Utah Copper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 757 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND KENNE-
COTT COPPER CORPORATION, A CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS, C. I. 0.
In the Matter of UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION and THE
INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF MINE WORKERS
Cases Nos: C-2354, and C-2355, respectively.-Decided February
00, 1943
Jurisdiction : copper mining and milling industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: supervisory anti-union statements; ques-
tioning of union employees individually as to authenticity of signatures on
check-off authorizations and rejection of certain authorizations because of
their form in contrast to acceptance, without question, of similar check-off
authorizations presented by assisted union; refusal to confer with union rep-
resentatives concerning members' grievances in contrast with entertainment
of grievances presented by representation of minority dominated union.
Company-Dominated Unions: formation of Mill Association, as successor to, and
in face of Trial Examiner's Report recommending disestablishment of, prede-
cessor union in previous proceeding ; hasty recognition and grant of dues check-
off pending Board's disposition of union's petition for determination of repre-
sentatives;-announcement to employees of recognition and denial of domina-
tion of predecessor union in notice of disestablishment of predecessor in pre-
tended compliance with Board's order in previous proceeding; participation
of supervisors in dominated union's affairs; anti-union and pro-Association
statements of supervisors; permitted use of room in company dormitory as
office of Association; permitted use of company multigraph by Association-
continuance of-recognition of Mine Committee, formed by the respondents in
1919, under bylaws subject to change only with approval of the respondents;
supervision and assistance in elections of members ; other assistance-forma-
tion of Mine Association by members of Mine Committee; anti-union and pro-
Association statements of supervisors ; entertainment of grievances- presented,
by minority Association's representatives in contrast with refusal to consider
similar grievances presented by union.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of dominated organizations.
Practice and Procedure : upon a complaint alleging an employer's domination of
a labor organization, the Board considered events which occurred prior to a
stipulation for a consent election in which the organization in question ap-
peared upon the ballot, when it appeared that the employer continued its un-
fair labor practices after the stipulation.
47 N L. R B, No. 99
757
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 29, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceedings; finding that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and that they
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report annexed hereto. Thereafter, the respondents, the Mill
Association, and the Mine Association filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and the respondents filed a brief in support.of their
exceptions. - The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial,
Examiner at the hearing and,finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C., on January 14, 1943, for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondents, the Union, the Mill Association, and the Mine Asso '
ciation were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and brief, the exceptions of the Mill Association and the
Mine Association, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
except as indicated below.
1. The Trial Examiner has found that E. W. Engelmannj general
superintendent of the respondents' mills, admitted that the evidence
adduced at a Board hearing in September 1937, upon a petition by
the Union for investigation and certification of the representatives
of the respondents' mill employees, showed that the Union had beelr
designated by a majority of these employees as their bargaining repre-
sentative. He has also found that "the evidence taken at the hearing
in September 1937 ['showed] the Union's majority." The record dis-
closes no such admission by Engelmann and the evidence of the
Union's representative stattis presented in the prior representation
proceeding was by no means conclusive.' These findings of the Trial
Examiner are hereby reversed.
2. The Trial Examiner has found that the respondents' insistence
upon determination of the Union's claim to majority representation
only after "a formal hearing with its incident delay" shows the
respondents' intent "to oppose and resist the Union's attempt to organ-
Engelmann is incorrectly referred to as "Englemann" at various points in the Inter-
mediate Report.
2 7 N L R . B 928.
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 759
ize the employees." We do not believe it to be improper per se for an-
employer to insist upon the orderly procedure provided by the Act
for the determination of a question concerning representation. How-
ever, as the Trial Examiner points 'out, the respondents' immediate
grant of the Mill Association's request for recognition upon the basis
of a check of that organization's membership applications contrasted
sharply with their insistence upon a formal Board hearing as a pre-
requisite to recognition of the Union. We find', as did the Trial Ex-
aminer, that by their disparate treatment of the requests for recogni-
tion made by the Mill Association and the Union, the respondents,
assisted, and demonstrated their partiality for, the Mill Association. ,
3. The Trial Examiner has found that the Regional Director ad-,
wised the respondents that the notice which they had posted on June
24, 1938, did not comply with the Board's order in Case No. C-399.3
It does not appear from the record that the Regional Director so
advised the respondents, and the finding of the Trial Examiner is
hereby reversed. We' agree with the Trial Examiner, however, in find-
ing that the notice did not in fact comply with our prior order, and
that-the denial in the notice of the respondents' commission of 'the un-
fair labor practices previously found by the Board, coupled with the
announcement in the notice of the disestablishment of the Mill
Committee and of the recognition of the newly formed Mill Associa-
tion, served to create the impression among the employees that the
respondents favored the Mill Association as they had favored the
Mill Committee.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, Utah Copper Company,
Salt Lake City, Utah, and Kennecott Copper Corporation, New York
City, and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of Employees' General Committee, The Independent Association
of Mine Workers, and The Independent Association of Mill Workers,
or with the formation or administration of any other labor organiza-
tion of their employees, and from contributing financial or other sup-
port to Employees' General Committee, The Independent Association
of Mine Workers, and The Independent Association of Mill Workers,
or to any other labor organization of their employees ;
(b) Recognizing Employees' General Committee, or The Inde-
pendent Association of Mine Workers, or The Independent Association
3 7 N. L R. B. 928.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Mill Workers as the representative of any of their employees-for the
purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or any other condi-
tions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist-labor•organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the 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 and completely disestablish
Employees' General Committee, The Independent Association of Mine
Workers, and The Independent Association of Mill Workers as rep-
resentatives of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their mine
and mills in Bingham Canyon, Arthur, and Magna, Salt Lake County,
Utah, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to their employees stating: (1) that
the respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they are
ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1, (a), (b), and (c) of this
Order ; and (2) that the respondents will take the affirmative action
set.forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the, Twenty-second Region
in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Paul S. Kuelthau, for the Board.
Messrs. C. C. Pal sons, William M. McCi ca, and A D Moffatt, of Salt Lake City,
Utah; for the respondents.
Mr. 0. W. Carlson, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Mine and Mill Associations:
SPATE\fENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by the International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, C. I. 0., and The Independent Association of Mine Workers,'
herein called respectively the Union and the Mine Association,' the National
'The case captions are corrected pursuant to the motion to conform the pleadings to
the proof which was granted at the hearing.
z The Mine Association charged that the Employees General . Committee at the - respond-
ents' mine in ,, Bingham , Canyon , Utah , was 'company-dominated ; the Union charged not
only that the Employees General Committee at the mine was company -dominated, but
also that the Mine Association , and The Independent Association of Mill Workers were
company-dominated The cases were consolidated for the purpose of hearing
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 761
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Twenty-Second Region, Denver, Colorado, issued its amended complaint
11dated June 1, 1942, against the Utah Copper Company, herein called Utah Copper,
and the Kennecott,Cppper Corporation„herein,called-Kennecott,.allegiig,that,Utah
Copper and Kennecott, herein collectively called the respondents, had engaged in
and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (2 ) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint, as further
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the respondents: (1) by
numerous specified acts extending over the period from 1938 to the date of the
amended complaint, dominated, interfered with the formation and administra-
tion, and contributed financial and other support.to The Independent Association
of Mill Workers, a labor organization of the respondents' employees working at
their mills at Magna and Arthur, Utah; (2) by numerous specified acts extending
over the period from July 5, 1935, to the date of the amended complaint, domi-
nated, interfered with the formation and administration, and contributed finan-
cial and other support to the Employees General Committee and the Mine Associa-
tion,,,labor orgariizdtions of ther;respondents' employees working at -their mine
at Bingham Canyon, Utah; (3) from January 1938 to the date of the amended
complaint urged and warned employees to refrain from joining or retaining
membership in the Union, and in other ways discouraged membership in that
organization, or in any labor organization affiliated with the A. F. of h.; and
(4) by these and other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Copies of the complaint, the amended complaint and the accompanying notice
of hearing were duly served upon the respondents. The Independent Association
of Mill Workers, herein called the Mill Association, the Mine Association, the
Union, and the Employees General'Committee at the respondents' mine, herein
called the Mine Committee.
The,iespohdents, the Mule Association, and the- Mill Association filed answers
to the amended complaint. In their joint answer the respondents denied the
commission of unfair labor practices as alleged in the amended complaint In
its answer the Mine Association denied the allegations of the amended complaint
insofar as they related to the Mine Association, and admitted the allegations
pertaining to the domination of the Mine Committee, except that it denied that
the respondents had dominated and interfered with the Mire Committee "by
discouraging membership in any nationally affiliated labor organization of its
employees." The Mill Association in its answer denied the allegations of the
amended complaint insofar as they related to_ the Mill Association, and- alleged
affirmatively that by its conduct of an election on July 18, 1939, in which the
Mill ,Association was permitted to participate and in which that organization
received a majority of the votes ciist for collective bargaining, representative,
the Board was precluded and estoppel from considering the alleged acts of
domination which occurred prior to the date of such election.
Pursuant to proper notice, a hearing was held from June 15 to July 1, 1942,
at Salt Lake City, Utah, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondents, the Mine
Association and the Mill Association were represented by counsel and all partici-
pated in the hearing. The.Union and the Mine Committee entered no appear-
ances. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on .the issues was afforded all parties.
At the beginning of the hearing the respondents moved to strike certain
allegations of the amended complaint, or in the alternative moved for a Bill of
762' DE'CJSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Particulars The Mine and Mill Associations demurred to sections of the
amended complaint upon the ground that they were indefinite and uncertain
-and did not apprise the Associations of the manner in which the respondents
'dominated or interfered with them. The motion to strike was granted, and
'the demurrers were sustained, in part. With respect to those parts of the
motion or demurrers not granted or sustained, the undersigned informed the
parties that he would entertain a request for additional time in which to meet
such allegations in the event of surprise, or if the necessity be shown No such
request was made The Mine'Association and the Mill Association each moved
for separate hearings. The motions were denied. At the end of the Board's case
and at the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Mine and Mill Associations
moved to dismiss the complaint with reference to each of those organizations.
The motions were denied Board's counsel moved without objection to amend
the pleadings to conform to the proof at the close of the hearing. The motion
was granted At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Mine and Mill
-Associations moved for a mistrial upon the ground that certain circulars printed
and distributed by the Union would have had some influence on the witnesses
who testified, and that this constituted interference with the hearing.' Said
counsel knew of no witness who had been so influenced or whose testimony
had been affected by the circulars An examination of the circulars reveals
nothing which can reasonably be construed as constituting interference with the
hearing The motion was denied On the final day of the hearing, the Mill
Association offered in evidence minutes of its membership meetings, minutes
of meetings with the respondents, and minutes of meetings of its Board of
Trustees, and also a digest of such mantes The undersigned reserved ruling
thereon, and advised the parties that lie would pass thereon in the Intermediate
Report. No objection was raised to this procedure The minutes together with
the digest are hereby admitted in evidence as marked. After the close of the
hearing'counsel for the respondents requested that the consent-election stipulation
under which the Board conducted an election on August 24, 1938, among the
respondents' employees be admitted in evidence Counsel for the other parties
raised no objection to the offer It is received in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit
15. At the end of the hearing opportunity was afforded all parties to argue the
matter orally before the Trial Examiner, but this privilege was waived. All
parties were invited to file briefs with the undersigned within 15 days from the
close of the hearing Briefs have been received from counsel for the Board, the
respondents, the Mill Association and the Mine Association.
Upon the entire record of this case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Kennecott, a New Yoik corporation, with its principal office in New York "City,
is engaged with its subsidiaries in the copper mining industry in the United
States, Alaska, and Chile ; in the copper fabricating industry in the United States ;
and in incidental transportation operations With its subsidiaries it ranks as
the second largest copper mining enterprise in the world and the largest in
the United States '
Among the properties owned by Kennecott are a• large open-pit copper inine,
together with bleaching and precipitating plants and other properties, located
in Bingham Canyon, Salt Lake County, Utah, and two mills, known as the
The circulais summarized and commented upon the testimony of certain witnesses
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 763
Arthur and Magna mills, also located in Salt Lake County, approximately 17
miles from the mine.
.Utah Copper, a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business in
Salt Lake City, Utah, is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Kennecott.
,It is engaged as agent for Kennecott in the maintenance and operation. of
Kennecott's mine at Binghain Canyon, and its Arthur and Magna mills At the
mine, Utah Coppei mines ore containing copper and' substantial values in gold.
silver and molybdenum The ore so mined is transported by Utah Copper to the
Arthur and Magna mills. At the mills the ore is reduced to copper concentrates'
which contain, in addition to copper, substantial quantities of precious metals,
and to molybdenite concentrates Substantially dll of the molybdenite concen-
trates are sold and shipped to customers in states other than the State of Utah
without further processing The copper concentrates are delivered by Utah
Copper, together with copper precipitates produced at the mine, to the smelter
of the American Smelting and Refining Company at Garfield, Utah, for smelting.
After the concentrates have been smelted, the metals produced,-in the form of
blister copper, are shipped front the smelter to three refineries operated by the
the American Smelting and Refining Company in' the States of Maryland, New
Jersey and Washington At the refineries, the copper and precious metals, of
which blister copper is composed, are separated, purified, and prepared for
market Kennecott receives from the said refineries a quantity of each of the
iefined metals equivalent in kind and quantity to the metal content of the con-
centrates and precipitates delivered to the smelter at Garfield, Utah, by Utah
Copper from the Arthur and Magna mills and the Bingham Canyon mine. Ken-
necott sells the refined metals in the world markets through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Kennecott Sales Corporation
Virtually all of the copper, gold, silver and molybdenite concentrates produced
as outlined'above are shipped to points outside the State of Utah. In the course
and conduct of the business as outlined the respondents have continuously
caused large quantities of materials, equipment and supplies used in such
operations to be shipped from points outside the State of Utah to the mine and
the mills in the State of Utah. - The respondents concede that their operations
occur in interstate commerce, and that they are subject to the jurisdiction of
the Board
At the time of the hearing the respondents employed approximately 2,300
workers at the mine, and approximately 2,000 workers at the mills
It. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED '
International' Union of Mine, Mill'and Shelter Workers is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations It admits to member-
ship employees of the respondents at both the mine and the mills
Employees' General Committee is an unaffiliated labor organization composed
of employee representatives selected by the employees in the different depart-
ments at the respondents' mine.
