Allied Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 732 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Allied Products Corporation and its subsidiary, Kraus
Manufacturing & Equipment Co., Inc . and Interna-
tional Union , United Automobile , Aerospace & Ag-
ricultural Implement Workers and its Local 1205
and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca, Local No. 650 , Party to the Contract. Case
18-CA-4343
September 25, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On June 24, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Jerry
B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Allied Products Corpo-
ration and its subsidiary, Kraus Manufacturing &
Equipment Co., Inc., Fort Dodge, Iowa, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE , Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , was heard pursuant to due notice
on April 22, 1975, at Fort Dodge, Iowa.
The charge herein was initially filed on September 20,
1974, with the Regional Director of Region 13 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and was designated as Case
13-CA-13597. Such charge was served on Respondent by
registered mail on September 23, 1974. Thereafter, on Oc-
tober 8, 1974, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, Peter Nash, transferred said charge from
Region 13 to Region 18 of the National Labor Relations
Board for investigation and processing. The Regional Di-
rector for Region 18 of the National Labor Relations
Board redesignated said charge (Case 13-CA-13597) as
Case 18-CA-4343. The charge as redesignated was served
on Respondent on October 11, 1974. Thereafter, the Re-
gional Director for Region 18 issued the complaint in this
matter on December 31, 1974. Respondent timely filed an
answer to such complaint. The issues raised concern (1)
whether the complaint is based upon a valid charge, (2)
whether Respondent has given unlawful aid and assistance
to Teamsters Local 1205 by recognizing such union and
executing a contract at a time when its work force was not
representative or engaged in normal operations, (3) wheth-
er Respondent has threatened employees with reprisals be-
cause they support Local 650 of the UAW.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by all parties and
have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Validity of the Charges
The facts relating to the filing of the charge in this mat-
ter with Region 13 of the Board , the transfer of said charge
from Region 13 to Region 18 of the Board , the service of
said charge as designated by Region 13 and as redesignat-
ed by Region 18, and the issuance of complaint in this
matter have previously been set forth and are incorporated
herein . The facts at the hearing also reveal that the execu-
tion of the collective -bargaining agreement between Re-
spondent and Teamsters Local 650 , took place in Chicago,
Illinois (Region 13), and in Fort Dodge, Iowa (Region 18).
Respondent contends in effect that the filing of the
charge with Region 13 was an invalid filing of a charge in
that the alleged unfair labor practices did not occur in Re-
gion 13 . Thus, Respondent contends that the filing of the
charge was not in accordance with the National Labor Re-
lations Board's Rules and Regulations , Section 102.10
which provides as follows:
Sec. 102 .10 Where to file.-Except as provided in
section 102 .33 such charges shall be filed with the re-
gional director for the region in which the alleged un-
fair labor practice has occurred or is occurring. A
charge alleging that an unfair labor practice has oc-
curred or is occurring in two or more regions may be
filed with the regional director for any such regions.
Although the Charging Party may not have been aware
of all of the circumstances of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices , the facts reveal that part of the alleged unfair labor
practices (unlawful assistance to the Teamsters Local 650)
occurred in Chicago, Illinois (Region 13), as well as in Fort
Dodge , Iowa (Region 18). Thus, the execution of the con-
tract and formal recognition between Respondent and the
Teamsters Local occurred both in Chicago, Illinois, and in
220 NLRB No. 121
ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION
Fort Dodge, Iowa, and constitute an integral part of the
alleged unfair labor practices . It is clear that the charge
was filed in conformance with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board's Rules and Regulations Section 102.10,
whether known or not.'
Respondent also contends that the transfer of the
charge, by the General Counsel, from Region 13 to Region
18 was improper.
