Wico Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

0
In the Matter of Wico ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, (A. F. of L.)
Case No. C-2512.-Decided March 4, 1943 .
Jurisdiction : electrical equipment manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
of a letter containing a nega-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: distribution
tive interpretation of the Act to employees for. the purpose of preventing and
discouraging membership in affiliated union.
'Company-Dominated Union: permitting unaffiliated organization unhampered use
of company premises, time, and facilities ; compensating organization's repre-
sentatives for time spent on its business ; granting organization recognition and
bargaining contract after notice from affiliated union and Board of conflicting
claims of representation. -
Remedial Orders : disestablish company-dominated union; abrogate contract
therewith.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 20, 1943, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in this proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
and recommending that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report annexed
hereto. Thereafter the Association filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report.' - -
During-the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled upon various motions
and upon objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Association's
exceptions, and the entire record in the case, 'and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the Trial Exam-
iner in his Intermediate Report, with the exception set forth below.
' Respondent filed no exceptions.
47 N. L. R B , No. 163.
1294
WICO ELECTRIC COMPANY 1295
1. We regard the evidence as insufficient to support the Trial Exam-
iner's finding that in the spring of 1939 the respondent posted notices
stating that its employees would choose representatives for the purpose
of discussing grievances with the management. Accordingly, we do
not adopt said finding. This determination, however, does not in any
way affect our conclusion that the respondent has dominated ' and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Association
and has contributed financial and other support to it.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Wico Electric Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of Wico Employees' Conference Association, or with the forma-
tion or administration of any other labor organization of its employees,
and from contributing financial or other support to said Association,
or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Wico Employees' Conference Association, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work ;
(c) Giving effect to its agreement of August 18, 1942, with Wico
Employees' Conference Association, or to any extension, modification,
or supplement thereof, or to any superseding agreement with said,
Association which may now be in force
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their' own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes 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
Wico Employees' Conference Association, as the representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con-
cerning grievances; labor, disputes, rates of pay, hours of employment
or other conditions of work;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its West
Springfield, Massachusetts, plant, and maintain for a period of not
1296 DEiCIS1ONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
less than sixty (60) consecutive days from the-date of posting, notices
to its employees stating : (1) that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) hereof; and (2) that the respondent will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) hereof;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
within ten (10) -days from the date of the receipt 'of this order what
:ceps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robes t E. Greene, for the Board
Mr. E. L. Stoughton, of West Springfield, Mass. , for the respondent
Mr. J. H. Curran, of Brighton, Mass., and Mr. A. A Desser, of New York, N Y ,
for the Union.
Mr. Edward B. Cooley, of Springfield, Mass, for the Association.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on November 27, 1942, by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, (A. F. of L ). herein called the Union, the
National Labor 'Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional'
Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint
dated December 3, 1942, against Wico Electric Company, West Springfield,
Massachusetts, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
respondent, the Union, and Wico Employees' Conference Association, herein
called the Association.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance:
that in or about 1938, and thereafter to the date of the complaint, the respondent
(1) dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the
Association and contributed financial and other support thereto by (a) per-
mitting organizers of the Association to conduct elections on-company time and
property, (b) contributing space in its plant for meetings of the Association;
(c) paying'representatives of the Association for the time spent on business of
the Association, (d) providing free stenographic service to the Association,
(e) permitting the use by the Association of its office equipment and personnel,
(f) permitting organizers of the Association to solicit memberships and collect
dues on company time and property; (2) on or about August.18, 1912, when it was
on notice that the Union claimed majority representation of its employees,
entered into an agreement with the Association recognizing it as the exclusive
representative of its employees, except 'administrative heads, supervisors, and
foremen, and agreed to negotiate a "complete and formal agreement" containing
details of the relations between the parties ; (3) on or about August 2S, 1942, when
it was on notice of the Union's claim as well as that of United Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers of America, (C. I. 0 ), herein called the C. I 0., of ma-
jority representation of its employees, entered into such "complete and formal
agreement" with the Association, as of August 18, 1942; (4) on or about August
13, 1942, distributed a'letter from its president to its employees containing nega-
tive interpretations of the Act for the purpose of preventing and 'discouraging
WICO ELECTRIC COMPANY.; 1297
membership in-the Union; and (5) by such acts interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act: 1
On December 9, 1942, the respondent filed its answer admitting the alle-
gations of the complaint with respect to its business and denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Springfield, Massachusetts, on
December 17 and 18, 1942, before the undersigned Josef L. Hektoeu, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The, Board, the re.
