Armstrong Furnace Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 463 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY and UNITED AuToMo-
BILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL #847j AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. C-2388.-Decided February 13,1943
Jurisdiction : furnace manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: Company-Dominated Union: first organiza-
tion : formation of, to forestall "outside" union organization ; expression of
hostility toward "outside" union and preference for "inside" union by respondent
at plant-wide meeting of employees ; supervisory cooperation and assistance in
solicitation of membership; changing of working hours to permit attendance of
employees at union meeting ; optional check-off privilege ; donation of facilities
for vending machines-successor organization: suggested by respondent's
officials; initial organization by president of predecessor organization; forma-
tion prior to disestablishment of predecessor; identity of officers in both
organizations ; failure of respondent to mark separation of first and second
organizations.
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed; delegation by respondent to company-
dominated union of final authority in selection of employees for lay-off,,held
- not conclusive proof of discrimination in absence of showing that disparate
treatment was accorded members of the "outside" union as compared with non-
members thereof.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of and abrogation'of contract with dominated
organizations.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 27, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent, the U. A. W., and the
Independent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support of their exceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
errors were' committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings and
47 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
463
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conclusions of the Trial Examiner. The remedial recommendations
of the Trial Examiner are likewise adopted by the Board except as
modified in the Order set forth below.
The U. A. W. in its brief argued, in effect, that the respondent's
delegation to the Association -and to the - Independent, -respectively,
of final-authority in the selection of employees for lay-off, conclusively
proves the discriminatory character of the lay-off of Roy Shaffer, Earl
Stamper, and Cameron Weyer. We do not agree with this contention.
While we regard such- delegation of authority to the Association and
the Independent as a circumstance casting suspicion upon the respond-
ent's choice of employees for lay-off,' we do not believe that it is
determinative of discrimination in the absence of some showing that
disparate treatment was accorded either the three employees in ques-
tion or union members generally as compared with non-members of
the Union.2
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 respondent, Armstrong Furnace Com-
pany, Columbus, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Colum-
bus Independent Furnace Workers Association, or with'the formation -
or administration of any other labor organization of its employees,
and from contributing financial or other support to Columbus Inde-
pendent Furnace Workers Association,_or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Columbus Independent Furnace Workers Asso-
ciation 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
employment; -
(c) Giving effect to its contract of May 28, 1942, with Columbus
Independent Furnace Workers Association, or to any' extension, re-
newal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding
Cf. Matter of The Dow Chemical Company and United Mine Workers of America, Dis-
trict No. 50, 13 N. L R. B 993.
2 Although the record fails to show any differentiation based on union affiliation in the
selection of employees for lay-off , we do not find, on the other hand , that the comparative
figures cited by the Trial Examiner with respect to the number of union , Association, and
Independent members laid off and retained disprove discrimination. The analysis made
by the Trial Examiner was based upon membership in the Union as it existed in May 1941,
wh.eieas it was shown that in October 1941 and April 1942, the respective dates of the
lay-offs, all but a comparatively few members of the Union had either become inactive
or had joined the Association and later, the Independent. Moreover, even an affirmative,
showing, that there was no blanket discrimination against union members would not in
every instance suffice to establish the absence of discrimination against a single employee.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY - 465
contract with said Columbus Independent Furnace Workers Asso-
ciation 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 Columbus Independent Furnace
Workers 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 employment, and completely disestablish said Columbus
Independent Furnace Workers Association as such representative;
(b) Completely disestablish Armstrong Furnace 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 work, and other conditions of employment;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant,
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that the re-
spondent will not engage in the conduct from which it 'is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) to (c) hereof; ,(2) that the re-
spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a)
to (c) hereof;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of William Quigley, Roy Shaffer, Earl Stamper, and
Cameron Weyer has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. James A. Shaw, for the Board.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, by Mr. John M. Rankin and Mr. Carl Tangeman,
of Columbus, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Lewis Strickland and Mr F. L. Innes, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. Barton Griffith, Jr., of Columbus, Ohio, for the Independent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
'Upon a second amended charge 'duly filed on July 3, 1942, Eby United Automobile,
Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local #847, affiliated
513024-43-vol. 47-30
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with 'the Congress of In Organizations,' herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio ), issued its complaint dated July 11, 1942,
against Armstrong Furnace Company, Columbus, Ohio,'-herein' called the-respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging - iii -unfair-
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2); and ( 3) and Section 2