The Independent Association of Mine Workers is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation, admitting to membership employees of the respondents working at the
mine
The Independent Association of Mill Workers is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation, admitting to membership eiployees of the respondents working at the -
mills.
r
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONIS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The formation of the Dull Association; acts of assistance, interference and
domination
On February 7, 1938, 1'. 1-1. McNally, Trial Examiner for the Board, filed his
Intermediate Report in Case No. C-399.' That case involved the same respond-
ents as the present case In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found
that the respondents had violated the Act by discouraging their employees from
joining the Union and by dominating, interfering with and contributing support
to the Employees General Committee, herein called the Committee, a labor organi-
zation at the respondents' mills.' The Trial Examiner recommended that the
Board order the respondents to cease and desist from interfering with the
employees' right of self-organization ; to refrain from recognition of the Com-
mittee as a representative of the respondents' employees, and to disestablish
the Committee as such representative
On February 9, 1938, the representatives and officers of the Committee held
a meeting at which McNally'' Intermediate Report was discussed at length. At
the meeting E. L. Cannon, president, Reed Damron, vice president, and John
L Pink, a representative, -were appointed "to visit the Industrial Commission
of the State of Utah to obtain information regarding the formation of a union
which would be in accordance with the Act. Each representative was instructed
to ascertain the desires of the employees in his department regarding the forma-
tion of a new organization. A further meeting was held February 11. At this
meeting Cannon reported that the Industrial Commission had advised the com-
mittee appointed on February 9 that it was unable to supply any information
regarding the Act. The representatives who had been instructed to ascertain
the desires of the employees, reported a diversity of opinion among the employees ;
that some desired the C. I. 0., some desired the A. F. of L. and some desired an
unaffiliated organization as bargaining agency. A number of arguments ensued,
and as a result, a motion was made and carried that the Committee refrain from
talking about other labor organizations
The three individuals, Cannon, Dainron and Pink, named to the committee at
the meeting on February 9, together with Rich, secretary-of the Committee, con-
tinued their efforts to four a new organization Cannon, the chairman of the
Committee, testified that he was requested by Pink, department representative
of the Committee, to take the lead in forming a new organization. On or about
February 22 the four individuals named sought advice from an attorney in Salt
Lake City who, in tuin, referred then to O. W. Carlson, present attorney for
the two independent associations at the mine and mills . During February and
March a series of meetings with Carlson followed at which a constitution was
drafted, and it was agreed by this committee that E L Cannon act as president,
John L Pink as vice president,-Lester 0 Larson as treasurer, and Fred Rich
,as secretary ofthe new organization... The draft constitution provided that the
named individuals should constitute the officers of the organization until the first
Thursday in December 1938 The name selected for the organization was "The
Independent Association of Mill Workers", and it will be referred to hereinafter
as the Mill Association The promoters of the Mill Association originally in-
tended to include employees of the respondents' mine in the organization, and
4 The Board upheld the recommendations of McNally In the Matter of Utah Copper
Company, etc , 7 N. L. R. B 928.
Not to be confused with the Mine Committee , discussed more fully heieniafter.
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 765
several individuals from the mine, including Russell Anderson, chairman of the
Mine Committee, attended the meetings in Carlson's office The application cards
first printed designated the organization as "The Independent Association of
Mine and Mill Workers". However, this proposal was not carried through, and
the Mill Association confined itself in its initial organizing) efforts to the mill
employees.
The first public meeting of the Mill Association was held in the Cyprus High
School at Magna, Utah on March 25, 1938. Handbills were distributed near the
mills at Magna and Arthur, announcing the meeting as one at which a plan
of labor relations formulated by a group of employees of the Arthur and Magna
mills would be considered. Cannon, first introduced by Rich, presided at the
meeting which was attended by 400 to 500 people. Attorney Carlson attended and
proposed the draft constitution to the meeting. The constitution was discussed
and adopted in part.
The second public meeting of the Mill Association was held April 25 at the
Cyprus High School. Again handbills announcing the meeting were distributed
near the mills. The handbills stated that an amendment to the Constitution
would be considered. Again Cannon presided over the meeting, which was not
so well attended as the first.
The first membership meeting was held May 16 also at the Cyprus High School.
On May 19 Cannon and Rich on behalf of the Mill Association directed a letter
to the respondents in which they stated that the Mill Association represented a
majority of the respondents' employees at the mills and requested that the
respondents deal with it as bargaining agent of such employees. Upon receipt
of the•Mill Association request D D Moffat,'vice president and'general manager
of the respondents, instructed Englemann, general superintendent of the Arthur
and Magna Mills, to check the signatures on the Mill Association cards, and the
number of employees signing such cards to ascertain whether they constituted
a majority of the employees. ' On May 23 Englemann and other representatives
of the respondents met with Cannon and Rich and checked the signatures of the
employees on their time cards. Englemann reported to Moffat, that the check
showed that, out of 1,239 employees eligible for membership in the Mill Associa-
tion, 672 had signed membership applications. On May 24 Moffat advised
Cannon and Rich by letter that the respondents would recognize the Mill Associa-
tion as the collective bargaining agent for the employees of the mills, and also
that they would grant the Mill Association's request for the check-off of dues and
fees.' The respondents have continued to recognize and deal with the Mill Associa-
tion as the sole collective bargaining agent of the mill employees since that time.
Englemann admitted at the present hearing that he knew the Union had been
active at the time when the check was made and recognition granted to the Mill
Association, and that the evidence adduced at the Board hearing held the early
part of September 1937 showed that the Union had been designated by a majority
of the mill employees. He was asked whether the fact, that some of the employees
might belong to the Union, and that the Union was active, did not raise some
doubt as to whether the check would show a free choice of the employees. He
replied that his sole interest was in,carrying out Moffat's order. On May 24 or
25 the respondents posted on the bulletin boards in the mills copies of the Mill
Association request for recognition and the respondents' answer granting the
request.
9 The Mill Association letter requesting recognition made no request for the check-off
of dues and fees. Cannon and Rich testified that the request was 'made orally before
May 24.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The treatment accorded the Mill Association recognition, request contrasts
sharply with the treatment of a similar request by the Union. On July 1, 1937,
Royle, union representative, by telephone requested recognition of the Union as
the bargaining agent. Moffat refused. A letter repeating the request went
unanswered by the respondents The Union then referred the matter to the
Board, and asked that the Board take steps to determine whether it had a
majority. The respondents refused to consent to the holding of an election to
settle the question, and insisted that the question could be determined only by
the holding of a formal healing with its incident delay The hearing of Septem-
ber 1937 followed.' The respondents' refusal, without apparent reason, to con-
sent to any determination of the Union's request for recognition except through
a formal hearing delayed a decision upon that request from July 1, 1937 until June
16, 1938, and- shows a definite intent to oppose and resist the Union's attempt
to organize the employees. During the period while the,Union recognition
request was thus pigeonholed, the Mill Association recognition request was made.
Unlike the Union request, it was not summarily rejected or denied the courtesy of
an answer, and it was not only granted, within 3 or 4 clays but notices informing
the employees of such grant were immediately posted on the respondents' bulletin
boards This was done in the face of the evidence taken at the hearing in
September 1937 showing the Union's majority. As noted hereinafter, the grant
of recognition was soon followed by the grant of other privileges and concessions.
A clearer demonstration of the respondents' partiahty,sn their hasty recognition
,of the Mill Association and their rejection of the Union would be hard to find.
On May 27, 1938, Cannon and Rich and the other representatives of the Em-
ployees General Committee met with representatives of the respondents The
representatives of the respondents announced that the Mill Association had proved
a majority and that it had been recognized as the collective bargaining agent of the
employees The respondents also announced to the representatives present at
the meeting that they no longer recognized the Committee as the representatives of
the employees. Public announcement of this fact was not made to the employees
generally until June 24, 1938
At a general meeting of the Mill Association held June 7, the officers named in
the constitution were elected by acclamation 8 Nominations for trustees were
received and the formal election of officers and trustees was ordered held June 8,
the following day. Ballots for the election were printed by Rich upon the
respondents' mimeograph machine Although the officers had been elected by
acclamation a ballot containing their names was printed and distributed to the
employees. Of the seven trustees elected on June 8, two had been representatives
of the Committee until May 27.
On June 25 the respondents granted to the 11Ii11 Association the use of bulletin
boards at both mills. Thereafter the respondents constructed special bulletin
boards for the use of the Mill-Association. The respondents posted notices upon
their own bulletin boards notifying the employees of this privilege granted to the
Mill Association and advised the employees to watch such boards for information
concerning the Mill Association.
Immediately after the Mill Association was granted recognition by the respond-
ents, it commenced to handle grievances of the employees. The procedure fol-
lowed was similar to that followed by the Committee. In August the respond-
4 The bearing in Case No C-399 was consolidated with Case No. R-273, following not
only the Union's filing of charges of unfair labor practices but also of a petition for
'investigation . and certification of representatives
8 Cannon , 'president;' Pink , vice president ; Larson, treasurer; Rich , secietaiy
UTA1 COPPER COMPANY, A CORP'ORATION 767
ents granted the representatives of the Mill Association the right to investigate
and handle grievances ;at any time during working hours without loss of pay
Officers and trustees of the Mill Association testified that during the period be-
tween the granting of recognition and the time of the hearing they spent any-,
where from 50 to 80 percent of their working time in the handling of grievances
The Decision, Order, and Direction, of Election of the Board in Cases Nos. C-399
and R-273 was issued on June 16, 1938.' In, its decision and order the Board
ordered the respondents to cease and desist from dominating and interfering with
the administration of the Committee, and to disestablish the Committtee as the,
bargaining agent of the employees In addition the Board found that a question
concerning representation among the respondents' employees had arisen, and
directed that an election be held to settle the question at a time when the Board
should so direct. _
On June 24, 1938, the respondents posted upon their bulletin boards the fol-
lowing notice :
NOTICE
To the Employes of Utah Copper Company Department of Mills:
Complying with an order of the National Labor Relations Board, dated
the 16th day of June, 1938, we hereby advise' you that this Company will not
contribute financial or other support to any labor organization of its em-
ployees, restrain or coerce its 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 choosing, or to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act; nor has this Company at any time engaged in such practice
You are further hereby advised that on May 19, 1938, ,when this Company
recognized The Independent Association of Mill Workers as the representa-
tive of employes for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Employes Gen-
eral Committee, Department of Mills, was disestablished.
(Original Signed) D. D. MorrAT,
Vice President & General Manager.
The purpose of the notices required under the Board Order is to inform the
employees of their right to self-organization and to dissipate as far as possible
the effects of prior unfair labor practices. That the above notice fails to fulfill
such purpose is obvious, as the Regional Director informed the respondents By
the statement ". . . nor has this Company at any time engaged in such practice"
the respondents disregarded the Board's findings, and informed the employees
that all of the acts of assistance and domination with respect to the Committee
are not in violation of law, contrary to the Board's decision The gratuitous
reference to the recognition of the Mill Association emphasizes the respondents'
preference for that organization. •
On July 1 the mills ceased operations and only a skeleton force was retained.
Thereafter, operations were resumed at the Magna mill on August 1, 1938, while
the Arthur'mill opened some time later.
On August 18, representatives of the respondents, the Union, the Mill Associa-
tion and the Board entered into a stipulation providing for the holding of an
election to determine a collective bargaining agent. The stipulation provided
that the election be held August 24, specified the classes of employees who were
B 7 N. L. R B 928
I
768 DECISLONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
to be eligible to vote, and made provision on the ballot so that the employees
could vote for the Union, the Mill Association or neither. Pursuant to the
stipulation the election was held on August 24. At the election, out of 970 em-
ployees who voted, the Union received 481 votes, the Mill Association 454, and
29 employees voted for neither.19
The Union having received only a plurality of the votes cast, a run-off election
was held on September 26, 1938, with opportunity to choose or reject only the
Union. Out of the 977 employees who voted at the election, 282 voted for the
Union, and 666 voted for no union.11
During July, August and September 1938, the respondents had continued to,
deal with the Mill Association as the collective bargaining agent of the mills.
On October 1, the Mill Association requested the respondents to continue to
recognize it as the exclusive collective bargaining agent. 'To this request the
respondents acceded, and' continued to recognize and deal with the Mill Associa-
tion as the bargaining agent of the mill employees, in the face of the Mill Associa-
tion's failure to obtain a majority at -the August 24th election.
On June 5, 1939, the Mill Association filed with the Board's Regional Office in
Denver, Colorado, a petition for investigation and certification of representatives.
On July 18, 1939, pursuant to agreement entered into on July 13, 1939 between
the Union, the Mill Association, the respondents, and the Board, a third election
was held. The ballot on this occassion provided that the employees could select
the Union, the Mill Association or neither. Of 1348 employees who voted, 784
voted for the Mill Association, 531 for the Union, and 33 for neither. The election
agreement provided :
The Company [respondents] agrees to recognize as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the above described employees for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with it in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and
other conditions of employment whichever labor organization named above
receives a majority of the votes cast in said election or in a run-off election
as described in paragraph 5 of this agreement.
B. Interference , restraint and coercion at the mills
On July 25 , 1938 employee'Frank C. Payne joined the Union . Four days later
H. E. Wurzbach , chief electrician at the Magna mill , and admittedly a supervisory
employee , called Payne into his office . Payne testified that Wurzbach said that
A. C Ensign ( then assistant superintendent of the Magna mill ) told him that
Payne had signed an application for membership in the Union . Payne admitted
that he had., Payne testified that Wurzbach then asked him why he joined the
Union, and' what the Union could do that the Mill Association could not do.
Wurzbach pointed out that the Union had organized the Garfield Smelter of the
A. S. & R. Co., and that its employees were not getting any more pay than the
respondents ' employees . Wurzbach concluded by saying that he did not want to
discourage Payne in his memb'eiiship1in the Union , and Payne said that ' lie had not.
At the time of the hearing Payne was no longer a member of the Union. When
examined by his counsel Wurzbach 's attention was not specifically directed to
the above testimony of Payne. Wurzbach mentioned that he did have a conversa-
tion regarding the Union with Payne about the time in question . The undersigned
finds that Wurzhach made the statements as outlined above.
10 8 N . L. R. B 968.
119 N . L. R. B. 775
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 769
Iii July 1939 several days before the election conducted by the Board, C. W.