spondent, the Union and the Association were represented by counsel or rep-
resentatives ; all 'participated in the hearing 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 opening of the hearing, the Association's written motion to intervene
was allowed by the undersigned without objection. The parties were afforded
an opportunity to argue orally before the undersigned and.to file briefs. Oral
argument was waived, and no briefs have been received by the undersigned. ,
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the wit-
nesses,-,the undersigned makes the following:
0
FINDINGS OF,FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Wico Electric Company,, is a Massachusetts corporation
having its principal place of business at West Springfield, Massachusetts.
It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of magnetos, storage
batteries,' electric ignition equipment, and electrical mechanical specialties of,
all kinds. ' The principal raw materials used by the respondent are aluminum,
copper alloys and wire, steel, and tungsten. During the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1942, it used such materials having a value in excess of $1,200,000,
about 90 percent thereof being shipped to it from points outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. During the same period, it manufactured finished
pioductsthaving a value in excess of ;$2,500,000, about 90 percent thereof being
slipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The respond-'
eat admits that it,is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
, International Association of Machinists is a labor organization affiliated-
with the American Federation of Labor, and Wico. Employees' Conference
Association, is all unaffiliated labor organization Both admit production
employees of the respondent to membership.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The ,483ociution
During the spring of 1939, announcements were posted in the plant that repre-
sentatives for the purpose of discussing grievances with the respondent's manage=
anent would be chosen by the employees' Employee Donald H Stone testified
without denial, and the undersigned finds, that at that time Foreman S. Pothier
• 1 There is some evidence that these events occurred in the fall of 1938. On the basis of
the entire record, the undersigned finds, however, that they transpired in early 1939.
513024-43-vol. 47-82
J
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIOINTIS BOARD
told him that "the company was going to give the workers-a chance to forma
grievance committee." The record being otherwise silent as to their source, the
undersigned therefore finds the announcements to have been posted by-the re-
spondent. A committee was thereafter named by undisclosed means and a list of
the names of the employees composing it posted in the plant. So far as is disclosed
by the record, the committee had but one meeting with the management and there-
after lapsed into inactivity.
Four or five weeks thereafter, several employees under the leadership of Walter
Provost and Robert Osborne "grouped 'up" to form another committee for the
same purpose as that of the first. Informal departmental elections to choose
representatives were held in the plant. Foreman Pothier distributed the ballots
in Stone's department. The representatives chosen; among whom were Provost
and Osborne, thereafter conferred with Kenneth A. Harmon, vice president of the
respondent They explained that they represented the respondent's employees and
demanded and received from him permission to use the plant conference room for
their deliberations and the use of bulletin boards for their announcements? After
meeting with Harmon they retired to the conference room and elected officers,
Osborne being named president. .
After the officers were named, dues payments were openly solicited in the plant
for the as yet un-named organization. Two or three months later, after. numerous
meetings in the conference room, a constitution and by-laws of Wico Employees'
Conference Association 3 were drawn up by Osborne and others. Copies thereof
were duplicated on' the respondent's' office machines and posted on the bulletin
boards. The stated purpose of the Association was to bargain collectively with
the respondent respecting wages, hours, and working conditions. All employees,
excluding supervisors and administrative heads were declared, eligible for mem-
bership., Representatives, forming the "Board", the body by which it dealt with
the respondent, Were required to be employees of not less than one year's employ-
ment in the plant' Dues were fixed at 25 cents annually and assessments were
limited to a like sum annually' No provision for meetings of,the membership
was made.°
The record reveals that while they were posted on the bulletin boards, the
constitution and bylaws were never formally adopted or approved by the
employees.' ,
The Association thereafter held monthly meetings with the management of
the respondent. The delegates were paid by the respondent for their time so
2 Osborne testified that Harmon accepted the representatives' statements that they repre-
sented the employees. Employee Florence Poulin, who was a representative at that time,
could recall nothing of what transpired at the meeting Harmon testified that when the
committee called on him he "thumbed through" a- number of "signed membership cards"
presented to him by it, and without further check determined that the committee repre-
sented from 100 to 150 of the plant's then 175 to 180 employees. Since the evidence
establishes not only that no dues were collected until after the election of officers which
followed the meeting, but also that 'membership 'applications were signed by employees
for the first time in August 1942, the undersigned finds that no proof of majority repre-
sentation was made to Harmon at the meeting in question and that the respondent made
no check thereof against its records. '