(6) and (7.) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 443, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Columbus Independent Furnace
Workers Association, herein called the Independent, a labor organization alleged
in the complaint to be dominated and supported by the respondent. -
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that the respondent since-on or about May 1, 1941, has engaged in a continuous
course of conduct which has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining; (2)
that the respondent dn'or about May 15, 1941, initiated, formed, and sponsored the
Armstrong Furnace Association, herein called the Association, and at all times
thereafter until on or about December 1, 1941, interfered with and dominated
the administration of the Association and contributed support thereto; (3) that
the respondent on or about November 1, 1941, initiated, formed, and sponsored the
Independent as it successor of the Association, and at all times, since that date has
dominated and interfered with the administration of the Independent and has
contributed support thereto ; (4) that the respondent on or about October 23, 1941,
laid off or discharged Earl Stamper and Roy Shaffer, on or about April 23, 1942,
discharged William Quigley, and on or about April 24, 1942, laid off or discharged
Cameron Weyer, and at all times since said dates has failed and refused to rein-
state each and all of the above named employees because they and each of them
joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and that the
respondent's action with respect to the above named employees was for the
purpose, of discouraging membership in the Union; and (5 ) I that the respondent
by the above acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent filed an answer dated July 21, 1942, admitting the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint and denying that it had committed the unfair
labor practices alleged. The respondent admitted in its answer, however, that
it had committed certain of the acts which are alleged. to have constituted inter-
ference with, domination and support of the Association.
On or about August 22, 1942,'the Independent filed with the Board's Regional
Director at Cincinnati, Ohio, a motion for leave to intervene in these proceedings
and an answer to the Board's complaint. The Regional Director made no ruling'
on this motion and at the hearing counsel for the Board referred it to the Trial
Examiner for disposition. The motion was granted by the undersigned at the
first session of the hearing herein. The Independent in its answer admitted, the
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, denied for want of knowledge
the allegations with respect to the alleged domination and support of the Asso-
ciation, and denied the allegations of the complaint relating to the Independent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from August 24 to September 2. 1942,
at Columbus, Ohio, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Inde-
pendent were represented by counsel, the Union by,its representatives, and all
participated in the hearing.' Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
1 Counsel for the Independent at the first session of the hearing entered an appearance
of record . He elected , however, to absent himself from the hearing except for a total of
about '3 days during which he offered evidence on behalf of the Independent.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY 467
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the respondent filed an
application for a subpoena duces tecum requesting that the Union be required
to produce its records as of June 1941, which would disclose the identity of its
paid-up members, and the dates of their affiliations. The undersigned denied
the application for the subpoena. In lieu thereof, the Union, at the request of
the Trial Examiner, submitted to the Trial Examiner its membership cards and
the Trial Examiner thereafter, without disclosing the identity of any of the
Union's membership, supplied the respondent certain statistical data revealed
by a study of the membership cards, which data the Trial Examiner deemed
material to the allegations of the complaint that the respondent had discrim-
inatorily laid off or discharged certain of its employees. The respondent
accepted the data supplied by the Trial Examiner, stating, however, that by so
doing if did not waive its exception to the Trial 'Examiner's ruling. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint with
respect to the alleged discriminatory lay-off. or discharge of Cameron Weyer,
on the,ground that on the first day of the hearing herein the respondent had
offered, and Weyer had refused, reinstatement in the respondent's plant. This
motion was denied. At the conclusion of the hearing the undersigned, without
objection, granted the Board's motion to conform the complaint to the proof.
At the close of the hearing, all parties were advised that they might argue
orally before the Trial Examiner and that they might file briefs with him.
All parties waived oral argument. Counsel for the Board, the respondent, and
the Independent filed briefs with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Armstrong Furnace Company, the respondent herein, is an Ohio corporation
having its principal office and place of business at Columbus, Ohio, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of furnaces. During the year 1941, the respondent
purchased in States other than the State of Ohio raw materials valued at ap-
proximately $705,000 and constituting about 85 percent of all the materials used
during that period. During the same period the respondent's gross sales of its
products approximated $2,400,000, of which 75 percent, valued at approximately
$1,700,000, was sold in States other than the State of Ohio It was stipulated at
the hearing that the respondent is, and at all times material herein has been,
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It was stipulated at the hearing that all of the respondent's stock is owned by
"the Norris family,'.' consisting principally of D. W. Norris and his son, John'
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local #847, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
The record contains frequent references to the Lennox Furnace Company. It was
stipulated at the hearing that all of the stock of the Lennox Furnace Company is also
owned by "the Norris family." The record shows that the Lennox Furnace Company
operates a plant at Columbus , Ohio, which is located adjacent to the respondent 's plant,
as neil as plants at Syracuse , New York, and Marshalltown , Io«a. ,
468- DECISIONS-,OF -NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Armstrong Furnace Association was,'until'its dissolution, an unaffiliated *labor
organization, admitting to membership, only employees of the respondent.