The pertinent sections of the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations , part 102, are:
TRANSFER , CONSOLIDATION, AND SEVERANCE
Sec. 102.33 Transfer of charge and proceeding from
region to region ; consolidation of proceedings in same
region ; severance.-(a) Whenever the general counsel
deems it necessary in order to effectuate the purposes
of the act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, he
may permit a charge to be filed with him in Washing-
ton, D.C., or may, at any time after a charge has been
filed with a regional director pursuant to section
102.10, order that such charge and any proceeding
which may have been initiated with respect thereto:
(1) Be transferred to and continued before him for
the purpose of investigation or consolidation with any
other proceeding which may have been instituted in a
regional office or with him; or
s * s
(3) Be transferred to and continued in any other
region for the purpose of investigation or consider-
ation with any proceeding which may have been insti-
tuted in or transferred to such other region; or
(b) The provisions of section 102.9 to 102.32, inclusive,
shall, insofar as applicable , govern proceedings before
the general counsel , pursuant to this section , and the
powers granted to regional directors in such provisions
shall, for the purpose of this section, be reserved to
and exercised by the general counsel . After the trans-
fer of any charge and any proceeding which may have
been instituted with respect thereto from one region to
another pursuant to this section , the provisions of this
subpart shall , insofar as possible , govern such charge
and such proceeding as if the charge had originally
been filed in the region to which the transfer is made.
Respondent contends in effect that the General Counsel
can only transfer a case to a region for consolidation with
a pending proceeding or charge. Considering the liberal
interpretation required (Sec. 102.121 of said Rules and Re-
gulations, previously referred to), I am persuaded that the
correct interpretation of such rules and regulations is that
1 Even if part of the alleged unfair labor practices had not occurred in
Region 13 of the Board , I am persuaded that an interpretation of the Rules
and Regulations , as required by Sec. 102.121, would require a finding of
validity as to the charge and issuance of complaint in this matter. Thus, Sec
102.121 of the Rules and Regulations require that "The rules and regula-
733
the General Counsel has discretionary authority as set out
to transfer cases for investigation and to transfer cases for
consolidation, and that once such case is transferred, the
case is in the same status as if originally filed in the Region
to which it has been transferred.
Respondent's contentions are without merit essentially
because jurisdiction as to the filing of the charge flows
from statutory authority. Where a charge should be filed is
essentially a venue matter. Improper venue is not fatally
defective. The facts in this case clearly reveal that Respon-
dent has been on proper notice of the charge and the pend-
ing proceeding. Respondent was served with said charge
initially on September 23, 1974, was again served on Octo-
ber 11, 1974, when the charge was redesignated as Case
18-CA-4343, was notified of such redesignation and trans-
fer of charge, and has had full opportunity to defend
against the charge and complaint on the merits? Accord-
ingly, I reject Respondent's contentions as to the invalidity
of the charge, the procedure involved, and the issuance of
the complaint.
B. The Business of the Employer
The facts herein are based on the pleadings and admis-
sions therein.
Allied Products Corporation and its subsidiary, Kraus
Manufacturing & Equipment Co., Inc., Respondent, a Del-
aware corporation with headquarters at Chicago, Illinois, is
engaged through subsidiary corporations in the manufac-
ture of farm implements, operating plants in various States
of the United States, including a plant at Fort Dodge,
Iowa, known as Kraus Manufacturing & Equipment Co.,
Inc. During a representative 12-month period, Respondent
sold and shipped finished manufactured products valued in
excess of $50,000 from its plants in various States of the
United States directly to customers located in other States
of the United States.
As conceded by Respondent and based on the foregoing,
it is concluded and found that Respondent is, and has been
at all times material herein, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
s
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 3
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 650
(herein called Teamsters), is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers and its Local 1205 are
each labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
tions in this part shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and
provisions of the Act "
2 The service of the redesignated charge was completed within the proper
I^b) period.