Gager, shift boss 12 and supervisory employee in the fine crushing department
c,f the Magna mill, passed out Mill Association buttons to the employees during
working hours Alvie Henline, an employee, testified that Gager asked him if he
were a member of a union. When Henline informed him that he was not, Gager
offered him a button. Henline declined the button saying that he was going to
wait and see how the election turned out. According to Henline, Gager then said
that Henline might just as well sign up then as he "figured". the Union didn't have
a chance. Gager did not recall making the latter statement, but did not deny that
he made it, nor that he passed out buttons. Under the circumstances the under-
signed credits Henline's testimony, and finds that Gager made the statement and
that he distributed Mill Association buttons Several days after the election Gager
signed Henline up in the Mill Association during working hours. Henline testified
further that 2 or 3 days after the election, Ray Peterson, shift foreman, told him
that it was a good thing the Union did not get in, because things would be a lot
different. Peterson testified that he did not recall making the statement to
Henline Upon cross-examination he was specifically asked whether he denied
making the statement, or that he just could not remember saying it He replied
that he could'not remember saying it. The undersigned is of the opinion that
Henline's testimony is entitled to the greater weight, and finds that Peterson did
make the statement attributed to him by Henline.
In the early part of 1940, employee Clarence Henline sought a transfer to the
electrical department of the Magna mill. At that time lie was a member of
the Mill Association, and he prevailed upon President Cannon to intercede with
Wurzbach, chief electrician, in his behalf. Failing to receive the transfer
through Cannon's efforts he took the matter up with Corfield, the respondents'
electrical engineer, and was successful in obtaining the transfer. Thereupon
lie relinquished his membership in the Mill Association and joined the Union.
A day or two after Henline joined the Union, which was during the early pact
of February 1940, Wurzbach called Henline to his office According to Wurzbach,
he reprimanded Henline for not remaining on the job, for talking too much, and
told him that he (Wurzbach) had heard that Henline was talking C. I. 0 and
that Henlcne admitted talking C. I. 0. Wurzbach testified further that he
asked Henline why he left the Mill Association; told him that the Mill Associa-
tion was partly responsible for his transfer, and asked Henlcne what more the
Union could do for him than the Mill Association did. According to Henlcne,
Wurzbach concluded the conversation by saying that the men who "kept their
mouths shut" and did their work and did not do any talking would be advanced
in his department. When first questioned about this last statement Wurzbach
answered by saying that lie told all employees that in effect. Later when
asked whether in the above conversation he in substance, told Henline that the
men who kept their mouths shut about the C I 0, and stopped talking about the
C. I. 0. would be advanced, he denied that he had done so. In view of Wurz-
bach's admitted statements against the Union, the undersigned does not credit
his denial in this instance. The undersigned finds that Wurzbach made the
statement attributed to him by Henline, as well as the preceding statements
which,he admitted making. Several months later, Wurzbach in the course of
]z (lager testified that he was woikuig boss at the time of the conversation, and that
he did not become shift boss until April 1941 However, his work record introduced in
evidence shows that he has held his present position without interruption since October
1938 , and that no change in his classification took place in April 1941 . The respondents'
woik records are entitled to more reliance than Gager's unaided recollection. Moreover,
its is clear from Gager's description of his duties at the time of his conversations with
Henline that he exercised supervision over the work of other employees at that time
513024-43-vol. 47-49
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another conversation, stated to Henline, "You think you're quite a big shot from
the C. I 0 now that you are wearing a button again, I see." 1'
On January 30, 1940, Joe Barnes, boiler shop foreman, said to Robert A.
Williams, an active member and officer of the Union, "If anybody stops to con-
verse with you about anything but plant business, try to discourage them, for
anyone found talking in groups is going to be let off. They are especially
after you-after all of you." The foregoing testimony of Williams was sub-
stantially corroborated by Barnes, except as to the statement that "They are
especially after you-after all of you." Barnes denied that he made the latter
statement, but testified that he did make it clear to Williams that he was
warning all employees under his supervision. Williams made a note of the
conversation shortly after it occurred, which would tend to fix the occurrence,
whereas Barnes testified from his unaided memory. Under the circumstances
the undersigned believes that Williams' testimony is entitled to the greater
credence, and finds that Barnes made the statements attributed to him by
Williams. In view of Williams' position in the Union and his activity in behalf
of that organization, which facts were known to Barnes, it seems clear that
Barnes was warning Williams to cease such activity.
In the forepart, of October 1940, Harold A. Linke, general construction fore-
man at the Arthur plant, called Victor Bohne, an employee in the electrical
department to his office during working hours and there had a conversation with
him about his membership in the Union. Bohne testified that Linke told him the
C. I. O. was communistic, and that he better get out of it and join an organization
for his own good. Linke admitted this conversation but said that he told
Bohne that some of the members of their mutual fraternal organization objected
to Buiuie's activity in an organization which was reported in the public pres-
as being radical, Communistic and un-American, inasmuch as he was in the
"elective line" of the fraternal organization, and that he (Linke) thought they
were justified in taking that position Liuke also testified • that he talked to
Bohne in a personal rather than official capacity, inasmuch as they had been
friends for a long time.' It cannot be doubted that the logical effect of Linke's
talk, accepting his own version, would be to discourage membership in the
Union The time and place were ill-chosen for a personal communication
Whatever Linke's motivation, the fact remains that he, a high-ranking super-
visory employee, made disparaging statements regarding the Union to Bohne,
an ordinary employee. With such acts the respondents are chargeable.
At the mills, most of the new employees are started to work on the dike, which
surrounds the area into which the tailings from the mills are carried by water
The work on'the dike is that of common labor and the employees desire to be
transferred to the mills where the pay is higher and the work more desirable
David Back, an employee hired March 17, 1941 and put to work on the dike,
credibly testified and the undersigned finds that in April 1941, Joe Fish,14 assistant
foreman on the dike, urged him to join the Mill Association. Back told Fish
that he did not desire to join, whereupon Fish advised him that he would have a
better chance of transferring to the mill if he signed with the Mill Association.
At the hearing, Superintendent Hatch indicated somewhat indefinitely that Fish
was not available to testify.
1
"This statement attributed to Wurzbaeb by I3enlinc was denied by Wurzbach The
preceding conversation, during which Wurzbach became quite angry according to FIenline's
uncontradicted testimony, shows that at that time, as well as in his earlier conversation
with Payne, Wurzbach had upheld the Mill Association at the expense of the Union, and
the undersigned therefore finds that Wurzbach made the above statement.
"Also spelled "Fisch" In the record
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 771
Back testified further that all of the time while he was out on the dike, from
March 17 until April 24, 1941, "Pete" Poulos, foreman in charge of the work on
the dike, tried to get the employees to sign up with the Mill Association; that he
would call the workmen over and ask them why they did not want to join ; that
he kept a list of the employees who did not join the Mill Association, and that
only a few of the employees did not join the Mill Association. Poulos testified
that he did not recall talking about the Mill Association with Back. He denied
that he had talked about the Mill Association with any of the other employees
on the dike. Poulos' denial that he talked with other employ ees about the Mill
Association was rebutted by John Carlyle Jones. Jones, who went to work on
the dike on March 22, 1941, testified that on a number of occasions Poulos told
him and other employees that the boys who joined the Mill Association would
stand a better chance of getting into the mill. Poulos admitted that he knew
of the activity of his timekeepers in signing employees in, the Mill Association ;
that some of the employees had asked him where they could join the Mill Asso-
ciation, and that he had sent such employees over to his timekeeper to be signed
up. He testified that he did not remember having a list of the employees who did _
not join the Mill Association. In view of Poulos' admitted tacit encouragement
of the activities of his timekeepers in signing up employees in the Mill Association,
together with the fact that lie did not deny either talking with Back or keeping
the list, the undersigned is of the opinion and finds that Poulos engaged in the
activities described by Back and Jones. Poulos was paid by the Bingham-Garfield
Railway Company, and conceivably might be considered as in employee of that
company alone. However Kennecott is the parent corporation of that company
as it is of Utah Copper, and as a practical matter Poulos in his work on the dike
is in charge of work and employees of Utah Copper. The undersigned finds that
both respondents in the present case are chargeable with Poulos' activities in
behalf of the Mill Association on the dike.
The employees who work on the dike assemble at the mill in the morning, and
then when the starting whistle blows they are carried out to their work on the
dike in a car. Poulos rode along with them in the car George Kirby, an em-
ployee who commenced work in March 1941 and who replaced the regular time-
keeper on his days off, testified that while he was acting as timekeeper -he
distributed Mill Association application cards during working hours as the work-
men would- get into the car He stated that he did so because he had observed
the regular-timekeeper distribute the cards in that manner, and that he thought
it was a part of the timekeeper's job When signed cards were returned to him
he placed them in the first-aid box which the timekeepers carried with them on
the job and in which the unsigned application blanks were also kept, for the regu-
lar timekeeper Poulos denied that he had seen the timekeepers pass out Mill
Association cards on the car in the morning, although lie had seen them passed
out at noon He admitted that he knew that the application cards were kept in
the first-aid box, and that all timekeepers passed such'cards out As noted here-
tofore he had sent employees to the timekeepers to be signed up in the Mill Asso-
ciation In rebuttal of Poulos' testimony that lie did not know about the distri-
bution of application blanks for the Mill Association, the Board called Ben
Poulson, an employee hired April 11, 1942. Poulson testified that he enrolled
employees in the Mill Association from the time he started; that he passed out
application blanks both on the car on the way to the dike, and while the men were
working, and that he enrolled as members approximately 200 employees from the
time he began working up to the date of the hearing He testified that on one
occasion Poulos told him to stop such activity, but that lie heeded the admonition
for not longer than a day, if that long It seems improbable to the undersigned'
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
that Poulos should have no knowledge of the distribution of Mill Association
cards and solicitation for membership in that organization during working hours,
when that activity was so general and so open that Kirby thought it was one of
the duties of his job as timekeeper, and Poulson was able to sign up about 200
employees within a period of 2 months. Accordingly the finding is made that
Poulos had knowledge of such activity and permitted it to be done.
Employee Julian Montoya testified that in the middle of May 1941, A B. Duck-
worth, general foreman of the foundry in the Arthur mill, informed him that
he had been "handed in" for signing men to join the Union and that it would
have to stop or he would lose his job. Montoya stated that he had not engaged
in such union activity during working hours, although he had diligently solicited
membership in the Union during lunch hours, and after working hours Duck-
worth's version of the conversation with Montoya was as follows :
"Julian, I have told you enough about your soliciting around here and
interfering with the men when they are working. If you don't stay on your
own floor and attend to your work, I am going to send you down the hill."
Duckworth further testified that on his regular rounds through the foundry
he generally caught Montoya in conversation with other employees off the
floor where he worked, and that he cautioned him about it several times. He
'testified that Mike Siouris, charge floor shift boss, was the source of his infor-
mation that Montoya was soliciting during working hours for the Union and in
so doing was interfering with the work of other employees. Siouris was not
called to testify, nor was it shown that he was unavailable. Instead the
respondent offered the testimony of employee J. L. Kuntz to show the nature of
Montoya's solicitation in the charge room. Kuntz testified that in April or
May 1941 he and Montoya engaged in a general conversation while Montoya
was waiting for some work on the charge floor. According to Kuntz, during the
course of the conversation Montoya asked Kuntz if he would consider joining
the Union, and Kuntz replied that he did not care to at that time. Kuntz said
that Montoya had no cards and that the conversation did not interfere with his
work. Although Kuntz admitted that he had talked about the Mill Association,
of which he was a member, on the job, he said that he reported his conversation
with Montoya to Duckworth in July 1941. Duckworth's testimony about Kuntz's
reporting his conversation with Montoya was confused and he contradicted
not only Kuntz but himself as well in regard thereto. He first placed his con-
versation with Kuntz about a month before the hearing, then when his at-
tention was directed to the fact that Montoya had been out of the foundry for
several months, he said that Kuntz reported the matter to him shortly before
he spoke to Montoya. As noted, Kuntz said he reported the matter to Duckworth
several months after Duckworth spoke to Montoya. In addition to the testimony
of Duckworth and Kuntz the respondent offered the testimony of employee
Henry Carsey to show that Montoya had engaged in membership solicitation
during working hours. Carsey testified that Montoya had come into the chipping
room where Carsey worked 10 or 12 times, and had engaged the other employees
in conversation. He testified both that he had, and had not, overheard Montoya
talk about the Union to the other employees. Carsey was hard of hearing,
and he stated that there was too much noise in the chipping room to talk very
well. Moreover, Carsey testified that he did not report Montoya's visits to the
chipping room to any supervisory employees. His testimony that he became a
member of the Mill Association only because it represented the lesser of two
evils is at variance with his statement that, "I was after them [other employees
in the chipping room] all the time in the shop not to join the C I. 0." There
y
-UTAH -C'OPPER COMPANYi -A CORPORATION 773-
was no showing that Montoya's duties did not take him into the chipping room
where Carsey worked As opposed -to the confused and contradictory testi-
mony of Kuntz, Carsey and Duckworth, the undersigned credits Montoya's
testimony and his denial that he had engaged in solicitation of membership
during working hours, and finds that Duckworth's statement to Montoya, coupled
with his threat of discharge, was caused not by any union activity of Montoya
during working hours, but because Montoya was an active and diligent member
of the Union. -
The treatment of Montoya is at variance with that of Cannon. Employee
Frank C. Payne testified without contradiction, that on one occasion during
the latter part of June or the first part of July 1938, Cannon talked with a
group of 9 or 10 employees including himself for over an hour during working
hours, urging the advantages of membership in the Mill Association, and that
Cannon's solicitation was observed by Englemann, Duckworth, the master
mechanic, and the mill foreman, whose name he did not-know, but whom he
had observed directing other foremen. These officials of the respondents did
nothing about Cannon's solicitation, but merely walked away. Englemann who
was questioned about the occurrence, testified that he did not recall the incident.
Cannon, Duckworth and the mill foreman were not called to testify about the
occurrence. The undersigned finds that the incident occurred as described by
Payne.
On May 31, 1941, T W. Muir, a working boss and assistant to Foreman Joe
Barnes, with approximately 35 employees under him, told Williams to keep out
of the welding department unless he had a job in there. Shortly thereafter
L. G Back, another employee, asked Muir about the order to keep'out of the
welding department, and according to Williams, Muir replied, "That's the head-
quarters of the C I. O. and everyone from Mr. Hatch [superintendent of Arthur
plant] down knows it, and its got to be broken up." Williams' testimony was
substantially corroborated by Back With reference to this incident Muir testi-
fied that, in answer to Back's question he said that Mr. Hatch said the ganging
up in the welding department had to stop; that then Muir added, "You fellows
all know that is getting to be a regular C. I. O. headquarters." Later however,
he contradicted this testimony and said that the C. I O. was not mentioned in
the conversation The undersigned credits the corroborated testimony of Wil-
liams and Back, as opposed to Muir's contradictory testimony, and finds that
Muir made the statement as given by Williams.