Columbus Independent Furnace Workers Association is an, unaffiliated labor,
organization admitting to' membership only employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference with, domination, and support of the Association; interference,
restraint, and coercion '
1. History of the Association ; respondent's opposition to the Union
Early in May 1941, the Union began organizing the respondent's employees.
Several employees joined the Union, made application for a local charter, and
on or about May 10 began wearing union, buttons in the plant. Frank Leonard,
the respondent's plant superintendent, admitted that as soon as he heard the
Union was attempting to organize the employees, he "started looking around,"
and after seeing four or five employees wearing union buttons he reported the
matter to J. L. McLaughlin, the respondent's factory manager. William Scase,
an employee, testified that shortly after the Union began organizing the employees,
William J. Bernhard, foreman of -the shipping department, called Scase to his
office and stated that he had heard that the employees were organizing a union,
that the employees "didn't know which side their bread was buttered on," and
asked Scase to inform him which employees were active in organizing the union.
Bernhard testified that he did not recall making the above-quoted statement and
denied telling Scase to inform him as to who was organizing the Union. The
undersigned credits Scase's testimony and finds that Bernhard expressed dis-
approval of,the Union and requested that Scase become his informer concerning
the Union's activities' It is further foiuld, in view of Leonard's admission, noted
above, that Plant Superintendent Leonard manifested anxiety over the Union's
attempt to organize the respondent's employees.
A day or two after the first show of union buttons in the plant, a group of
employees began organizing the Association. According to the credible and un-
disputed testimony of Walter Smith and Albert Nagy, they and other employees,
when they heard about the Union coming into the plant, decided to form an
-organization to keep the Union out. After a few informal group meetings, Art
Wiles, a local attorney, was retained by Nagy and Ray Godden, another employee,
to-assist in perfecting the organization.' On or about May 10, several of the
Scase impressed the undersigned as an honest and forthright witness. He is' no
longer employed by the respondent , having voluntarily terminated his employment. On
the other hand, Bernhard , although denying that he asked Scase to act as an informer, was
hazy and indefinite as to whether he made the other statement attributed to him by Scase.
* The complaint ' alleges that the respondent suggested that the employees retain "a
certain attorney to advise and represent them " in forming the Association . Cameron
Weyer, an employee , testified that Nelson Leezer, another employee , told him that, upon
Leonard's advice , he had retained Wiles. At the time of the hearing Leezer was in the
armed forces and was unavailable as a witness. Nagy testified that, upon his request,
Leonard recommended Wiles as a "good attorney" and permitted Nagy to leave the plant
for a couple of hours because he' had "some business to do, " and that he and Godden
then left their work, rang out their time cards , and conferred with.Wiles about forming
the Association . Nagy testified further that he at no time told Leonard why he wanted an
attorney or in any manner indicated to Leonard the nature of the "business " he wanted
to transact . Leonard testified that Nagy' asked 'him to recommend an attorney, that
he did not ask Nagy why he Ni anted an attorney , and that he knew Nagy had been
having some trouble getting a birth certificate . He further testified that he did not
know that Nagy and Godden left the plant shortly after Nagy's inquiry . In view' of Nagy's
activity on behalf of the Association , Leonard's admitted haste in notifying McLaughlin
ARMSTRONG ' FURNACE- COMPANY - t'. 469
employees met at the Riverside Grill, a restaurant near the.plant , and elected
temporary officers. Those present at this meeting also discussed possible wage
increases, basing their discussion upon a document containing the name and
seniority standing of all the employees and the current wage scale , which two
of the employees had obtained from the respondent's office. ' On May 13 or 14,
several of the employees who were interested in the Association met at the home
of one of the employees . Attorney Wiles presided at this meeting and instructed
the employees regarding the formal organization of the Association. No definite
action was taken at this meeting.