The facts are based on the pleadings and admissions therein
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Unlawful Aid, Assistance, and Support
It is not disputed, admissions in the pleadings establish,
the credited testimony of witnesses and exhibits clearly re-
veal, and it is found that on or about May 24, 1974, Re-
spondent recognized the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 650, as the exclusive bargaining agent
of its production and maintenance employees at its plant at
Fort Dodge, Iowa, known as Kraus Manufacturing &
Equipment Co., Inc., and on the same date agreed to the
terms of a contract with said union with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of
said employees, and on May 27, 1974, signed the finalized
written contract agreed to.4
Although the contract entered into on or about May 24,
1974, was for a term to be in effect until May 24, 1977, the
parties later signed a new collective -bargaining agreement,
dated September 20, 1974, and to be in effect to May 24,
1977. Despite the foregoing, the parties also later signed a
new collective-bargaining agreement dated November 19,
1974, and to be in effect to May 24, 1977.
The only issues in this case with respect to the unlawful
aid, assistance , and support allegations are whether the Re-
spondent recognized the Teamsters and executed the con-
tract on or about May 24, 1974, at a time when Respon-
dent did not employ a representative work force of
production and maintenance employees at the plant in-
volved, and at a time when Respondent was not engaged in
normal operations at said plant.
The facts relating to the issues in dispute may be summa-
rized as follows:
1. Prior to May 21, 1974, Respondent had acquired at
Fort Dodge, Iowa, a new facility site and planned to clean-
up such facility, bring in all new or different equipment,
and prepare a plant for a new production operation to be
instituted later.
2. The first employees hired by the Respondent com-
menced work on May 21, 1974. There were 11 such em-
ployees and the employees were the only employees em-
ployed on May 24, 1974, and on May 27, 1974, the date of
recognition of the Teamsters and the execution of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
3. The Respondent planned to engage in cleanup , instal-
lation of equipment, and preparation for production type
operation during the months following May 21, 1974, and
until about September 1, 1974.5
4 Respondent's recognition of the Teamsters union occurred on May 24,
1974, concerned employees at premises at which a production enterprise
was not in operation but planned , which employees , I I in number , had been
hired on May 21, 1974 , for as indicated later, cleanup and preparation work
for a new production facility with initial planned production several months
in the future . Respondent and the Union met with Sheriff McCoy for a
purported card check which did not involve a checking of signatures on
union cards with other signature specimens but merely a check of cards with
signatures against an employee list.
The facts are based on a composite of a consideration of the logical
consistency of all the facts and Fntz ' credited testimony . Thus, I credit
Fritz' testimony as to what he was told by Kenneth Veil Veil is a member
of the staff of Joseph Warren , vice president of industrial relations and
4. It is clear that Respondent's employees engaged only
in cleanup, installation of equipment for production type
operations, and related types of work for 1-1/2 months
after May 24, 1974, and did not at such time engage in
normal operations of a production type, the type antici-
pated and carried on after the plant ultimately went into
production .6
5. Although the 11 original employees were hired and
used in the cleanup and preparation stage for several
months, and not in production or normal production oper-
ations, Respondent assigned classifications to such em-
ployees which compared with some of the classifications
anticipated for a normal functioning and maintenance
unit. Thus, it may be said that of the original 11 employees,
6 employees received assigned classifications which com-
pared to 6 of what might be described as 12 or 13 basic
classifications for the intended functioning bargaining
unit 7
6. Respondent anticipated a substantially greater num-
ber of employees for its normal work force when it com-
menced operations than it had employed on May 24 and
27, 1974.
Thus, the facts reveal that Respondent had 11 employees
employed on May 24 and 27, 1974. At such time, Respon-
dent was planning to commence production operations
around September 1, 1974. Respondent's agent Veil ex-
pressed to Fritz, a prospective employee, that its work
force could possibly go to 400 in number. Another Respon-
dent agent, Blazar, who was in charge of getting the plant
ready for production, expressed a similar view of a work
force of possibly 400 in number if all went well.