Williams testified further that the same day Muir told him that Roy Hatch
said that `he would hate to see the Union get in because he would hate to see
the mill torn down. Muir denied that he had made this statement. To sub-
stantiate his denial he said that he had never talked with Hatch, and therefore
could not quote him. As noted above, however, by his own admission he did
quote Mr. Hatch with reference to the order to keep out of the welding shop,
despite the fact that he claimed he had never talked with him. In view of this
fact and the contradictory testimony concerning the preceding conversation, the
undersigned finds that Muir made the above statement.
Kenneth Reid. president of the Union at the mills, testified that on August
8 or 9, 1941, he asked Muir if he could make up a day that he had taken off.
Muir asked Foreman Barnes about the matter, and then informed Reid that
he did not think he would be permitted to make the day up because his name had
appeared in the newspaper in connection with some union activity. Later, how-
ever, Muir advised Reid that he would be permitted to make up the lost day.
Muir gave practically the same version of the conversations as Reid. He added
that he explained to Reid that the reason why it was questionable whether
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he could make up the lost clay was that he reported that he was ill on the,day
he took off, whereas the newspaper article indicated that be was at some con-
vention. In view of the fact that, Reid was not recalled to testify whether he
had reported that he was ill on the day he took off, 'and because he was permitted
to make the day up, the undersigned finds that Muir's statement was not made
for the purpose of discouraging Reid's union activity. -
0. Membership and participations of supervisory employees in the formation
and admini s tration of the 31itt Association.
Below the rank of foreman the respondents have two classes of bosses in the
mills . These are shift bosses and working bosses Shift bosses , the respondents
admit, are super tisory employees ; working bosses , they contend, are not. In
view of the fact that many working bosses were members of and active in the
Mill Association a determination of their status is necessary Like shift bosses,
working bosses receive 25 cents per day more than the employees with whom they
work. Both shift and working bosses have the power to recommend the discharge
or discipline of employees Working bosses ordinarily have fewer men under
them than shift bosses , and do not lay out the work to the extent that shift bosses
do. Working bosses perform manual work , shift bosses do not. Pursuant to
'their classification as supervisory employees the respondents do not pay shift
bosses at the rate of time and one-half for work in excess of 40 hours per week ;
working bosses are paid for such work at the higher rate's In July 1941 the
respondents directed a letter to all of its supervisory employees instructing them
regarding the attitude they were to take towards labor organizations These
letters were sent to shift bosses but not to working bosses.
That the respondents ' distinction between shift and working bosses is an arti-
ficial one , and that both the respondents ' officials and the employees themselves
consider working bosses as supervisory employees is amply demonstrated in the
record E. W . Englemann , general superintendent of both mills , in correspond-
ence with Moffat referred to shift bosses as working bosses. A. B. Duckworth,
general foundry foreman of the Arthur plant, classified Carlson and Siouris, two
bosses under him as working bosses . On the respondents ' records they are car-
ried as shift bosses In November 1941 , Englemani informed the Mill Associa-
tion that he would have to investigate the participation of one Snow , a working
boss; in the sale i t a bid- for a job, because lie was a supervisory employee. As
noted below , Muir, a working boss , had 35 men under him while Gager , a shift
boss, had only 3.
The duties and functions performed by T. W.,Muir , a working boss, demon-
strate that working bosses are supervisory employees . Muir had approximately
35 employees working under him To such employees Muir distributed work,
assigned them jobs, and gave them orders and directions. He had the power
to recommend the discharge of employees and shared a joint office with Joe
Barnes, his foreman . Employees applied to l iii for permission to make up time
taken off from work , obeyed his orders without question, and regarded him as
Barnes' assistant.
In addition to the'testinmony regarding Muir, there is further evidence in,the
record that the employees consider working bosses as supervisory employees.
,From its inception in 1938 until October 1940, shift and working bosses had been
enrolled as members of the Mill Association . In October 1940 some question
1' The respondents did not show that this classification under the Fair Labor Standards
Act had been made by Vie Administrator of that Act , and appaiently it represents the
.respondents ' interpretation of the requirements of that Act rather than any official de-
termination of the status of working bosses
1
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION i 775
as to the advisability of permitting them to continue as members of the Mill
Association was raised because, as President Cannon explained, ". . . we felt
that supervisory employees at a union meeting didn't give quite the right atmos-
phere for free expression." 18
Because the respondents' higher officials so consider them, because their duties
so label them and because the employees so. regard them, the undersigned finds
that the working bosses are supervisory employees.14
A partial check of the membership rolls of the Mill Association shows that
approximately 17 shift bosses and 21 working bosses were members of the Mill
Association while they held such positions. Of the above,38 bosses approximately
27 were members of the Mill Association from its inception in March, April, May
and June 1938, and their names were presumably counted in the pay-roll check
upon which the respondents accorded the Mill Association recognition About
the same number were still members and their Mill Association dues were checked
off by the respondents in May 1942 The respondents knew of the membership
of the bosses in the Mill Association because their names were submitted to the
respondents for the check-off of dues in the Mill Association and such dues were
deducted from their checks and turned over tc the Mill Association.
The activities of the bosses in the Mill Association were not confined to mem-
bership only. C W. Gager, a shift boss, 78 became a department representative
for ,the Mill Association in October 1938. As department representative it was
part of his duties to investigate and handle grievances of the employees and to
attend meetings of the department representatives. In July 1939, about the time
of the election conducted by the Board, he distributed during working hours Mill
Association buttons and application cards, and solicited employees to join the
Mill Association. M S. Bawden, sample foreman at the Magna plant, was elected
department representative in October 1938.19 E. L Blair, fine crushing repairs
boss, was elected department representative in October 1938. In October 1939,
S. H. Beckstead, a working boss with from,7 to 11 men ender him, was nomi-
nated for the office of trustee in the Mill Association He was not permitted to
run for the office, but he was permitted to participate in the nomination of other
candidates, and to remain as a member of the Mill Association. E M. Lambert,
assistant chief tabulator, was elected and served as one of the members of the
first Board of Trustees of the Mill Association. While vice president of the
Mill Association in 1941, W. R. Damron acted as foreman of the foundry in the
Arthur plant for a period of 6 or 7 weeks, and while president in 1942 he took the
place of his foreman for about 2 weeks. As a general rule he takes the fore-
man's place in his absence. Damron since 1938 has spent in excess of 80 percent
of his working time in investigating and handling grievances for the Mill Asso-
ciation Thus it is apparent that normally Damron spends a material part (in
1941 practically all) of his working time not devoted to Mill Association affairs,
as a supervisory employee.
D. Activities on behalf of the Mill Association in the respondents' time o lice
David Back, John Carlyle Jones and Hugh Harding started to work for the
respondents in March 1941 At the time when he is hired each new employee is
instructed how to use the time clocks, given 'a time card and instructed how to
"At that time a few woilcing bosses were removed" from the membership rolls, but a
far greater number of shift and working bosses remained members
"See International Association of Machinists v National Labor Relations Boaid, 311
U S. 72.
18 See footnote 12 supra.
"The record does not disclose that he served in this capacity
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONNS. BOARD
fill it out, punch it, and where to place it These instructions are given in the
time office by one of three men ; J. B. Garn, chief tabulator ; Lambert, assistant
chief tabulator ; or R. H. Cushing, addressograph operator. Back, Jones and
Harding all testified that someone in the time office gave, them application
blanks in the Mill Association when they started to work Jones and Harding
identified the man as Lambert, Back said he did not know the man's name
All three employees stated that not only they, but the group of five or six
new employees with them were given the Mill Association application blanks,
and that they were 'told they could fill them out and give them to the dike
foreman or timekeeper. Garn and Cushing denied that they had passed out
application blanks for the Mill Association. Garn said he had never seen an
application for the Mill Association.20 Lambert was not called by the respond-
ents to testify. Back testified about receiving the application blank on the
Board's case in chief, and Jones and Harding were called to substantiate Back's
testimony after Garn and Cushing had testified The respondents did not then
call Lambert, nor did they request that they be given that opportunity Lambert
was assistant chief tabulator, who directed the work of other employees in the
tabulating department. He was at work on March 17, the day when Back and
Harding were given their instructions and the 111i11 Association blanks in the
time office. The undersigned credits the testimony of Back, Jones, and Harding
and-finds that Lambert; a supervisory/ employee, distributed to them and to
others application cards for the Mill Association.
E. The Mill Association office in the Arthur mill donnitos y
President ' Cannon testified that the 111i11 Association rented an office from
the respondents in the Arthur mill dormitory , and that the Mill Association
had had the office for over a year prior to the hearing. In the office were kept
,the Mill Association typewriter , membership cards and roster, stationery, office
supplies and other records . Thomas Marsh, secretary , did Mill Association work
there . Marsh, secretary of the Mill Association from August 1,' 1939, to April
1942, was questioned concerning the office after Cannon testified He testified
,that he lived at the Arthur dormitory from February 1931 until July 1941, and
that lie maintained a room there for "residential purposes " from July 1041 up
until the time of the hearing. He admitted that he lived elsewhere during the
latter period. He first testified that he paid the rent during this period, and
then admitted that the Mill Association "contributed " to the payment of the
rent after July 1941. When asked by his counsel whether the room was really
maintained as an office of the Mill Association he replied , "No, not exclusively."
From Marsh 's demeanor and testimony the undersigned gained the impression
that Marsh was more concerned with minimizing the effect of Cannon 's testi-
mony about the office than he was in revealing the true facts . The undersigned
therefore credits the testimony of Cannon and finds that the respondents rented
the Mill Association an office in the Arthur dormitory for over a year prior to
the hearing.
F. Use of the respondents' "ditto" machines by the Mill Association
As had the Committee before it the Mill Association used the respondents'
duplicating machines. Fred Rich, who had been secretary of the Committee up
until its demise, and who held the office of secretary to the Mill Association from
m This is apparent error. Gain participated in the first check of Mill Association
applications against the respondents ' payroll in May 1938 At that time he must have
seen in the neighborhood of 700 Mill Association applications according to the testimony
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 777
its inception until August 1939, testified that he used the respondents' duplicating
machine for the duplicating of Mill Association notices, letters and ballots. He
first said that he had made such use of the respondents' machine only for a
short period, but when confronted with exemplars of letters and notices which
had been prepared on the machine as late as July 1939, admitted that he had
used the machine on Mill Association letters and notices during the entire
tenure of his office as secretary. Rich testified that he used the machine with.
out the respondents' knowledge, but admitted that such use occurred during
working hours, in the basement of the main office at the Magna mill while other
people were about.
Thomas A. Marsh, who succeeded Rich as secretary of the Mill Association in
August 1939, and who remained in office until April 1942, also made similar use
of the respondents' machine in the Arthur office during the entire time be held
office Marsh testified that he used the machine for 1\Iill Association business
only after working hours, that he was given no authority to use the machine
for Mill Association business by the respondents, and that he thought the
respondents had' no knowledge that he made such use of the machine The
machine, however, was located on the first floor of the administration build-
ing at the Arthur Mill. Englemann denied knowledge of use of the ditto machine
by the Mill Association. However, knowledge of the use of the machines was
not denied by Marsh's and Rich's immediate superior, who presumably would be
in much closer touch with their work and actions than the general superintendent
of the mills. It seems highly improbable to the undersigned that the open,use
of the duplicating machines, over a period of more than 4 years, upon letters,
notices and ballots receiving a rather extended distribution, was unknown to the
respondents, especially in view of the fact that in its prior decision the Board
pointed out that the use of the respondents' duplicating machines constituted
support of the Committee. The undersigned therefore finds that the respond-
ents had knowledge of and permitted the use.of its duplicating machines by the
Mill Association.
G. The use of the icspondeats ' mailing satstem by the Mill Association
Between the Magna and Arthur Malls the respondents maintain a mailing
system, whereby letters are transmitted between the mills, and from and to the
U. S. Mails. Both Rich and Marsh testified that they made use of the mailing
system between the plants to send letters and notices to officers , department
representatives and members of the Mill Association from the respondents.
However, there is uncontradicted testimony in the record to the effect that any
employee is free to make use of the mailing system for personal or other com-
munications between the mills , and further testimony that such use of the mail-
ing system had been made by employees for such purpose . Under the circum-
stances the undersigned finds that the use of the mailing system by the Mill
Association does not constitute evidence of illegal assistance to the Mill Asocia-
tion, by the respondents
H Conclusions aegaadAig domination of Mill Association, and nniteaference,
coercion and restraint at the mills
The respondents and the Mill Association contended that by signing the
consent-election agreement of July 13, 1939, pursuant to which, the election %vas
held on July 18, 1939, and by permitting the Mill Association to appear upon
the ballot, the Board thereby inipliedly recognized the competency of, the Mill
Association to act as collective bargaining agent under the Act, and by such acts
was estopped from considering or reviewing any acts of domination or support
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which occurred prior to the date -of the election Objection was raised' to the
introduction of evidence relative to company-domination of the Mill Association
prior to the election
In a number of cases the Board has ruled that it will not consider events
offered to prove company-domination of a labor organization which occurred
prior to an election conducted by the Board, in which election the name of the
allegedly company-donnated oiganization is permitted on the ballot' In the
Wickwire Bros case it appears that charges alleging that an association was
company-dominated were filed The charges were investigated by the Board,
and thereafter a consent election agreement was signed between the respondent,
the charging union and the allegedly company-dominated association. The agree-
ment was witnessed by the Regional Director of the Board. Between the signing
of the agreement and the date of the election coercive statements were made by
the respondent's supervisory employees At the Regional Director's request,
notices counteracting these statements were posted throughout the plant-. The
election was held, with the Association participating. The Association received a
majority of the votes cast. Subsequent charges of company-d'bmination of the
Association were filed. The Board found that the respondent engaged in no
unfair labor practices subsequent to the election The Board, in specifically reject-
ing the respondent's contention that it was estopped from proceeding on such
charges, held that the policies of the Act would best be effectuated if it did not
consider the events which transpired prior to the election as a basis for sustaining
the allegations of the complaint with respect to the respondent's domination of
and interference with the association That such holding was limited to a situa-
tion where the respondent engaged in no unfair labor practices after the election
is clearly stated. The'Board there said :
If the respondent had engaged in further unfair labor practices after the
consent election, we should disregard the consent-election agreement Any
such agreement obviously contemplates that-the employer will not engage in
any further unfair labor practices If the respondent's conduct after the
consent election showed a continuity with its conduct prior thereto, we would
consider the whole of the respondent's conduct in determining whether the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices with regard to the Associa-
tion The respondent is not shown to have engaged in further unfair labor
practices subsequent to the consent election. The complaint, in so far as
it alleges that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the Association and contributed support to it, will be
dismissed.