On May 15, the respondent called all of its employees to a meeting in the
plant during working hours, where they were addressed for about one-half hour
by John Norris, the respondent's vice president and one of its principal stock-
holders. The employees were compensated for the time spent at this meeting.
The undersigned finds that Norris, in substance, stated that the Norris family
owned extensive industrial and business enterprises ; that the meeting was
called because he understood there was union activity in the plant ; that the
Act prevented him from telling the employees what union they should join and
assured them there would be no discrimination against any employee regardless
of his union affiliations; that employees at other plants owned by the Norris
family had unaffiliated unions, that one department in one plant had an
A. F of L union, and that the management at those plants enjoyed pleasant
relations with those unions. It is further found that Norris read the contents
of the Union's membership card, which he held in his hand throughout the
speech, and stated that by signing the -card the employees gave the Union
power of attorney to act exclusively for the employees with respect to all
matters concerning their employment and urged the employees to be careful
what they signed ; ° stated that the respondent would deal with any labor organ-
ization as long as its demands were reasonable, but that the Norris family
would not stand for a closed shop, and if the unreasonable demands of any
organization resulted in a strike the Norris family could survive without the
operation of the plant longer than could the employees; ' and stated in substance
that the C. I. O. "had a bad record" for calling strikes, that it "held up produc-
tion," that the employees could bargain for themselves better than could
of the Union 's activity in the plant , and his further testimony that when he beard the
employees talking about the Association he "started to look into the whole thing there
as near as [ he] could," it seems unlikely that Leonard was unware of Nagy ' s purpose in
seeking his advice regarding an attorney. While the matter is not wholly free from
doubt, the testimony summarized above is not, in the undersigned 's view, sufficient to
support a finding that Leonard iecommended that Wiles be retained to assist the em-
ployees in organizing the Association, or that Leonard permitted Nagy and Godden to
leave their work to confer with Wiles regarding the Association.
6 The complaint alleges that the respondent supplied the Association with the names
and addresses of all its employees , to be used by the Association in its membership drive.
The respondent , in its answer , admits that it supplied the Association with the names and
addresses of its employees. The undersigned finds, however , that the record is barren of
any evidence supporting the allegation that this information was given for the alleged
purpose or that it was used for that or any other purpose except the discussion of possible
wage increases.
° According to the testimony of Thomas McLoughlin , a witness for the respondent, and
Roy Shaffer , a witness for the Board , ,chose testimony is substantially similar to the
testimony of many other witnesses on this point , Norris illustrated the meaning of "power
of attorney" by stating in effect that signing a C. I. 0 card was the same as giving "a
total stranger , the right to sell your house for any price you could get."
7 The witnesses disagreed as to the exact language Norris used when stating that the
continued operation of the plant was not necessary to the wellbeing of the Norris family.
However, the meaning of the varied language used by different witnesses is essentially the
same.
I
470 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL .UABOR.:REL'ATIONS BOARD
"outside people," and that the respondent would rather bargain with " the men
in the shop," or any independent union than with an "outside organization.f !
It is clear_from.all the evidence' that the Association's organizational activi-
ties began immediately after' the Union commenced its organizational effort
and just prior to-Norris' speech. It is equally clear that immediately following
Norris' speech there was a marked intensification of Association activity both
inside sand outside the plant. Several witnesses testified that they first noticed
Association activity after Norris had addressed the employees. The undersigned
finds that Norris' speech was delivered to the employees for the purpose, and
had the inevitable effect, of restraining the employees from joining the Union
and assisting the week-old movement to organize an,unaffiliated organization. '
The support of the Association supplied by Norris' speech was utilized to
the fullest extent in the organized solicitation for the Association which
immediately followed it. According to the undisputed and credible testimony
of several witnesses for all parties, several employees interested in the Associa-
tion at the conclusion, of Norris'. speech stood near the place where the speech
had been delivered and passed out the Association's application blanks to the
employees as they left the plant. Nagy, a witness for the respondent, testified,
for example, that he-and 30 or 40'other employees passed out such applications
on this occasion. Nagy also testified • that certain members of the Union at
the same time passed out applications for membership 'in the Union. Nagy's
testimony with respect to the distribution of application cards for the.Asso-
ciation and the Union on this occasion is corroborated by the testimony of
Paul Clouse, Walter Smith, and Fletcher Wright, witnesses for the Independent.