3 This was the first occasion upon which the Association appears to have borne a name.
4 The Board has held such a requirement to render the organization subject to control
by the employer , (Matter of Elizabeth Arden, Inc, and Cosmetic Workers Union, Local
22806 (AFL),'45 N L R. B. 936) ' - '
5 The Association's income was supplemented by occasional raffles
° The same constitution and by-laws, with one immaterial' amendment, were in force at
the time of the hearing.
T Employees Good and Stone so testified. Osborne testified that lie believed they had
been approved, but could not give the time, place, nor form' of such, approval. The under-
signed; upon the weight of the eN idence, makes the finding above.
WICO ELECTRIC COMPANY 1299
spent as well as for that devoted to Association business in preparation for the
meetings. The respondent furnished stenographic service for reporting the
business transacted and furnished the Association with 20 duplicated copies of
the minutes of all' but a few of the early meetings! It also permitted the
Association to use its duplicating machines for the preparation of announcements
and ballots, or itself prepared them for it
The Association's elections and by-elections were held in the plant, and ballots
were distributed, collected, and counted in the plant during working hours.,
The evidence reveals,' and the undersigned finds, that • substantially all, the
employees were given ballots for Association elections without regard to their
being in good standing or having paid dues a The Association held no general
membership meetings and until after it retained counsel in July 1942, made no
effort to obtain a collective bargaining agreement with the respondent.
About July 10, 1942, Good, president of the Association,' became aware of
organizational activities among the respondent's employees by both the Union
and the C. I O The Association simultaneously became desirous .of obtaining
a' written contract with the respondent and thereupon retained counsel. It
thereafter conducted its meetings in-a neighboring school house, but continued
to meet with the respondent's management in the plant offices. -
On August 10, 1942, employee Stone called on A. A. Desser, representative of
the Union, and informed him that employees of the respondent desired to join
the Union. Desser gave him a number of applications for membership. Stone
thereafter secured the signatures of numerous employees thereto and on August
13,10 Desser, with Stone present, telephoned President E L. Stoughton of the
respondent, .informed him that the Union represented the majority of his
,employees,ii and asked for a collective bargaining conference. Stoughton stated
that he would be occupied during the next several days and an appointment was
made for a conference to be held on August 17.
The minutes 12 of a meeting held the same day, August 13, between representa-
tives of the Association and the respondent indicate that the respondent dealt
with the Association as the representative of its employees.
On the following day, August 14, the Association board, accompanied by counsel,
called on Stoughton•11 and requested that the respondent enter into a written
collective bargaining agreement with the Association. Stoughton asked for
3 During the period October 1939-February 1940, the Association paid the respondent 73
cents for typing services, and for the period march-October 1942, $25 28 for stenographic
services. No other payments for such services are disclosed by the record. The evidence
indicates that the respondent was furnished with a copy of these minutes
9J C. Good, president of the Association since June 1941, stated that in the 1942 elec-
tion, "I handed them [ballots] out to nearly everyone. There were a few I probably
knew, who were not in sympathy with our organization. I probably checked them 'up"
He could recall no exceptions, however, and testified that he "assumed" that those to whom
he gave ballots were in good standing. The Association normally collected dues during
June. It made no effort to do so in June 1942
11 Stone had that morning been warned by Foreman Arthur Starkey that he was to stay
at his machine and that according to "the front office," Stone had been "seen walking
around the shop too much." At about the same time, representative Lannon of the Asso-
ciation told Stone that the respondent was,, according to "inside" information, about to
sign a contract with the Association, in order to forestall an outside union's coining into
the plant These findings are based upon the'undenied and credible testimony of Stone.
Neither Starkey nor Lannon was called as a witness, nor was their absence explained.
11 Stoughton denied that Desser claimed majority representation. Since he testified
that he informed the Association on the following day that the Union had made such
claim, his denial is rejected by the undersigned.