In the present case the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices after the
consent election of July 18, 1939. Their conduct after the election showed a
continuity with their conduct prior thereto The undersigned therefore finds
that the policies of the Act will not be best effectuated by refusing to consider the
respondents' acts of domination, interference with, and support of the Mill
Association which occurred prior to the holding of the consent election 22
The record reveals a plethora of incidents showing the respondents' aid and sup-
port of the Mill Association and its opposition to the Union. The keynote struck
by Moffat's summary rejection of the Union's request for recognition and his
21 Matter of Wickwire Brothers and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin
Workers of North America, etc, 16 N L R B 316; Matter of Hope Webbing and Textile
Workers Organizing Committee of the C. 1. 0., Local No 111, 14 N L R B. 55
22 Matter of Houdaille -Hershey Corporation and Houde Engineering Aircraft Corporation
and International Union, United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America ( C I. 0.) Case No . C-2185, decided July 22, 1942, - L. R R. -.
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 779
speedy grant of a like request by the Mill Association, has been followed consist-
ently and unwaveringly by other supervisory employees and officials of the
respondents. The differeAce in treatment accorded the two organizations is to
be explained only by the respondents' preference for the Mill Association. This
preference has been translated into numerous unequivocal words and acts of
assistance and support. Its effect upon the respondents' employees cannot be
doubted
By questioning employees about their union affiliation ; by attempting to dis-
suade employees from resigning from the Mill Association and from 'joining the ,
Union; by informing employees that the Union "didn't have a chance" to win a
collective bargaining election, and that "it was a good thing" that it did not win
such an election ; by reprimanding employees for talking in favor of the Union ;
by crediting the promotion of employees to the efforts of the Mill Association; by
threatening employees with discharge because of their membership in, or activities
on behalf of the Union; and by characterizing the Union as "radical", "Commu-
nistic", and "UnAmerican" the respondents have encouraged membership in the
Mill Association and discouraged membership in the Union, thereby interfering,
in violation of the Act, with their employees' rights to self-organization.
The respondents' acts of support and domination of the Mill Association have
not been confined to statements alone Fish, Lambert, Poulos and Gager of the
respondents' supervisory staff actively solicited membership for the Mill Associa-
tion during working hours;) Englemann , Duckworth and -Poulos, admittedly
supervisory employees, permitted employees under their supervision t6 campaign
for the Mill Association during working hours; the respondents permitted the Mill
Association to use its duplicating machines, rented it an office in its Arthur
dormitory, gaNe it bulletin boards, permitted supervisory employees and others
to spend up to' 80 percent of their working time investigating and handling Mill
Association grievances without loss of pay. permitted supervisory employees to
become and remain members and officeis of the Mill Association, deducted Mill
Association dues and fees from their paychecks and turned the money over to
the Mill Association. recognized -the Mill Association as the sole collective bargain-
ing agent of its mill employees in the face of a conflicting claim by the Union
while such claim was under consideration by the Board, and continued such
recognition after the August 1938 election had conclusively revealed that the Mill
Association (lid not represent a majority of such employees.
The continuity in leadership between the Committee and the Mill Association
has been pointed out, as has the fact that the first steps leading to formation of
the Mill Association were taken at a meeting of the Committee. To the employees
at large the Mill Association must have appeared to be a revision of the Commit-
tee, and as such the recipient of the respondents' continued support and favor. In
similar situations the Board and the courts have held that the employer must
openly disavow his support and domination of the earlier organization prior to the
formation of the later organization, in order to deprive the successor of his
apparently continued favor, and that there must be a' distinct and apparent
line of fracture between the old and the new organizations, in order that the
employees have freedom of choice ' In the present case the respondents not only
failed at any time to disavow their support and domination of the Committee, but
23 See N. L R B v Newport News Company, 308 U S 241 ; N. L R B v Link-Belt Com-
pany, 311 U S 584; Westinghouse Electric ct Manufacturing Company v . N. L. R. B.,
112 F (2d) 657 (C C A 2), affirmed (per curiam) 61 S. Ct. 736; N. L. R. B. v. John A.
Roebling's Sons Co, 120 F (2d) 289 (C C A 3) ; N L R. B v Rath Packing Co, No. 481,
Orig, September 11, 1942, 11 L R R 76 (C C A 8) -
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONiS BOARD
their every act served to foster the impression that the Mill Association was the
beneficiary of their favor and support, as had been the Committee. The respond-
ents here neither before nor after the disestablishment of the Committee, dis-
avowed their support and domination of the Committee; they gave no notice of
the disestablishment of the Committee to the employees until after they had
granted recognition to the Mill`Association, and finally, when they did announce
the disestablishment of the Committee they gave as reason therefor the grant of
recognition to the Mill Association, denying that such disestablishment was
because of their illegal domination thereof Against such a background the
respondents' support of the Mill Association' assumes more pointed and sharper
significance.
By all of the foregoing acts the respondents have 'dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Mill Association and contributed
financial and other support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. It is to be noted that almost without exception the above act., occurred
or were continued after the election conducted by the Board on July 18, 1939.
Officials of the respondents testified that the policy of the respondents was one
of non-nrterfeteuce with the employees' right to self-organization, and further
testified that they had often cautioned the supervisory employees that they were
not to interfere with, the employees' right to self-organization or to indicate a
preference for one labor organization over another. However, the record shows
that such instructions were consistently violated. A somewhat anomalous situa-
tion is revealed by the respondents' sending letters to some of its supervisory
employees telling them to take no part in labor affairs while at the same time it
deducts Mill Association dues from their paychecks and turns the money over to
the Mill Association Small wonder that some of their supervisory employees
were more impressed by what the respondents did than by what they said, and
continued to aid the Mill Association and oppose the Union, or that they believed
the respondents' notice of June 1938, wherein they advised them that dominating
the Committee was not in violation of the Act. The bewilderment of one of the
respondents' supervisory employees at the hearing at being called to account for
statements in favor of the Mill Association and against the Union is readily under-
standable. The respondents had it in their power to see that their instructions
of non-interference were carried out There was no showing that any supervisory
employee was ever disciplined for failure to carry out the instructions of
non-interference
The 'Mill Association contended that even though it might initially-have-received
support and assistance from the respondents, during the four years of its existence
it freed itself from the effects of such support However, the undersigned rejects
this contention, as have the Board and courts on a much stronger showing of
militant activity than is here made.' As shown above the acts of support and
assistance continued up to the time of the hearing, and at the present time the
Mill'Association numbers among its members admittedly supervisory employees
of the respondents The Mill Association also pointed to the fact that at the
present time it has enrolled a substantial majority of the respondents' employees
as members. To this fact no importance can be attached ill view (f numerous
acts of aid and assistance, to the Mill Association by the respondents The con-
24 The Mill Association on one occasion took a strike vote, which failed of passage
See A L R. B. v. Lint-Belt Company, 311,U ^ S 584; TPestot n Union Telegraph Co v.
N L R B, 113 F (2d) 992, 997 (C C. A 2) ; Cot nr.g Glass Works V N L RB -, 118 F.
(2d) 625, 629 (C. C. A. 2). -
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 781
siderable number of the respondents' employees who have not joined the Mill
Association have done so in the face of the respondents' clearly expressed prefer-
ence for the Mill Association.
Counsel for the Board contended that the respondents should be held responsible
for the activities of the timekeepers at the mills in their acts of solicitation for
the Mill Association irrespective of whether the respondents had actual knowledge
of such activity The principal activities of the timekeepers occurred on the dike,
and the undersigned has found that these activities in behalf of the Mill Asso-
ciation were known to and encouraged by Poulos, the foreman on the dike. In
view of the knowledge and encouragement of such activities by the respondents,
it is unnecessary to make any determination of the status of the timekeepers
Counsel for the Board contended that,the minutes of the various mneeti ngs.of
the Mill Association showed that that organization did not enter into genuine
collective bargaining with the respondents Counsel for the Mill Association
contended that the minutes did show that the Mill Association engaged in genuine
collective bargaining. The undersigned, having read and considered such minutes
is of the opinion that in and of themselves without supplementing testimony, such
minutes are so inconclusive that they do not justify a finding either one way or
the other.
I Foinmation. organization and donioiation of the Mine Committee
The complaint alleged and the respondents denied that the Employees General
Committee at the mine, herein called the Mine Committee, was company-domi-
nated The Mine Committee was similar in all respects to the Committee at-the
mills which the Board ordered disestablished because of company-domination.
The Mine Committee was set up in 1919 by Robert C. Gemmell, general manager
of the Utah Copper Company At that time he announced to the employees that
they were to elect representatives to act as their bargaining agents, and preseiibed
certain rules and procedures under which such representatives were to function.
The rules and procedures remained in effect from 1919 until November 1923 at
which'time with certain additions they were adopted as by-laws by the representa-
lives of the Mine Committee They have remained .in effect up to the present
time with modification only as to the grouping of employees for the purpose of
electing representatives. The Mine Committee by-laws recite that they are
"accepted" by the Mine Committee and "approved" by the respondents. The
by-laws also provide that if a representative is unable to dispose of a grievance
satisfactorily after conferences with the foreman and the superintendent, he shall
bring the matter no at the meeting with representatives of the respondents
If no satisfactory settlement is reached as a result of the discussion at such
a meeting, then 'a special meeting with the respondents' representatives' may be
,called at which additional facts may be presented. The by-laws further provide
that the representative having a grievance to bring before the meeting may express
his candid opinion on the grievance, and that such opinion shall not be held
against him by the respondents, provided the bonds of discretion are not passed.
No method of arbitration is provided It is apparent that the function of the
Mine Committee is purely advisory, and after debating the merits of -a grievance
with the respondents,*its recourse is to call a special meeting and present addi-
tional arguments if any.. The only members of the Mme Committee are the
representatives elected from the various departments in the mine, the employees
at large are not members but are permitted to participate in the election of
representatives by virtue of their employment at the mine Nominations for the
office of representative are made, not-.by the employees at large but by the
representatives in office. Modification of the representation plan under the Mine
Committee must be approved by the respondents.
.782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
The Mine Committee holds no general meetings for the employees Consequently
the employees are not afforded an opportunity to present a collective expression
of opinion on matters affecting their wages, hours, or other conditions of employ-
ment. The representatives, about 22 in number, meet twice each month, once
by themselves and once with representatives of the respondents For attendance
at these meetings the respondents pay the representatives $2.00 per meeting.
Minutes of the meetings are taken down and transcribed by the Secretary of
Mine Committee, who makes additional copies thereof on the respondents' duplicat-
ing machines, furnishes one copy to the respondents and posts others on the
respondents' bulletin boards throughout the mine. The respondents provide the
main committee with an office in the respondents' main offices at the Mine
without cost.
Election of representatives for the Mine Committee takes place twice yearly.
These elections are conducted by the respondents during working hours at
the plant. All ballots and other election paraphernalia are furnished by
the respondents. The ballots are courted and the results are tabulated
and announced by the respondents. Any employee is entitled to vote for
representatives. The Mine Committee collects no dues, nor has it any other
source of revenue.
On occasion the respondents give the representatives of the Mine Committee
outings. In 1941 the respondents transported the representatives to and from
the place where' the outing was held and paid them for the time they lost in
attendance
At the present time the respondents recognize and. deal with the Mine Com-
mittee.as the representative of all its mine employees as collective bargaining
agent. _
• Just prior to the hearing in the present case the respondents called a special
meeting of the Mine Committee representatives to announce it general increase
in pay.
J Conclusions regarding the Mine Conwa ttee
The respondents set up the Mine Committee originally and dictated its
rules and procedures. These rules and procedures with modifications accepted
by the Mine Association and approved by the respondents- have continued
in force until the present time. The inability of the Mine Association to
function as a true and free representative of the mine employees under such
rules and procedures is clear. Without the consent of the respondents, the
rues and procedures cannot be changed. 'Admittedly the respondents are
furnishing financial and other support to the Mine Committee at the present
time. The formation and administration of the Mine Committee parallel
those of the Committee, already found by the Board to be company-dominated.
It is found that the respondents have dominated and interfered with the
administration of the Mine Committee, and have contributed financial and
other support to it; and have thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act. -
K. The organuzatioi of the Mine Association
The Mine Association had its beginning about the same time as the Mill
Association. When Trial Examiner McNally recommended that the Com-
mittee at the mills be disestablished many of the employees of the mine thought
that the Mine Committee would also be disestablished. Accordingly a number
of employees from the mine , including Russell Anderson , William E. Huebner
and Joe Doyle, president and respresentatives of the Mine Committee, respec-
tively, attended some of the meetings held in Carlson's office in March 1938
UTAH COPPER COMPANTT, A CORPORATION 783
at which the formation of the Mill Association was undertaken. Some of
the mine employees, including Huebner and A. E. Williams, also attended one
or more of the initial meetings of the Mill Association held in the Cyprus
High School. When the plan ' to organize the employees of the mine and the
mills into one organization was abandoned, Huebner continued his promotion of
an unaffiliated organization among the employees. He made arrangements for
a meeting with Evans, an attorney in Bingham, and secured a copy of the
Mill Association constitution from Cannon. A series of meetings followed
with Evans and employees of the mine in attendance. The constitution of
the Mine Association which was practically identical with that of the Mill
Association was adopted August 5, 1938. A E Williams was named as
president of the Mine Association in the constitution and the names of the
other officers were also set out therein. Cards secured from the Mill Association
were used as a model for the Mine Association cards. Cannon and other
officers and members of the Mill Association attended some of the first meetings
of the Mine Association and gave the organizers support and advice. Cannon
advised the promoters of the Mine Association that the mine employees could
not join with the employees of the mills at the time of the formation of the
Mill Association, but he told them to go ahead and form their own organization,
and perhaps they could join together later., About the beginning of 1939,
the Mine Association lost its active members to one of the railway, Brother-
hoods, and it went into a decline. Meetings became infrequent and- finally
stopped altogether For over the period of a year no meetings were held. In
1941, about the time when the A. F. of L. unions filed their petitions for.certi-
"fication of representatives at the mine, the Mine Association was revised under
the lead of Williams. Meetings were again held and shortly before the bearing
on the A. F of L. petitions was held, 2,000 copies of the Mine Association
constitution were' printed and distributed. New membership cards were
printed and members were solicited. During the period while the Mine
Association was being revived it sought and received help from the Mill Associa-
tion. Officers of the Mine Association attended meetings of the Mill,
Association, advised and counseled with them, and Mine Association meetings
were attended by members and officers of the Mill Association for the same
purpose. The Mill Association appointed a committee headed by Damron
which was to help the Mine Association in every way possible Williams
appeared on behalf of the Mine Association at the hearing on the A F. of L.