The undersigned finds that immediately following Norris' speech to the em-
ployees there was extensive solicitation on behalf of the Association on company
property and that the Union at the same time engaged in like but less
extensive activity.
On or about May 16, the Association, according to McCaghren's testimony,
which is credited, requested recognition. Upon the respondent's request for
proof of the Association's claim to represent a majority of the employees, it
submitted to the respondent either its membership cards or a list of its
members which showed that more than 51 percent of the eligible employees were
members The respondent's representatives then stated that "they thought
they would be able to recognize" tbe^'Association and if they decided to do
so, they would post a notice to that effect "in the next couple days." On May
19, the, respondent posted a notice recognizing the Association as the collective
bargaining representative of its members only.
- About the middle of July, a general meeting of the Association was held and
permanent officers were elected. Shortly thereafter, permanent departmental
representatives were elected, according to the credible and undisputed evidence,
at a meeting which the respondent enabled the employees to attend by closing
the plant for two hours between the day and the early night shifts. The
respondent admits in its answer that it "changed working hours on one occasion
so as to permit all employees to attend a meeting." On all the evidence, the
undersigned finds that the admission in the answer refers to this meeting.
8 The above finding as to the substance of Norris' speech is based upon the testimony of
numerous witnesses for all parties. Some witnesses for the respondent and the Inde-
pendent 'testified that they did not hear or did not remember hearing certain statements
attributed to Norris by the Board's witnesses, but as to those things 'remembered there
is no serious conflict in the testimony. ' The respondent failed to call Norris as a witness
and the record contains no explanation for its failure to do so except that Norris spends
'most of his time at the Lennox Furnace Company's plant at Marshalltown, Iowa.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY 471
While the Association was organizing, and continuing for some time thereafter,
the Association's organizers were permitted freely and extensively to discuss the
Association with employees and solicit them to join while, in the plant during
working hours. There is persuasive evidence, moreover, 'that Plant Superin-
tendent Leonard urged several employees to join the Association. William Scase,
'an active organizer for the Union, testified that on August 16 he inquired of
Leonard as to the whereabouts of John Slattery, an active solicitor on behalf
of the Association,' and Leonard inquired if Scase wanted to "sign up with the
bpys." Roy Shaffer testified that on two successive days about the middle of
August, Leonard told him he "might as well sign up with the boys and make
it 100%." Shaffer further testified that at about the same time, Slattery asked
him to join the Association and he replied that if he ever joined the Association
'he would sign a card with Leonard. According to Shaffer, Leonard came to him
shortly after his conversation with Slattery and said that Slattery. had told
*him Shaffer wanted to see him. When Shaffer denied that he had sent for
Leonard, Leonard again asked him to join the Association, and Shaffer replied
that he would talk about joining after Leonard put Earl Stamper "back on the
job." 10 Leonard, according to Shaffer, then said that Shaffer should try to get
Stamper to join the Association because he could "do more with him" than
Leonard could, and then shut off the band saw on which Shaffer was working
and told him to go speak to Stamper about the Association. Shaffer went to
the steel shop and talked to Stamper concerning the Association for about 25 or
30 minutes. Shaffer's testimony concerning this incident is corroborated by
Stamper, who also testified that during the conversation between Shaffer and
Stamper, Leonard stood nearby and watched Shaffer and Stamper.11 Leonard
denied engaging in the activity attributed to him by Scase, Shaffer, and Stamper,
and testified that he never spoke to any employees about any labor organiza-
tion. It has been noted above that Leonard informed his superior of the Union's
activity in the plant as soon as he became aware of it and that when Leonard
first noticed activity on behalf of the Union in the plant he admittedly "started
to look into the whole thing there as near as [he] could." In view of Leonard's
haste in notifying his superior of the Union's activity in the plant and his
admitted interest in watching the Union's activity as closely as possible, the
undersigned finds that Leonard was interested in keeping the Union out of the
plant and in seeing that the Association became firmly entrenched. The under-
signed rejects Leonard's testimony that he took no part in the Association's
membership drive, credits the testimony of Scase, Shaffer, and Stamper, and
finds that Leonard engaged in membership solicitation for the Association.