32 They were prepared on the respondent's duplicator.
13 Harmon was also present.
1300 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD
proof of,the Association's majority representation, stating'that the Union had
claimed a majority. The meeting thereupon, ad,lourned
On the same day, a pay day in the plant, the employees''pay checks were about
two hours late. When they were -distributed, each was accompanied by a two-
page statement to the employees over Stoughton's signature.- Among other
things, it advised them that the management would not "permit solicitation of
membership during working hours."
Good testified that because of "activities of other organizations" the Associa-
tion determined to secure signed membership applications from the respondent's
employees. Beginning August 14, the day Stoughton's statement was distributed,
the Association began an, open and intensive campaign for such applications,
conducted in the plant,during working hours
On August 17, Desser and Joseph Curran, union representatives, met in,the
plant office with Stoughton and I-l:irnion Stoughton, after they had told him that
they desired to discuss the Union's representing the respondent's employees, in-
formed the Union's representatives that the respondent was doing business with
an organization then in the plant He thereafter asked them to prove the majority
representation of the Union Desser and Curran testified that Curran thereupon
offered a consent check, to be conducted by a Board agent, of the Union's mem-
bership cards against the respondent's, payroll They further testified that
Stoughton rejected the Union's offer.
Stoughton denied: that he did so. It is undenied, however, and the under-
signed finds, that Curran explained to Stoughton and 13ainum that it was
against the policy of the Union to permit examination of 'its cards 'by officials
of the respondent since the employees signing theirs had been'assured'thrat their
identify would not be disclosed to the respondent. In view of this statement, the
14 The complaint alleged that the statement was distributed to discourage membership
in the Union. The document stated that it had been the company's policy "to keep in close
personal contact with its emplo3ees ", that the number of employees had been increased on
account of war work, that the respondent would persist in its enlightened labor policies to
the end that its employees "will continue to consider this plant a good place in which to-
woik", that the respondent would obseive the laws affecting its relations with labor, and
so-that "there may be no misunderstanding with regard to the Wagner Act," quoted the
Jones d- Laughlin decision (301 U. S 1) as follows
The Act does not compel agreements between 'employeis and employees It does not
compel any agreement whatever. It does not prevent the employer from refusing to make
a collective contract and hiring indiiiduals on' whatever' terms the employer may by
unilateral action determine ' The Act expressly provides in section 9 (a) that any indi-'
vidual employee or a group of employees shall have the iight ^ at any time to present-
grievarices to then enrplo3er The Act does not interfere with the normal exercise of the
right of the employer to select its employees-oi to discharge them. The employer may
not under cover of that right-intimidate or coerce its employees with respect to 'their self-
oiganization and representation, and, on the other hand, the board is not entitled to make'
its authority a pretext for interference with the right to discharge when that right is' exer-
cusd for other reasons than such intimidation and coercion.
The statement thereafter assured the employees that the respondent recognized their
rights under the Act, but would allow no intimidation nor any solicitation during working
hours As the Board has found in cases of similar announcements by an employer to his
employees, this statement of the management's negative mterpietation of the Act clearly
constituted interference in a matter with respect to which the employees had a right to
be left to do their own thinking In the light.of all the surrounding circunistances,,the
undeisigned beheies and finds, as testified by Stoughton, that the statement was dissemi-
nated "at the height of the agitation," in order to discourage membership in the Union
He further finds that the respondent has thereby interfered with, restiained, and coerced
Its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (See Matter
of Alax Unman, Ina., and Count) p Club Fiocl.s, Inc. and Intel national Ladies' Cai:uient'
Workers' Union (AFL), 45 N. L It B 836 hatter of Ja.,pei Rlad,butn P,mine's
Corporation and District No 9, International Assocuition of ,llachinv.t', a'!Oated with the
American Federation of Labor, 21 S. I, It B 1240)
WICO ELECTRIC. COMPANY.- 1301
.fact that.both Stoughton and H:umon as related above, demonstrated' untrust-
worthy recollections of specific incidents with respect to the respondent's rela'
tions with both the Union and the Association, and because he found Dessor
and Curran to be credible witnesses worthy of belief, the undersigned finds that
the events transpired as testified by.them. At the close of the meeting, Curran
informed Stoughton and Harmon that the Union intended to file a petition for
certification of representatives with the Board's Regional Office- in Boston.