petitions held in Salt Lake City in July 1941
In October 1941 the Mine Association requested and was granted the check-off
of dues for its members In December 1941, the Mine Association held its
first regular election and Williams was elected president In October 1941,
the Mine Association also began to issue a newspaper named the "Independent
News." Brooks, editor of the Mill Association newspaper "The Spot Light,"
assisted with the publication of the "Independent News" and most of the
articles appearing therein. In January 1942, the Mine Association filed a petition
for investigation and certification of representatives with the Board
L. Interference, restraint, coercion at the mine
In November or October 1939 employee Frank Rino, while waiting for the car
to take him up to his place of work, was reading a C I 0 paper Foreman
John Steele approached him and asked him what he was reading Rino told
him. Steele then turned to bosses Kastelic, Marino, and Pine, who were also
waiting for the car, and told them that Rino was a warden in the C. I. 0, that
when Rino was hungry he came to Steele for a job, but now that he had a few
784
n
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dollars he joined the C. I 0. Steele then asked Reno why lie joined. Rino
protested that he did not want anything and that he was not doing Steele any
harm.25
A few days later Steele observed Rino wearing a C. I. 0 button . He said to
Rino, "I thought you was a company man," and Rino replied that he was
Steele then asked Rino why he wore the C. I. O . button and told him that if he
would resign from the C . I. O. 30 other employees would do likewise.`
As described below, Rino was one of the employees called in by General Man-
ager Buchman and questioned as to whether he had signed an assignment for
C. I 0 dues . Two days later he met Sam Pino, powder boss , on his way to
work. Pino told Rino that he should be' ashamed for, not resigning from the
C. I. 0.; that 50 men had dropped out and only Rino and another remained-'
At the time of the hearing Rino was 'a representative of the Mine Committee
Employee Thomas M. Lopez credibly testified and the undersigned finds, that
'sometime in the fall of 1939, Foreman John Steele observed him wearing a
C. I. O. button and told him that he had better take it off Lopez removed the
button. About the time of the Steele conversation , according to Lopez, Foreman
Albert Kastelic questioned him about his membership iii the Union and asked
him if he had resigned . Kastelic then added that Steele said 20 or 25 men
resigned from the Union . Lopez's testimony about the conversation was corrob-
orated by Kastelic . Lopez later resigned from the Union. -
In the summer of 1940, Oscar Simonson , a section boss, told employee Irvin
Lovelett, a member of the Union, who at that time was working in the track
gang, that he (Lovelett ) would still be running a track shifter , which was a better
job, if he had not been a C. I. O. organizer . On a number of occasions during
1939 and 1940 Simonson called Lovelett a "Red" and a " rebel." 28
On or about November 15, 1939, Foreman Steele also had a conversation with
employee Ignacio Diaz, in which he asked Diaz , "Why did you sign with the
C. I. 0 ? Why don 't you send a letter to Watson telling him not to deduct dues'?
Save that dollar and a half a month." Diaz told Steele that he wanted to be
a member of the organization Steele then said that it was , not necessary to
belong , showed him a list of employees who had dropped out, and warned Diaz
that he would be left "holding the bag." He then advised that if Diaz wanted
to be in an organization there was the Mine Committee which was good, or the
Mine Association which would only cost 50 cents 29
Frank Swain , chief guard at the mine , admitted that in November 1940 he
told employee Mike Baros , a member of the Union , whom he described as a
strong union man and "quite radical" about it, that he believed the Union was
not doing Baros any good, and that he could save the money he paid in dues. He
also told Baros' wife that the deduction for union dues was u nnecessary and
could be saved.
25 The above finding is based upon the credible testimony of Rino At the time of the
hearing, Steele was dead. Kastelic and Pino testified that they did not recall the con-
versation, but did not deny that it occurred Marino was not called as a witness
26 As will be noted from the testimony of Lopez and Kastelic discussed hereinafter,
Steele ieniarked to others about employees resigning from the C I O.
2i Pino first testified that he did not recall the above conveisation He then testified
about, a conversation lie had with Rino, but stated that he could not Place the date of
such conversation. Rino on the contrary was definite and specific in his testimony, and
it is credited by the undersigned. -
28 The above finding is based upon the testimony of Lovelett, which was corroborated
by employee O'Keefe. Simonson admitted that he called Lovelett a "Red," but did not
recall making the above statement The undersigned believes Lovelett's corroborated
testimony is entitled to the greater weight and credits it.
ii This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Diaz
r
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 785
Buchman, according to his and employee John Hunick's testimony, had a
conversation with Hunick in May 1941. Hunick was a member of the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, A F. of L., an organization which at that
time was seeking recognition as collective bargaining agent for certain of the
respondents' employees. , Buchman asked Hunick how old lie was, and upon
being informed that Hunick was almost ON, he told Hunick that he would soon
be able to retire and asked him if the union would pay him a pension. He
pointed out that the respondents had paid some of its old employees pensions
Shortly after the conversation Hunick resigned from his union. Buchman
substantially corroborated Hunick's testimony, but denied that he had any
intention of inducing Hunick to resign. He explained that he was merely
contrasting the policies of the respondents in'respect to pensions with that of
labor organizations in general. The logical effect of such an unfavorable contrast
upon a man approaching the end of his laboring life is illustrated by the fact
that Hunick resigned from his union, shortly after his conversation with
Buchman
Employee Irvin Lovelett, a member of the C. I. 0., testified that in June 1941
he had a conversation with Tom Wilson, shovel foreman. Lovelett's testimony,
corroborated by Wilson, was that Wilson asked him how long he had been
working and then asked him why he was still an extra pitman, stating that he
should have been a regular pitman by that time. Lovelett replied that he did
not know why he had not been made a regular pitman. Wilson then inquired of
L. F. Pett, general mine foreman, if there was any reason why Lovelett was not
made a regular pitman. Lovelett and Wilson disagreed as to what Wilson
reported to Lovelett following the inquiry of I'ett Lovelett testified that Wilson
reported to him that the reason given by Pett for his failure to receive a better
job was that he had engaged in some union activity on the "hill," '0 and that
Wilson advised him to go and tell Garrity, then assistant mine superintendent,
that he did not belong to the Union and see if he could not get a better job that
way. Wilson's version was that Lovelett in the subsequent conversation asked
him if his membership in the Union had anything to do with his not getting a
promotion, and that he said he had never heard of anything like that on the
hill On his direct examination Wilson was not asked about advising Lovelett
to see Garrity, or what was said in that regard. On cross-examination he
admitted that he had advised Lovelett to go see Garrity. If, as Wilson testified,
he had told Lovelett that Pett assured him Lovelett's promotion would go through
with the rest of them in the proper order, there would be no necessity for
advising Lovelett to see Garrity. The undersigned is of the opinion and finds
that Wilson advised Lovelett to see Garrity, tell him that he was not a member
of the Union, and see if he could not obtain a regular pitman's job in that way
The president of the I. B E W of the A. F. of L at the Mine, L. L Stock,
testified that in August or September 1941 he asked Mitchell, assistant chief
electrician, for a transfer to the repair car and that Mitchell advised him that
he could not obtain the transfer because he was considered a radical organizer.
In 1936 or 1937 Stock had been president of the C. I 0 Stock's testimony was
undenied as the respondents did not call Mitchell to testify concerning the inci-
dent. The undersigned finds that Mitchell made the statement as related by
Stock.
In the last part of September 1941 employee Eli Thomas was transferred from
the position of switch tender back to the track gang. Thomas testified that he
asked Clarence Bullock, section foreman, why he was being transferred and
that Bullock said it was because Barlow, general, track foreman and Bullock's
"The respondents' mine in Bingham Canyon is often so designated in the recoi d
513024-43-vol. 47-50
786 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
superior , had seen a button on his hat At the time Thomas was wearing a C. I. 0
button on his hat . Bullock said he did not recall making the statement to Thomas
He did not testify as to what he told Thomas at the time of the transfer . Barlow
testified that Thomas was transferred for other reasons , but admitted that'he
was put back on his job as switchtender after representatives of the Board inves-
tigated his case. Under the circumstances the undersigned credits the testimony
of Thomas and finds that Bullock made the statement as related by Thomas.
In September 1941 Bullock also spoke to employee Harvey Blackett about
the unions at the mine . Blackett had been active in both the C I 0 and the
A. F. of L . According to Blackett , when he asked Bullock the reason for his
transfer from the job of track walker back to the track gang, Bullock replied
that as long as the fellows negotiated with different unions , worked with different
unions , and tried to get them into the Utah Copper, they would never get anything
better The conversation took place in the presence of the whole number 3 gang
Bullock denied the statement but gave a version of a conversation he had with
Blackett . He testified that he came upon Blackett and four or five other employees
standing in a group arguing at a time when there was no room on the dump to
-dump waste trains. Blackett 's foreman was present and was trying to get
the dump clear . According to Bullock , he went up to the men in the group. and
said, "Union or no union , we have got to get room here, let's get these trains
a moving." Although specifically asked by his counsel whether Blackett men-
tioned the union , Bullock stated that was all of the conversation . He also testi-
fied that he did not hear what the men were arguing about . He did not recall
the names of the other men with Blackett. On cross-examination he contradicted
his prior testimony by saying that Blackett did mention that he was talking
about the Union The undersigned credits Blackett 's version of the conversation
Employee Wallace Wood testified that in the latter part of September 1941,
M. R. Marshall , track foreman , told Wood and two other employees that there
were too many unions on the hill , that the C. I 0 did not have a chance because
the'Mine Association had the majority of the hill, that he could not see how so
many unions could possibly work, and that the Mine Association was the union
that was doing the most good Marshall substantially corroborated the testimony
of Wood. With respect to what was said in the conversation Marshall ' testified
as follows, " . . . the remark was made that was quite a lot of fellows joining
the C. I. 0 at that time, and I say, well , I couldn ' t understand why they'd want
to join the C. I. 0, why didn't they join the Independent Union and affiliate
with the Independent Union already recognized at the Arthur and Magna Mills,
or better still, join the A F. of L and be affiliated with the Brotherhood there
on the hill ." Whichever version be accepted the coercive nature of the statements
is clear. The undersigned finds that Marshall made the statements as outlined
by Wood. a
In November 1941 all the employees in the number 2 trace gang , about 18 in
number, put on C. I . O. buttons during the lunch hour and returned to work
wearing them Employee Paul M. Lantz testified that when Simonson, gang
boss, saw the buttons he became incensed and told the men, "Take those God
damn badges off if you want to live on this hill. Put them in your pocket and
leave them there." Then after a pause he added, "You have let some of the older
fellows lead you into something you don ' t know anything about." According to
Lantz , all of the men except himself removed the buttons Lantz's testimony was
corroborated by employee Ralph Astorga who was a member of the gang at that
time. Simonson denied that he made the above statements He said that he
told some of the newer men in the gang who were wearing buttons to watch
the other men, and if the older men in the gang took off their buttons for them
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 787
i
to do likewise ' Simonson's milder version of the conversation was corroborated
by two employees called by the respondents who followed Simonson on the stand.
,Each testified that while on Simonson's gang he dropped his membership in the
C. I O. and joined the Mme Association ; one admitted that he received his Mine
Association button from Simonson, and stated that he concluded from Simonson's
expressions about unions that Simonson did not like the C I 0 and thought
the Mine Association would be a better union for the employees Simonson testi-
fied that the older men were in the practice of removing their buttons when any
of the gang foremen came along and he gave the new men the advice in an attempt
to protect them He was unable to explain why or from what the new men needed
protection and he was unable to name any of the men to whom he had given
such advice In view of Simonson's inability to exphiin why lie gave such advice
and his inability to name the men to whom he gave it, the undersigned credits
the testimony of Lantz and Astorga.
Astorga testified without contradiction and the undersigned finds, that shortly
after Simonson told the C. I. O. men to take off their buttons, some of the
employees began to wear Mine Association buttons, and to the wearers of such
buttons Simonson said nothing. Lantz testified without contradiction that on
another occasion Simonson told him, "If CIO ever gains recognition on the hill,
I will quit my job." The undersigned finds that Simonson made the statement.
Lantz further testified also without contradiction that during the entire course
of his employment with the respondents from July 1940 to March 1942, Simonson
warned him and other employees that if the C. I. O. were allowed on the hill
the employees would lose their privileges. Employee O'Keefe also testified to
Simonson's anti-C. I. O. attitude.
While working in Simonson's gang, Lantz observed Boyd Nerdin, trustee of
the Mine Association, soliciting the employees to withdraw from the C. I. 0
-and to join the Mine Association during working hours. He testified that Nerdin
spent most of his time while running the bulldozer for the number 2 gang from
November 1941 to March 1942 doing that and that it went on while Simonson
was around. In December 1941, according to Lantz, Simonson asked him how
many members he had gained for the C. I. O. Lantz told him two or three.
Simonson then replied, "Well, you will have to hurry up. Boyd Nerdni is signing
them out faster than you could sign them in," and concluded with the statement
that Boyd Nerdin was gaining more ground than the C. I. 0 Simonson testified
that he did not think he made the above statements He testified that he did have
a somewhat similar conversation ; that Lantz told him that lie just about made
his groceries for the past month by signing men up in the C I. 0 , and that his
reply was that as long as Lantz had competition-one signing them out and the
other signing them in, lie could make a good living Simonson did not deny
that he had knowledge of Nerdml's activities in behalf of the Mine.Association
in his gang, and he admitted that he had passed out one and maybe more Mine
Association buttons. In view of these .facts,.togetlier with'the fact that Simonson
did not deny other anti-union statements attributed to him, the undersigned finds
that lie had knowledge of Nerdin's activities in behalf of the Mine Association
(luring working hours, and did nothing to stop them, also that he made the
statements regarding Nerdin's activities as related by Lantz
L. G. Ostler, president of the A. F. of L. operating engineers at the mine,
testified that on November 24, 1941, J. A. Whitely, assistant general foreman,
said to him in the presence of a number of other employees, "Say, Link, when are
you going to get out of that union you're in and get into the Independent and help
things along around here?" Whitely both denied and said he could not remember
making the statement. His memory, however, was demonstrably not very good.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He testified that he had never received any instructions either written or oral as
to how he should act in regard to the employees' union activities Later when
his memory was refreshed, lie recalled having received a letter of instructions in
that regard from Buchman, and recalled hiiding seen notices containing such
instructions posted The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that Ostler's
testimony is more credible
In November 1941 Buchman accompanied by Garrity, mine 'superintendent,
stopped and talked to the number 19 track gang during working hours Employee
Wallace Reed Walker testified that Buchman told the gang that they were all
free to join the unions they wanted to join, but if the boys were all joining unions
there must be something wrong with the respondents, and if there was he would
like to know and get it straightened out. Several of the employees enumerated
some changes they thought desirable Buchman ignored some of the changes
suggested, pointed out that employees of other companies which were organized,
such as the underground mines, did not have some of the improvements desired,
and then recounted some of the privileges which the respondents extended to
the employees Buchman's account of the incident agreed substantially with
the above findings. He testified that at the time, lie had just returned to the mine
after a trip and on his return he heard rumors of a strike on the hill and other
evidences, mentioning as a source of such rumors the loud speaker in Bingham,
.which had been installed by the C. I 0. Garrity, mine superintendent, had heard
no such rumors as Buchman described. His speech to the gang followed by a
few days increased activity on the part of the C. I. 0. at the mine and the sub-
mission by that organization of the largest check-off list it had ever turned in.