Statements made by Respondent's agents, Veil and
Fritz, as to the estimated need of 12 to 15 men during the
preparation stage , and the estimated September 1, 1974,
commencement of production, reveal a reasonable consis-
tency with the actual developments. Thus, Respondent had
13 employees at the end of May, 13 employees at the end
of June, 13 employees at the end of July, 20 employees at
the end of August, 34 employees at the end of September,8
61 employees at the end of October, 76 employees at the
end of November, and 88 employees at the end of Decem-
ber, 1974. At the end of January 1975 Respondent had 80
employees; the end of February, 75 employees; the end of
human resources of Allied Productions Corporation. Veil had been sent to
interview prospective employees. I attach probative weight to the statements
made by Veil to Fritz
6 Fritz' credited testimony clearly reveals that for 1-1/2 months after he
was hired on May 28, 1974, only cleanup and installation type work was
being performed . Considering this and the statement by Veil relating to
acquisition of the facility, the overall facts compel an inference that the
work between May 21, 1974, and May 28, 1974, was the same as the work
for the 1-1/2 months after May 28, 1974. Although the overall facts would
indicate that the amount of work of a production type which commenced
around 1 - 1/2 months after May 28, 1974, was minimal until sometime in
September or October 1974, it is not necessary to consider such in detail.
Such classifications are revealed in the exhibits relative to a "card"
check , employee hiring, classification , and termination data, and the collec-
tive-bargaining contracts between Respondent and the Teamsters
8 Although Veil, Respondent' s agent , had estimated production to start
around September 1, 1974, the overall facts would reveal that the realistic
commencement of the anticipated complement would start around Septem-
ber 1, 1974 , and continue with additional hiring thereto for a time there-
after
ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION
March, 78 employees; and as of April 22, 1975, Respon-
dent had 75 employees.
Considering all the foregoing, I find that Respondent
conservatively anticipated having at least 75 employees for
its normal operation work force . Thus , the employee com-
plement of 11 employees on May 24, and May 27, 1974,
did not constitute a representative complement of its antic-
ipated work force.9
Conclusions
Considering all of the foregoing , it is clear and I con-
clude and find that Respondent recognized the Teamsters
and entered into a collective -bargaining agreement at a
time when it did not have a representative complement of
employees and at a time when it did not have a normal and
functioning appropriate collective -bargaining unit of em-
ployees. Thus only 11 employees were employed on May
24 and 27, at the time of recognition and execution of a
collective-bargaining contract . Recognition and executing
of the contract occurred after initial employment of only
11 employees and 3 days after the first employees were
hired. The 11 employees who were working were only an
insignificant number compared to the anticipated work
force of at least 75 employees. The II employees were not
engaged in production work but in clean up and prepara-
tion for a new (yet to be instituted) production operation.
The enterprise itself was not functioning as a production
enterprise , and the employees were not part of a normal
and functioning appropriate collective -bargaining unit.
The principles related to such issues of premature recog-
nition have been set out in Linaco Container Corporation,
173 NLRB 1444, 1447, 1448 (1969), and in Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., 182 NLRB 657, 662, 663 (1970).
It is sufficient to say that there are no per se rules, but a
consideration of determining whether the appropriate bar-
gaining unit employees have realistically been accorded
their right to select a bargaining representative or whether
they have had one imposed upon them is required.
Considering all of the foregoing , it is clear and I con-
clude and find that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by rendering unlawful aid, assis-
tance , and support to the Teamsters Union, by recognizing
such union and entering into contractual relationship with
such union when such union was not the representative of
a normal and representative functioning bargaining unit of
employees . Such action , determination of a bargaining rep-
9 The I I employees were , in effect , less than 15 percent of the anticipated
work force. The General Counsel's evidence relating to Respondent's antici-
pated work force as planned revealed a strong prima facie case of the antici-
pated work force as found . The Respondent 's only evidence relating to the
anticipated use of the new facility concerned planned use of part of the
facility for warehousing of parts and products. Although the evidence on
this part is not as strong as Respondent 's brief suggests , assuming at least
partial usage of the facility for such purpose , the evidence does not rebut the
strong prima facie case made out by the General Counsel. Respondent's
witnesses, Vice President Warren and Plant Manager Rook, did not testify
as to an anticipated work force . Rook , however, was questioned on the
point and testified to the effect that he had no anticipated or projected plans
in mid-1974 for the size of a work force, I found Rook to appear to be an
unbelievable witness as to this point Further, Rook appeared to be a wit-
ness attempting to otherwise be giving rationalization rather than facts in
his testimony.