On the following day, August 18, the Association during the preceding 4 days
having procured the applications of an alleged majority. of the employees, pre-
sented them to, the respondent's management. They were checked, against the
respondent's payroll by a committee of representatives of the respondent and
the Association which certified to Stoughton that the Association represented
the majority of the employees Thereupon an- interim contract embodying rec-
ognition of the Association as the sole bargaining agent of the respondent's
'emplo^ces and whereby the parties agreed to continue negotiations to the end
that "a complete and'formal agreement" embodying all "terms and conditions
governing the labor relation" Between them be arrived at, was executed by the
Association and the respondent
On the same day, employee Stone protested to the management Good's'soliciting
for the Association on company time and property. Stoughton told both Stone
and Good to stop their activities in the plant." Shortly thereafter on the same
'clay,-tlie Association posted notices in the plant'urging that all employees who
had not already done so, join it.. Stone protested to Harmon The latter told
him to disregard the notices since it was the company's policy to permit the
'Association to conduct "its business in the shop in a gentlemanly'manner.s10
On August 21, Leonard Lewin, representative of the C I. 0, wrote the respond-
ent" advising it that the union claimed majority representation of the employees
and stating that the respondent, absent a Board certification, should not enter
into an agreement with any other union.
On August 25, 'the Acting Regional Director of the Board's Boston olce'wrote
the respondent -advising' it that the Union had filed it petition for certification
'of representatives and charges that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Sectiob S (1) of the Act. The letter further
informed the respondent that the field examiner assigned to the case had
arranged a joint conference to be held in the respondent's office on September'1.38
Between August 18 and 28, 1942, the Association submitted a proposed "complete
and formal" contract to the respondent After discussion between the parties,
and without submission of a written counter-proposal by the respondent, agree-
ment was reached-regarding the terms of the contract. On August 28, the'Asso-
ciation presented a final draft embodying the agreed terms. It' was executed' by
the parties the same day, but was dated August 18, 1942. The contract provided
for a closed shop, a 5 day, forty hour week, time and' one'half for overtime and
Saturday work and double time for Sunday work, granted a general 5 cent per
'hour wage increase acid paid vacations, set up a, grievance procedure, established
minimum rates and the "principal of seniority", and was to remain in effect for
one year. It was in force at the time of the hearing.
15 Stoughton remarked to Stone that he had always thought Stone "a satisfied employee,"
and both Harmon and he expressed surprise that he was "interested in outside unions."
11 Harmon could not recall mention of the notice , but stated that lie "might have said
that they should conduct them'sel es like gentlemen " For the reasons 'gn en above and
because Stone has been found to be a credible witness , the undersigned finds that Stone
protested the posting of the notice to Harmon , and that the latter spoke to Stone as
testified by that employee. -
17 The letter was received by the respondent on August 22.
The letter was received by the respondent before August 28. '
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REiLATbONS BOARD
Before the contract was executed, counsel for the Association, in consideration
of the "shortage of manpower", by a "gentleman's agreement" with respondent,
waived' enforcement of the closed shop provision.
The contract was posted and no members of the Association are shown to
have offered opposition to it. No membership meeting respecting it was.
conducted by the Association. '
Open solicitation in the plant during working hours continued after the con-
tract was executed, the contract being used by proponents of the Association as
argument in favor of the employees' joining it. A turkey raffle for the benefit
of the Association was being conducted on the respondent's time and property
during the hearing.
B. Concluding findings
It is clear that the Association was sponsored by the respondent . Foreman.
Pothier's 1939 statement to Stone that the management was extending the em-
ployees an opportunity to form a grievance committee and his distribution of
ballots in the organization's election in that year permit of no other conclusion.
The respondent immediately made concessions to the Association in the form of
the unhampered use of its premises for transacting business and paid its dele-
gates for their time so devoted.
The sum of $26.01, cannot, in the light of ordinary experience, be found to''
have recompensed the respondent for some 4 years' stenographic service The
respondent, also duplicated the minutes of the monthly meetings with the
Association as well, as a number of the latter's announcements, ballots, and other
material.