During his testimony he exhibited a ready knowledge of the affiliations of the
different employees through the lists submitted by the different organizations
for the check-off and mentioned the track gangs and the powder gang as the
places where the C. I 0. had the greatest strength Walker testified that before
Buchmnan's speech' to the number 19 gang about three-quarters of the 20 to 22
employees in the gang were members of the C. I. 0., but that after his talk all
but about 3 resigned from the C. I 0. Walker testified that about a week after
Buchman spoke to the number 19 gang, be got on the pay car wearing his C I. 0.
button and meet Buchman Buchman asked him a number of questions and
finally said, "Well, what's your gripe?" referring to the C. I. 0 button. Walker
told Buchman that he had no complaint to make. Buchman did not recall the
conversation. Since the tenor of the conversation is the same as that of the
conversation with the number 19 gang, which Buchman admitted, the undersigned
credits Walker's testimony and finds that the conversation occurred as lie stated.
In January 1942 ,employee Ernest Corona who was wearing quite a number of
C. I 0 buttons met Buchman on the pay car. Corona testified that Buchman told
him that he was pretty young to join the Union. Buchman testified that he told
Corona that was pretty young to wear so many buttons. Considering Buchmari's
testimony as a whole, the undersigned believes Corona's version the more probable
and credits it.
In February 1942 employee William M. O'Keefe, an active C I. 0. member,
went to Superintendent Garrity's office to see about a transfer. Buchman, who
was in the office adjoining, testified that he called in to O'Keefe and asked him
what he thought that the C. I 0 could get for the employees that they were not
already enjoying. O'Keefe replied that the Union was instrumental in getting
the 40-hour week, which resulted in one day at time and a half in the 48-hour week
they were then working Buchman testified that he told him that he was not so
sure about that, that the 40-hour week was put into effect through legislation and
-added, "Utah Copper Company had been working 48 hours while a lot of the or-
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 789
ganized underground mines ate only working 40 hours " Buchman stated that he
also pointed out to O'Keefe the fact that the respondents were paying higher
wages than the underground mines and had a better vacation plan. The under-
ground mines were organized by the C. I. O.
Bert Gill, who worked at the mine and was financial secretary of the Interna-
itonal Association of Machinists, A. F. of L, applied to Buchman in February
1942 for one of the respondents' houses. Buchman told him that no houses were
available. According to Gill, Buchman then said, "why don't you see Bill Green,
see if he has any $10,000, $25,000 houses he'll rent for $25.00 a month " Bachman
admitted that he asked Gill why Bill Green of the A. F. of L did not use union
funds to build houses for the employees, pointing out that some other unions
(lid. In any event, whether Buchman contrasted the practice of Gill's union with
that of the respondents in regard to the building of houses,,as Gill testified, or
whether he contrasted it with other unions as well, as he testified. it is clear
that the respondents did not suffer by the contrast As in the case of Hunick,
Buchman pointedly indicated that the employees could expect more from the
respondents than they could from their unions.
Buchman testified that lie was notified by Moffat on June 14, 1942, that a pay
raise would be put in effect on June 16. He called the Aline Committee together
to announce the raise and enumerated to them the reasons for the granting of
the increase. As one of the factors leading to the granting of the raise, he listed
the efforts of the Diill Association He was then asked by respondents' counsel:
But your reference to the Independent Association of Mill workers by that
did-you have in mind giving them credit, even remotely for the increase; did
you mean to assist in their organizational activity?
Buchman answered :
Yes, sir, I (lid, because they made a very strenuous (sic) for a wage increase,
and when the wage scale is announced at one plant, it is uniform for the en-
tire plant
Some idea of the esteem with which Buchman regarded the Mine Committee,
upon the basis of whose recognition lie refused to meet for the handling of griev-
ances with other organizations, can be gained from the above incident Although
he called the Mine Committee together to announce the increase, and although
the Mine Committee had itself requested an increase according to Buchman,
Buchman gave credit for the increase to the Mill Association.
Bill H. Adkinson was general night power foreman at the mine in May and
June 1940. Employee Elden Osborne, a member of the C. I. 0 who had been active
in soliciting for ineinbers in 4lie Union was employed in one of the gangs which
came under Adkinson's supervision. According to Osborne, Adkinson charged
him with organizing for the C I.O during working hours. Osborne denied this
and asked Adkinson who had given him such information. Adkinson then became
quite angry, Osborne testified, and refused to give the source of his information
and finally made an obscene remark about Osborne and the C. I O. At the hear-
ing Osborne testified that he had done no organizing during working hours,
although lie had signed men up at the mine before working hours. Evankovich,
a drilling and blasting foreman, and Osborne's immediate superior, testified that
lie had never observed Osborne do any organizing on company time. Adkinson
was not called to testify nor was it shown that he was unavailable. Evankovich
testified that Tony Lepore complained to him that Osborne was bothering him
about the C. I. 0, that he reported this to Adkinson, and Adkinson then repri-
manded Osborne. Tony Lepore denied that he had ever complained to Evanko-
vich about Osborne, on the contrary, lie testified that Evankovich told him to
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
keep out of the C I. 0 Evankovich did not deny that Adkinson made the
indecent remark about Osborne and the C I. O. The undersigned is of the opinion
inds that the conversation occurred as related by Osborne, aud,Adkinsonand f
spoke to Osborne for the purpose of discouraging his activity in behalf of the
C.I.O.
Dale S Rossiter, gang boss, admitted that in September or October 1941 he
stated to employee David R Brown, a member of the C I 0., "Well, Wood-is just
another old agitator like yourself." Wood was a member of the C. I O , who prior
to that time had been demoted-the Union alleged because of union activity,
the respondents because of unsafe operation of machines Wood had been re-
instated to his former position after investigation by the Board. Rossiter denied
that his remark had any reference to union activity and explained that he only
meant that Brown talked with the employees and kept them from their work
as Wood did In view of the facts regarding Wood's case, the undersigned finds
Rossiter's explanation unconvincing. Brown testified without contradiction and
the undersigned finds, that about the time ofWood's demotion, Rossiter remarked
to the number 5 gang, which at that time was composed almost entirely of C. I. O.
members, that if they kept wearing C. I 0 buttons or soliciting members they
too would get in trouble About the same-time,. according to employee William
M. O'Keefe, Rossiter stated to him that everyone knew that Wallace Wood was
demoted because lie was signing men up in the C I 0 and not because lie could
not handle his job Rossiter both denied making the remark and stated that lie
did not recall doing so. The undersigned was particularly impressed with
O'Keefe's honesty as a witness, and as noted above found some of Rossiter's
testimony improbable The undersigned finds that Rossiter made the remark
to O'Keefe
The respondents' mine superintendent is Harvey L Garrity. Both he and
employee Ross Linn testified that Garrity had a conversation regarding the
C. I 0 in Februaiy 1942 with Linn and Bob Shore, another employee Linn testi-
fied that Garrity came up,to him and Shore while they were at work and asked
if they would do anything that would cause them to lose their jobs. They assured
him they would not. After Garrity questioned them further about their work,
they asked him what the purpose of the questioning was According to Linn,
Garrity replied, "Well, you fellows know what I'm talking about, but I'll tell you.
It's come to me that you fellows are organizing in the CIO, and you know we
don't want any organizing on the hill " Both Linn and Shore denied that they
had done any organizing Linn testified further that Garrity evidenced his dis-
belief, and repeated, "Now we don't want any organizing on the hill; and we don't
like organizers on the hill;" and concluded with the statement that, "You can
rest assured that when promotion time cones I will remember your names."
Garrity testified that he told Linn and Shore that he did not want any organizing
on company time nor on the hill. The latter statement covers the men's own time
on,the hill as well as company time, and corroborates Linn's version of the con-
versation. Garrity did not deny that he told Linn that the company did not)like
organizers on the hill or that he suggested to Linn and Shore that they might
lose their jobs Garrity named Foreman Joe Dunn as the source of his informa-
tion that Linn and Shore were doing organizing work It may be presumed that
activity which evoked a reprimand and threat of discharge from the mine super-
intendent would be both flagrant and wide-spread, yet neither Dunn, Garrity's
informant, nor any other employee was called to show that Linn and Shore had
engaged in organization either during working hours, of during their own time
on the hill In its prior decision the Board found that Garrity had manifested
an anti-C I. 0 attitude and had advised an employee to remain out of the C I. O.
I
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 791'
In view of these facts, the Examiner credits the testimony of Linn, and finds that-
Garrity' made the statements attributed to him by Linn'
Shortly after Giirrity reprimanded Shore and Linn, Foreman Joe Dunn spoke
to.employee O'Keefe about the incident O'Keefe testified without contradiction
and the undersigned finds, that Dunn warned O'Keefe about talking about the
C. I. 0., and referred to the reprimand given Linn and Shore by Garrity. That
Dunn included in his warning O'Keefe's own time on the job in addition to com-
pany time, as Garrity had done, is shown by the fact that O'Keefe replied that
his lunch time was his own and the respondents could not prevent him from
talking about the C. I O. during that time
M. The original check-off request of the Union
On the 29th of September 1939 the Union submitted to the respondents a request
that it deduct from the pay of 121 employees the amount of $2.50 and forward
such money to the secretary of the Union. The request was accompanied by a
list of, the names of the employees together- with assignments signed by such em-
ployees authorizing the deduction from their pay. Several days later all em-
ployees who had,.signed the assignments were directed to report to.Buchman's
office the next morning before going to work. No explanation was given for
such direction. The following morning the employees assembled at Buchman's
office and were directed to file through the office where Buchman questioned each
man about the assignment. Shortly after the men commenced to file through
the office, H A. Davis, International Representative of the Union, appeared at
the office, requested and was granted permission to observe the process. He,
Max Tassainer, Secretary of the union local, and George Conish, president of the
local, remained in the office while the men were questioned The testimony was
in conflict as to whether Buchman questioned the men in a stern manner. From
the subsequent actions of the men, the undersigned finds that he did. The testi-
mony is also conflicting as to whether Buchman merely asked the men whether
they had signed the assignments, or whether he asked additional questions as to
where tliey signed such cards, and whether they were sure that the signatures
were their own. Conish and Tassainer, who were called as witnesses by the re-
spondents, testified that he merely asked the men whether they had signed.
Buchman- himself testified that lie asked the men additional questions. After
the questioning had been completed, the employees who had been questioned
gathered around Tassainer and asked him in effect whether they were, discharged.
Tassainer told them to go to work. Tassauter testified that he was unable to
understand where the employees got the idea that they were discharged because
of-what happened in the office. However, within several days after the question-
ing in Buchman's office, Tassainer decided to resign as secretary of the local and
from the Union as well Before the respondents made the deduction he had
authorized, he withdrew the authorization. George. Conish also, resigned front,
his office as president of the local and from the Union within less than a month
from the time of the questioning in Buchman's office
The respondents' treatment of the Union's request for pay roll deduction of
dues is to be contrasted with their treatment of the, Mine Association's request.
In October 1941 the Mine Association also submitted a request that the respondents
deduct its dues from the employees' pay checks. With the request it submitted
a number of applications for membership in the Mine Association. Unlike the
authorizations submitted by the Union, which specifically authorized the pay-
roll deductions requested on their face, the applications for membership in the
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
Mine Association made no mention of assignment of wages" Upon receipt of
the request for the pay-roll deduction, Buchman instead of calling in the iiidivid-
ual signers, called in Williams and asked for the authority of the Mine Associa-
tion to request the deductions Williams pointed to a statement on the applica-
tions that the signer agreed to abide by the constitution and by-laws of the
Mine Association and indicated a provision in the constitution which he supplied
authorizing such deduction. Without calling in the individual signers for
verifictition the respondents then made the deductions requested.
Buchman gave several reasons for this difference in treatment. He said
the Union's request was the first he received. However, it was not the first
such request disposed of by Moffat, who had received and granted a like request
of the Mill Association the year before without personal verification of signa-
tures; and Buchman himself testified that before requiring personal verification-
of signatures, and on the union assignments, lie conferred with Moffat, and was
directed to have the verification made. He also said that when the Mine Associa-
tion request was made, since the deductions had already been made for the
Union, he was not so-concerned.
Some of the names on the list submitted with the union request were mis-
spelled, Buchman explained, and some were marked with an "X." He did not
explain how this made it necessary to call in every employee who had signed
a union assignment, some of whose signatures were legible. In any event, the
identity of the employees was not so concealed by the misspelling that Buchman
was not able to call them in for questioning. Had the verification been made
as it was in the cases of the Mine and Mill Association, it may be presumed that
the signatures on the assignments would have been used for purposes of com-
parison rather than the names on the list In the case of both the Mine and
the Mill Association the applications for membership submitted with the request
for pay-roll deduction of dues did not on their face constitute assignments, and
did so only when read in conjunction with the constitutions of those organiza-
tions. , A careful man might desire to make some inquiry in such case to deter-
mine whether the signer knew of the provisions in the constitution and was
aware of the fact that he was making an assignment of his wages when he
signed an application which on its face merely purported to apply for member-
ship, especially in view of the fact that some of the applications submitted were
dated in 1938, 3 years before the request was made.