735
resentative upon the desires of a majority of only 11 em-
ployees, denies in effect the Section 7 rights of the majority
of the employees, in a representative and anticipated unit
of 75 or more employees, to select their collective-bargain-
ing unit agent and imposes upon such employees the
employer's choice of such representative. Accordingly, it is
concluded and found, as alleged, that Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.10
B. Alleged Threat
The General Counsel alleged in his complaint that "In
about June, 1974, the precise date not being known to the
Acting Regional Director, Respondent, by its personnel
manager, Joseph Warren, informed its employees at its
Fort Dodge, Iowa plant, known as Kraus Manufacturing
& Equipment Co., Inc. that Respondent would move said
plant to Illinois in the event `union trouble' occurred as a
result of efforts by the Charging Party to organize the pro-
duction and maintenance employees at said plant at a time
when said employees were represented by Teamsters."
The facts are clear that at the time Respondent had al-
ready recognized and entered into a collective-bargaining
relationship with the Teamsters, Warren spoke to 10 to 12
employees at Respondent's plant. The facts are also clear
that at the time Warren spoke to such employees, some of
the employees had been circulating UAW cards and en-
gaging in union activity on behalf of the UAW.
The facts are further clear that Warren was aware that
UAW cards were being circulated, spoke to the employees
about the circulation of such UAW cards, and told them in
effect that he thought they had already decided on the
Teamsters and should make up their minds, and that he
didn't want to be involved in union troubles.
The facts reveal that there were some 10 to 13 witnesses
to the event involved. Only two witnesses, however, were
presented in this proceeding. Fritz testified on behalf of the
General Counsel. His testimony appears to be a boiled
down conclusionary presentation. In Fritz' testimony he
testified that Warren told the employees that "If we had
any kind of union trouble like that this plant could be
moved to Jerseyville, Illinois. He said that it wouldn't be
hard." Warren testified to the effect that he discussed ques-
tions concerning wages, rumors about integration of anoth-
er local plant, that he told the employees that the Fort
Dodge plant might not be there a year from then, discussed
the question of the UAW cards, that he asked the employ-
ees why in "hell" they didn't make up their minds, that he
told the employees that he didn't want to get into a battle
between two unions over 11 employees, and that he told
the employees about the acquisition of the Jerseyville plant
and that Respondent was not sure what it was going to do
with the Jerseyville plant. Warren denied that he told the
employees the plant would be moved because of union
trouble.
Fritz was cross-examined by Respondent with respect to
his pretrial affidavit. The effect of such cross-examination
10 Respondent 's later contracts with the Teamsters, dated September 20,
1974, and November 19, 1974, only constitute evidence of continuation of
the effect of unlawful aid and assistance , and do not cure the ills of the
unlawful recognition and contracting with the Teamsters.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
revealed that as to some of the remarks made by Fritz
during the critical event, his recollection at trial was not
good. Warren's testimony was presented in a fragmented
way and was not of such a nature as to reveal his remarks
in chronological fashion.
I am persuaded that both Fritz and Warren were testify-
ing to what they believed to be true. Under such circum-
stances and considering the foregoing, I am persuaded that
Fritz' testimony to the effect that Warren had said the
plant would be moved because of union troubles was based
on his conclusion of the total effect of Warren's remarks. I
discredit Fritz' testimony that such remarks were specifi-
cally made."
Conclusion
Considering the foregoing, I have discredited Fritz' testi-
mony to the effect that Warren specifically threatened to
move the plant if there were union trouble: The question
remains, however, whether the total effect of Warren's re-
marks constituted a threat to move the plant if there were
problems with two unions fighting over the employees.