The day after the Union informed the respondent of its claim of majority
representation,, the respondent met with the Association in special session and
issued to its employees with their pay checks, the statement found above to,
have constituted' interference with their rights under the Act. The day after
Stoughton had tacitly refused the Union's offer of a Board supervised consent
check of its membership' applications, the respondent precipitately granted exclu-
sive recognition to the Association as the bargaining agent of its employees by
means of the preliminary contract signed on August 18, 1942. Thereafter, both
the C I. 0 and the Board notified the respondent of conflicting claims of repre-
sentation but despite such knowledge, the respondent entered into a closed shop.
contract with the Association on August 28, and pre-dated the contract to August
18, 1942.
Throughout the period covered by the evidence, the respondent permitted
the Association to use'its,time and facilities for the collection of dues, to conduct
elections, and made plain to the employees its support of and preference for the
Association. After the Union's initial claim, on August 13, 1942, it permitted and
encouraged the Association's intensive 4 day solicitation of membership applica-
tions in the plant and hastily embodied its recognition in a contract which the
Association for the first time during its 4 year life then requested.
The chronology of events, the provisions of the Association's constitution,' and
all of the circumstances revealed in the record, lead inexorably to the conclusion
that the respondent sponsored, aided, and on August 18, 1942, granted its creature
exclusive recognition all for the purpose of forestalling that bona' fide self-
organization of its employees guaranteed and encouraged by the Act.
The undersigned finds that the respondent has dominated and interfered with,
N the formation and administration of the Association and has contributed financial.
19 See footnote 4, supra.
t
WICO ELECTRIC COMPANY 1303
and, other support to it, and by such acts, and by the dissemination of its state-
ment of August 14, 1942, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent 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
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in and is' engaging
in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and,take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of Wico Employees ' Conference Association and
contributed financial and other support to it. The continued recognition of the
Association as the bargaining representative of its employees constitutes a con-
tinuing obstacle to the free exercise by them of their right to self-organization
and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.' It
will therefore be recommended that the respondent withdraw and withhold all
recognition from the Association as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor dis-
putes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or other conditions of employ-
ment and completely disestablish it as such representative
Since the, existing agreement between the respondent and the Association
embodies recognition of that organization as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its employees , and since such contract represents the fruit of the re-
spondent 's unfair labor practices and is a device for the perpetuation of their
effects , it will be recommended that the respondent cease giving effect to it or
to any contract existing between it and the Association , and to any modifications
or extensions thereof Nothing in this Intermediate Report shall be construed
as, requiring the respondent to vary those wage, hour , and other substantive
features of its relations with the employees themselves , if any, which the
respondent has established in the performance of the contract as extended,
renewed , modified, or superseded.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the under-
signed makes the following : '
CoNCLUSIOIkS OF LAW'
1. International Association of Machinists (A F. of L ), and Wico Em-
ployees' Conference Association, are labor organizations, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration
of Wico Employees' Conference Association, and by contributing financial
and other support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging, in
unfair labor practices,' within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has
1•
4304 DiECIS-IONS OF NATIONAL • LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in and -is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
4. The- aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair . labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned
recommends that the respondent, Wico Electric Company, West Springfield,
-Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a.) In any manner dominating or interfering with the, administration of
Wico Employees' Conference Association; or with the formation or adminis-
tration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing
financial or other support tb said Association, or to any other labor organization
of its employees ; • ' -
(b) Recognizing Wico Employees' Conference' Association, as the lepre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ent concerning grievances,' labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of work ;
(c) Giving effect to its agreement of August 18, 1942, with Wico Employees'
Cdiiference Association, or to' any extension, modification, or supplement
`thereof, or to any superseding agreement with said Association which may now
be in force, provided however that nothing herein shall be taken to require
the respondent to vary those wage, hour, seniority, and other substantive
features of its relations with the employees themselves which the respondent
established in performance of any such contract; -
(d) In any other manner inteifering with. restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization; to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
-their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
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 undersigned finds 'will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish Wico Ein-
ployces' Conference Association, as the repieseiitative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of worJJ ;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its, West Springfield,
'Massachusetts, plant, and maintain for'a period of not less than sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the (late of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that
the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that
it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) hereof; and (2) that
the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a)
hereof ; -
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
WICO ELECTRIC COMPANY 1305
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 2-as amended, effective' October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to,the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of
said Rules and Regulations. file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington,
D C, an-original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to t1le'Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, to-
gether with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further
provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally
before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within
en (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
Josh L. HEKTOEN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated January 20,'11943,
0