the wastebasket. He was unable to state who, if
anyone, saw him with the cards in his hand.
Judging the credibility of these two witnesses from their demeanor on the
witness stand and in the manner in which they testified, I was more favorably
impressed by Baby. Moreover, there is a quality of vagueness and implausi-
bility in Dukes' testimony that impels me to credit Raby's denial that he solicited
Dukes to join the IAM.
The record clearly establishes, both by Respondent's witnesses and the Gen-
eral Counsel's, that sometime prior to August 1950, as a result of a situation
known in Respondent's history of labor relations as the Morgan affair, Repond-
ent established and followed the policy of taking no disciplinary action against
employees regarding union activities during worktime on the basis of tattling
or stool pigeoning; that only on the basis of actual observation of a breach of
plant rules was the supervisor to take any action, such action to consist of three
phases, (1) first offense, oral warning, (2) second offense, written warning, and
(3) third offense, discharge.
Concluded Findings
From the above facts it is clear that the General Counsel's allegation that
the Respondent applied its plant rules in a discriminatory manner so as to assist
the IAM and to impede the UE and the IUE in their organizational activities is
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence" Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend that that allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
Nor does the preponderance of the evidence support the General Counsel's
allegation that Respondent permitted the solicitation of employees to join the
IAM while refusing to permit such activity on behalf of the UE or the IUE.
"The one incident that could possibly have supported this contention, Delvalley' s being
turned in for giving UE cards to Cable and Monohan, occurred over a year before the
campaign in question and in any event the evidence shows no distinguishing counterpart
regarding Respondent's treatment of IAM solicitors.
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While it may be that Respondent permitted solicitation on behalf of the IAM,
it is clear that there was active solicitation engaged in during working time by
the UE and IUE, and there is no evidence that Respondent discriminated against
the UE or the IUE or took a disparate position with respect thereto. As for
the IAM solicitation by Respondent , the General Counsel's evidence also fails.
Except for the generalization that the maintenance men and the setup men were
actively engaged in soliciting on behalf of the IAM, the only specific incidents
of such activity revealed in the record involved Jack and Miehle.
The burden of proof is on the General Counsel to establish that the actions of
these two individuals and the actions of the individuals in the above two general
classifications can be attributed to Respondent througji their supervisory status
within the meaning of the Act or on the basis of agency . This the General
Counsel has failed to do.
Apparently to support the allegations in question the General Counsel went
into great detail about the circumstances of the negotiations and the signing of
the IAM contract for the production and maintenance unit. What those cir-
cumstances were of course are not germane to the question of the illegality of
that contract on the facts herein , it being clear as'found that by entering into
the contract Respondent automatically assisted the IAM and thereby violated
Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act per se.
Thus I deem it unnecessary to analyze the evidence and make findings regard-
ing the circumstances of the IAM contract, for, even were I to find that they
showed a purpose and inclination on Respondent 's part to favor the IAM and
make its path easy, it would not turn what I consider to be a failure of the
evidence into proof that Respondent engaged in solicitation of its employees to
join the TAM, discriminatorily applied its plant rules , or took disparate action
regarding the employees ' soliciting activities . In view of the foregoing I find
that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evi-
dence in the record as a whole that Respondent solicited or permitted solicita-
tion of its employees to join the IAM while refusing to permit such activities
on behalf of the UE or the IUE. Accordingly , I shall recommend that that
allegation of the complaint also be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the UE
as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees in
an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that upon request Respondent
bargain collectively with the UE as the exclusive representative of such em-
ployees with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully assisted the IAM by recognizing
it and by entering into a collective bargaining agreement with it on August 21,
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 565
1950, it will be recommended that Respondent cease giving effect to said agree-
ment or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to
any superseding agreement with said Union involving the production and main-
tenance employees unless and until the same has been certified by the Board
as the representative of Respondent's employees. Nothing herein however shall
be construed as requiring Respondent to vary the wages, hours of employment,
rates of pay, seniority, or other substantive features in its relations with
the employees themselves which have been established in the performance of
said agreement , or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights
they may have thereunder.
Finally, because of Respondent's mgnifest hostility to the efforts of its em-
ployees to assert the rights guaranteed them by the Act, as evidenced by the
foregoing, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist in any
manner from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their
right to self-organization.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
In the case , I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, and Local Lodges 48, 49,
50, and District 8, International Association of Machinists, are, and at all times
herein have been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its three
Chicago plants, excluding toolroom employees and experimental toolroom em-
ployees, tool crib attendants, maintenance machinists and helpers, machine repair-
men and helpers, patternmakers, apprentices and helpers, stationary engineers,
outside truck drivers, office, factory office, and shop clerical employees, draftsmen
and designers , cafeteria employees, stockchasers and checkers, watchmen and
guards, inspectors and supervisors, setup men, line supervisors, foremen and
assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute,
and at all times material herein did constitute, a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America was on April 21,
1950, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all
the Respondent's employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with United Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers of America as exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By assisting the IAM, Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
6. In the foregoing manner by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices by (a) applying its
plant rules in a discriminatory manner so as to assist the International Associa-
tion of Machinists and to impede the United Electrical, Radio and Machine
215233-53-37
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers of America and the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, CIO, in organizational activities, or (b) by actively soliciting or per-
mitting solicitation of employees during working hours to join the International
Association of Machinists while refusing to permit such activities on behalf of
the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and the Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
KARAS & KARAS GLASS CO., INC. and LOCAL 25, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2737.
June 6,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney A. Coven, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:I
The Employer is one of 28 firms associated in Glass Employers
Group of Greater Boston, Inc., herein called the Employers Group, a
Massachusetts corporation, which, in behalf of its membership, bar-
gains collectively with labor organizations with respect to their
employees.
The Petitioner seeks to sever, with the customary exclusions, a unit
of drivers, warehousemen, and helpers at the Employer's glass sales,
distribution, and installation plant at South Boston, Massachusetts,
from an association-wide unit of inside employees including these
categories, among others. The Employer and Glaziers' Local No.
1044, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of Amer-
ica, AFL, the Intervenor herein, contend, inter alia, that an associa-
tion-wide unit covering all members of the Employers Group is the
1 In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the contention of the
Intervenor herein that its current contract with the Employer operates as a bar.
99 NLRB No. 86.