Considering all of the facts, I am persuaded that Warren's
remarks as a whole constituted a threat to move the plant if
there were union troubles. Thus, Warren told the employ-
ees in effect that the Fort Dodge plant might not be there
a year from then, that he was upset about the UAW cards,
that they should make up their minds, that he did not want
to get into a battle between two unions over II employees,
and that Respondent had purchased another new plant
and wasn't sure what it would do with such plant. In my
opinion, Warren in a sophisticated way told the employees
in effect that if they didn't decide to eliminate the question
of another union, the Respondent would cease its opera-
tions at the Fort Dodge plant and utilize instead the Jersey-
Ville, Illinois, plant. Such threat clearly constitutes conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. It is so concluded
and found.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's op-
eration described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship 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 Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
11 The General Counsel argues that the logic of the events preceding the
Warren remarks suggests that the threats to move the plant because of
union trouble could have been made. Such remarks could have been made.
Determination of whether the remarks were made, however, depends upon
a question of evidence presented as to whether the remarks were made.
tion to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found the unfair labor practices set forth above,
in order to dissipate the effect of Respondent's unfair labor
practices, it will be ordered that Respondent withdraw and
withhold all recognition from International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 650 and to cease giving effect to any
collective-bargaining agreement with said union, or to any
renewal, modification, or extension thereof, unless and un-
til such union shall have been certified by the Board as the
exclusive representative of the employees in question.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Allied Products Corporation and its subsidiary,
Kraus Manufacturing & Equipment Co., Inc., Respondent,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers and its Local 1205
each, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, Local No. 650 is,
and has been at all times material herein, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By recognizing Teamsters Local 650, and by entering
into the May 24, 1974, contract with said union, when Re-
spondent did not employ a representative employee com-
plement, Respondent rendered unlawful aid and assistance
to said union in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
5. By the foregoing and by interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 12
Respondent, Allied Products Corporation and its subsid-
iary, Kraus Manufacturing & Equipment Co., Inc., its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to the Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local No. 650, by recognizing or
contracting with such labor organization as the exclusive
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining at a time when there exists a real
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION 737
question concerning representation.
(b) Giving effect to, performing, or in any way enforcing
collective-bargaining agreements executed with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Ware-
housemen of America, Local No. 650, covering its employ-
ees, or to any modification, extension, renewal, or
supplement thereto, or to any checkoff authorization cards
executed pursuant to said agreement , unless and until such
union has been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of such
employees; provided, however, that nothing herein shall
require Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, hour,
seniority, or other substantive feature of its relations with
said employees which have been established in the perfor-
mance of any such agreement or to prejudice the assertion
by such employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
(c) Threatening employees with plant closure or removal
in order to dissuade such employees from engaging in
union or protected concerted activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers and its Lo-
cal 1205, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 650, as the
representative of its employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining unless and until the said labor organization has
been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) Post at its premises in Fort Dodge, Iowa, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 18, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places , including
all places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered
by any other material.
13 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading. "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Employer has taken to comply herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 650, by
recognizing or contracting with such labor organiza-
tion as the exclusive representative of our employees
for the purpose of collective bargaining, at a time
when there exists a real question concerning represen-
tation.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any agreement with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No.
650, covering our employees, or to any renewal, exten-
sion , modification, or supplement thereof, unless and
until said labor organization has been duly certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees, but nothing herein
shall be construed to require that we vary or abandon
any existing term or condition of employment.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition
from International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
No. 650, as the collective-bargaining representative of
our employees unless and until said labor organization
has been certified as such by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant clo-
sure or removal in order to dissuade such employees
from engaging in union or protected concerted activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form labor orga-
nizations, to join or assist International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Workers and its Local 1205, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging
in any or all such activities.
ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARY,
KRAUS MANUFACTURING & EQUIPMENT CO., INC.