Thus, when the Union requested pay-roll deductions, it was ignored as an
organization by the respondents who by-passed it and treated with its members
individually, when the two Associations made such a request, they were treated
as organizations by the respondents who called in and dealt with their officers
alone; when the Union requested the deductions, personal verification of author-
ity was required ; when the two unaffiliated Associations requested pay-roll
deductions, something less than personal verification was sufficient. The under-
signed finds Buchman's explanation for the difference in treatment unconvincing
and finds that he called the union members in for questioning regarding their
assignments of dues for the purpose of intimidating them with regard to their
right to self-organization and of discouraging membership in the Union. That
this'was the effect of his net is clear, as revealed in the queries of the men as to
whether they should "go home."
In December 1941 the C. 10. submitted to the respondents a number of appli-
cation cards bearing the identical provisions appearing on the application cards
of the Mill Association and the Mine Association submitted by those organiza-
ii These Mine Association applications merely contained a statement that the signer
agreed to abide by the constitution and by-laws of the Mine Association.
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 793
tions; as the basis of their requests for pay-roll deduction of dues. Upon the
basis of such application cards the C. I. 0. requested pay-roll deduction of dues.
The respondents did not call in the president of the C. I. O. to ascertain the
authority for such deductions as they did in the case of the Mine Association,
'they simply refused to honor the request. By such difference in treatment the
respondents reaffirmed their preference for the Mine Association as opposed to
the C. I. 0.
N. The respondents' treatment of the C I 0, the A. F of L and the Mine Asso-
cnation ii4th reference to the liandling of gi ievanees
Buchman testified that the respondents ' policy , that they would not recognize
any union as the bargaining agent until so certified, had been firmly maintained
He admitted that the Mine Committee had never been certified as bargaining
agent. As noted hereinbefore at the time of the hearing the respondents were
meeting and dealing with the Mine Committee as the representative of the
mine employees Some of the other organizations at the mines attempted to
handle grievances for their members or to -confer with Buchman.
On December 23, 1941 , a delegation from the International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local 353 , A F of L , waited on Buchman and offered their services
in putting into effect a program for purchase of war bonds through payroll
deductions Buchman advised the delegation that the respondents had already
taken the necessary steps According to employee Hibbard, who was a member
of the union delegation , Buchman advised the delegation that they must stay
out of the office it they represented a labor organization , but if they had griev-
ances they could take them up as individuals Buchman testified that he made
the following statement to Hibbard in this regard, "I am always glad to discuss
matters with individual employees but as representatives of an unrecognized
bargaining agent , I cannot do that"
By the above statement it is clear that Buchman advised the delegation that
he would not meet with the representatives of any labor organization, but would
deal with the members of the organization as individuals A possible construc-
tion , however , is that Buchman meant that while he would not meet with such
representatives in their official capacity , he would meet with them in their
individual capacity i epresent ing other employees That such a construction is
unjustified is shown by his treatment of the request to meet and handle grievances
presented by members of the C I. 0
On February 9, 1942, the Union wrote Buchman a letter requesting a con-
ference for the purpose of discussing methods of increasing the output of copper
An furtherance of the war effort . Buchman replied , "We are experiencing no
production difficulties and anticipate none."
On February 21, 5 members of the C I . 0 , describing themselves as employees
of the respondents , sent a -letter to Buchman on Union stationery requesting a
conference for the purpose of discussing grievances Buchman made no written
reply Instead he advised Irvin T Lovelett , one of the signers of the letter,
individually as follows, "I will not meet anybody that has organized a union-
unless they have the bargaining power, but I will meet the person individually
himself that has a grievance"
On March 4 , the Union wrote a letter to Moffat outlining their efforts to meet
with Buchman , and asked for a conference for the purpose of discussing a pro-
gram leading to increased production in the war effort By letter dated March
9, Moffat reiterated Buchman's answers that the respondents were experiencing
no production difficulties, and that the respondents would meet and discuss
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
grievances with their employees, but would not meet with the Union as repre-
sentative of anyone
Finally on March 20 the sane 5 members of the Union who had written
Buchman on February 21, wrote Buchman another letter requesting a confer-
ence for the purpose of discussing grievances The letter recited the fact that
they had applied for a confeience on February 21 merely as employees and then
with reference to the present request stated :
Let's be clear-we are asking to meet you as employees, representing no
one but ourselves. We desire to meet with you at 5 p. in. or later on the
earliest afternoon convenient to you.
Buchman never replied to this request
While Buchman and Moffat thus refused to meet and discuss grievances with
representatives of the A F of L and the C. I 0 in either their official or indi-
vidual capacity, Buchntan's treatment of Williams, president of the Mine Asso-
ciation, was quite different Buchman testified that he informed Williams that
as a fellow employee he would be glad to hear him, or whomever he brought with
him, but not as a representative of the Mine Association He thus invited
Williams to do the very thing he refused the representatives of the C. I. O. and
the A F. of L. And Williams availed himself of the opportunity On May 24
and 25, 1942, lie caused to be distributed' to the employees at the mine a bulletin
purporting to be a letter from himself to the organizing committee of\the Mine
Association which contained the following :
,It has been my privilege to settle a number of grievances for our members
and it is my sincere wish that I may be allowed to continue to cooperate with
members of the Independent Union in improving their working conditions.
In the bulletin, Williams also claimed that the Mine Association had settled more
grievances to the advantage of its members than any other labor organization
in the history of the respondents At the hearing, he admitted this statement
was untrue Williams 'testified that on two occasions that he remembered he
had represented other employees in the handling of grievances with Buchman.
While it may be true, as both Buchman and Williams testified, that Buchman
advised Williams that he was meeting with him in his individual capacity on
such occasions, this was a privilege denied to representatves of the A. F of L
and the C. I. 0., and to the employees at large there was no announcement that
Buchman was meeting with Williams, the individual, rather than Williams,
the president of the Mine Association. As noted above in the bulletin, Williams
advised the employees that Buchman met with him as the president of the Mine
Association, contrary to his testimony at the hearing
0 Mine timekeepers
Counsel fom the Board contended that the respondents' timekeepers at the
mine were in the same category as supervisory employees, and that the respond-
ents were therefore responsible for their activities without the showing of knowl-
edge of, or acquiescence in, such activities. The record shows that the time-
keepers were 13 in number, that they worked out of the mine office ; that their
duties consisted of checking the presence of the men on the job,'and reporting
that to the, office ; that they had several days of office work during a month ;
that they carried communications from the office to the mbn, and from the men
to the office ; and that they do not direct or supervise the work of other em-
ployees The record contains uncontradicted and credible testimony that they
did actively during working hours work for the,Mine Association and against
t
UTAH COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION 795
the C. I. 0 However, the undersigned finds the above facts insufficient to sup-
port the contention that the respondents are chargeable with such acts
P Conclusions iegaldnig domination of the Mine Association; sliterfetence,
restraint, and coercion.
. By advising employees that they would be more likely to receive promotions
if they resigned from the Union; by questioning'employees about their member-
ship in the Union, and holding them up to ridicule because of such membership;
by advising employees to resign from the Union; by directing employees to re-
move their C I. 0 buttons ; by telling employees that they were demoted because
of their membership in the Union, or activities in behalf of the Union; by telling
employees that the Union was not doing them any good; by reminding elderly
employees of their advanced age, and then advising them that the respondents
paid pensions and unions did not; by advising employees that they could not
-obtain transfers because of union activity ; by telling employees that they were
transferred to less desirable jobs because they wore C. I 0 buttons, or were
active in the Union ; by saying that the Union did not have a chance on the bill
because the Mine Association had a majority; by telling employees that they
,would lose their privileges if the Union were allowed on the hill; by advising
employees to get out of the A F of L and into the Mine Association ; by pointing
out to employees unfavorable comparisons between the respondents' wages and
working conditions and those of the mines already organized by the Union; by
asking members of the Union what advantages the Union could get them that
the respondents were not already gibing them ; by asking members of the A. F.,
of L. why "Bill" Green did not build houses for them when they asked to rent
houses owned by the respondents, by making obscene remarks about the Union
and its members ; by referring to members of the Union as "agitators"; by threat-
ening members of the Union with discharge or loss of promotion if they did not
cease their activity in behalt of the Union; by requiring personal verification of
wage assignments for the Union in a manner designed to intimidate its mem-
bers, and not requiring such verification of wage assignments for the Mine Asso-
ciation; by permitting the Mine Association president'to handle grievances with
the respondents for its members and denying a like privilege to officers of the
A F of L. and the C. I. 0 , by urging employees to join the Mine Association ; by
advising the employees that the Mine Association was doing the most good for
the employees; by permitting officers and members of the Mine Association to
engage in activities in behalf of the Mine Association during working hours and
denying this privilege to in of the C. I O. and the A. F of L.; by crediting
a raise in pay to the Mill Association, whicli•is closely allied with the Mine Asso-
ciation, and by distributing Mine' Association buttons to its employees, the re-
spondents have discouraged membership in the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. By the
foregoing acts the respondents have dominated and-interfered with the admin-
istration of the Mine Association and contributed financial and other support to
it, thereby interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Consideration of the factual situation at the mine as reflected in the record
shows that the Mine Committee does not present the live issue at the present
time The respondents offered no testimony in support of their denial that the
Mine Committee was company-dominated, and the record is noticeably barren
of evidence of the respondents' actively urging its-employees to adhere to the
Mine Committee. The live issue at the mine so far as the respondents are con-
cerned is the Mine Association That is the organization which the respond-
ents currently aro supporting by the acts enumerated above The Mine Com,-
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mittee is at the present time used by the respondents as a stalking horse to fore-
stall advances,by the C. I 0 and the A. F. of L., and the respondents more or
less perfunctorily go through the motions of recognizing that organization. This
is most pointedly demonstrated.by the announcement of the respondents' most
recent pay raise. Buchman called together the representatives of the Mine Com-
mittee to announce the raise, but to the representatives he credited the raise to
the efforts of the Mill Association-which is closely allied with the Mine Asso-
ciation. In fact, as far back as October 1941 the Mine Association approved
affiliation with the Mill Association, and announced in its paper, "We are going
to be affiliated with The Independent Association of Mill Workers." From the
acts of support and aid listed above it is apparent that the respondents are
grooming the Mine Association to take the place of the Mine Committee, as they
groomed the Mill Association to take the place of the Committee, the Mine Com-
mittee's counterpart, at the mills. %
For a period in'excess of 20 years the respondents have been selecting the
labor organization to which their employees shall belong. So far, the employees'
only choice has been between an organization which the respondents manifestly
and actively oppose, or one which they manifestly and actively support. That is
not the free choice envisaged by the Act. The Mine Association has been sup-
ported acid aided by the respondents. In order that the policies of the Act may
be effectuated, and that the employees may have the free choice which the Act
contemplates, it is necessary not only that the respondents cease and desist from
their acts of opposition to the Union and the A. F. of L, and from their acts of
support and aid to the Mine Association, but that they refrain from recognizing
the Mine Association and completely disestablish it as collective bargaining rep-
resentative of any of their employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several states and, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate ,the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondents dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Employees General Committee, The Inde-
pendent Association of Mine Workers and The Independent Association of Mill
Workers and have contributed financial and other support to these organizations.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that these organizations are incapable
of serving the respondents' employees as bona fide representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, that the effects and consequences of the repsond-
ents' domination of, interference with, and support of these organizations, as
well as the continued recognition 32 by the respondents of these organizations
as bargaining representatives for the respondents' employees constitute con-
92 The recognition accorded the Mine Association by Buchman in the handling of griev-
ances, and the request for the check-off is not the exclusive recognition granted to the
Mill Association It is this limited recognition, denied to other organizations at the
mine, to which reference is here made.
UTAIi COPPER COMPANY A CORPORATION 797
tinning obstacles to the free exercise by the employees of their right to self-
organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the respondents
withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the Employees'
General Committee, The Independent Association of Mine Workers, and The
Independent Association of Mill Workers as representatives of any of their
employees for the purposes of dealing with them concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of
'employment.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the check-off of dues for The
Independent Association of Mine Workers and The Independent Association of
Mill Workers by the respondents, from the wages of their employees is a part
of the ,respondents' assistance to, and support of, these organizations. Such
deductions for the benefit of dominated labor organizations may not, even in
those cases in which authorization was given therefor, be regarded as voluntary
on the part of the employees affected. In order to restore the status quo in
this respect, it shall be recommended that the respondents reimburse their
employees for all amounts deducted from their wages as fees and dues for
the above named organizations.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, C I. 0., Employees'
General Committee, The Independent Association of Mine Workers, and The
Independent Association of Hill Workers, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration
of Employees' General Committee, The Independent Association of Mine Workers,
and The Independent Association of Mill Workers, and by contributing financial
and other support to them, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondents, their agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Employees' General Committee, The Independent Association of Mine Workers,
and The Independent Association of Mill Workers, and with the formation
or administration of any labor organization of their employees and from con-
tributing financial and other support to the Employees' General Committee,
The Independent Association of Mine Workers, and The Independent Association
of Mill Workers and to any other labor organization of their employees;
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Recognizing the Employees' General Committee, The Independent Associa-
tion of Mine Workers, and The Independent Association of Mill Workers as
representatives of any of their employees for the purposes of dealing with the
respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment ; or any other conditions of employment ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of'the Act :
(a) Withdraw-all recognition from and completely disestablish the Employees'
General Committee, The Independent Association of Mine Workers, and The
Independent Association of Mill Workers as representatives of any of their
employees for the purposes of dealing with the respondents concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment;
(b) Reimburse all of their employees for any and all fees and dues which were
checked off by the respondents from the wages of their employees in the manner
set forth in the section of this report entitled "The remedy" above ;
(c)' Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their mine and mills
in Bingham Canyon, Arthur and Magna, Salt Lake County, Utah, respectively,
and maintain for a period of not less than sixty (60) consecutive days from the
time of posting notices to their employees stating: (1) that the respondents,
will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that they cease
and desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of these recommendations; (2) that
the respondents will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a)
and (b) of these recommendations; and that their employees are free to become
or remain members of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers, C. I. 0., or any affiliate of the A. F. of L., and that they will not
discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in said
labor organizations;
(d) File with the Regional Director for the 22nd Region within twenty (20)
consecutive clays from the receipt of this Intermediate Report a report in writ-
ing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondents have
complied with the foregoing- recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20)' days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondents notify the Regional
Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National.Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as, amended-any party may within
thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D C, an original and four
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions'to the Intermediate
Report or to any other part of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon
all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and
UTAH COPPER COMPANY) A CORPORATION 799
four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board 'within twenty (20) days after
the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. ,
Dated : September 29, 1942.
d
FRANK A. MOURITSEN,
Trial Examiner.
1
J
I