There is some evidence that the members of the Union also discussed their
organization with the employees and solicited the employees to join it while in
the plant during working hours The undersigned finds that the Union's organ-
' Slattery is a janitor at the respondent's plant and frequently is utilized by the re-
spondent to run errands. is duties take him through all departments of the plant, and
it is clear that he fraternizes with most of the employees Earl Stamper; an employee,
referred to Slattery as a "good-will ambassador." Although Slattery's duties bring him
into frequent association with the management, the undersigned finds that Slattery is not
a representative of the management and cannot reasonably be so regarded by the
employees.
ro Shortly before this conversation Stamper had been transferred from the shipping
department, where Shaffer worked, to the steel shop, where he was required to sciape
'held splatter from furnace bodies.
11 Shaffer testified that he did not know whether or not Leonard witnessed the con-
versation between him and. Stamper because he was facing the direction opposite from
where Leonard would likely stand if he did follow Shaffer from the, shipping, department
to the steel shop.
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
izers engaged in some union activity in the plant during working hours, but that
this activity, was by no means as extensive as that engaged in on behalf of the
Association.
Weyer, a witness for the Board, testified, without contradiction; that on many
occasions he talked with Norris in the latter's office and that Norris gave him
"propaganda talks" stating, in substance, that when the employees belonged to an
uriaifiliated• organization they were represented by their "own buddies" but they
would have no representatives if they belonged to an "outside" organization ;
and in an unaffiliated organization the members knew what was becoming of
their money because dues were kept within the membership instead of being
given to some "outside" organization. According to Weyer, Norris stated.at a
meeting between representatives of the Association and the respondent that he
would "bend over backwards to keep dealing with the independent union." Weyer
also testified that Norris sent him a letter dated September 2, 1941, enclosing a
bulletin from the National Metal Trades Association regarding union security or
closed-shop contract clauses. In this letter Norris reminded Weyer that he had
frequently expressed the respondent's opposition to the closed-shop principle and
he thought the bulletin "might be of considerable interest" to Weyer, the Asso-
ciation's president, and Alfred McCaghren and Henry Ely, the editor and assistant
editor of the Association's publication, The Leader.'= Norfis did not appear to deny
the statements and conduct related above. The undersigned credits Weyer's tes-
timony and finds that Norris made the statements and engaged in the conduct
attributed to him by Weyer.
In addition to the foregoing, there is other.evidence of the respondent's favor-
itism; for the Association. During one of the conferences between representatives
of the respondent and the Association at which a seniority plan was being dis-
cussed, Norris promised to, and later did, supply the Association with the senior-
ity plans adopted by,the management and the unaffiliated unions at the Lennox
Furnace Company's Syracuse and Marshalltown plants. They were used as the
model for the oral seniority agreement between the respondent and the Associa-
tion. On August 17, 1941, the respondent held a picnic for its employees. On that
occasion Norris introduced the Association's officers to the employees present'
'and stated that the editor of the Association's publication was doing "a good
job." The respondent donated space and electricity for the operation of two or
three coca cola vending machines in the plant, the profit from which went to
the Association. The members of the Association had the option of paying their
dues directly to the Association or authorizing the respondent to deduct the dues
from their wages and pay it over to the Association's treasurer. About half of
the members selected the latter method. The respondent thus assisted the Asso-
ciation in the collection of about half its dues through a check-off system.
Although the respondent and the Association held regular conferences on
grievance matters and entered into a verbal seniority agreement, the respondent
and the Association never entered into a written contract or engaged in negotia-
tions leading toward such a contract. On October It, 1941, after the Union
had filed charges with the Board claiming that the Association was dominated
and supported by the respondent, Factory Manager McLaughlin participated in
a conference at the Board's Regional Office concerning these charges. Upon
his return to Columbus, McLaughlin called Weyer to his office and informed him
of the pending charges. On October 16, at a conference between the representa-
tives of the respondent and the Association, all of the Association's representa-
" Weyer testified that he gave the bulletin to Ely and that Ely and McCaghren stated
that they would use portions of it in The Leader. McCaghren testified that he never
received the bulletin and that it uas not printed. There is no evidence to the contrary.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY _ 1 473
tives were, notified of the pending charges and the respondent's representatives
stated that they did not know whether the respondent would disestablish the Asso-
ciation in accordance with the Regional Director's advice; that if they did decide
to do so the Association would be notified ; and in the meantime the respondent
would continue to deal with the Association. According to the undisputed
and credible testimony of Melvin Koehl, McLaughlin stated that; the Associa-
tion did not have 'to disband if it did not want to and that "if it came to court
they would take it up and fight it for us."
The respondent continued to deal with the Association for several weeks.
Finally, Factory Manager McLaughlin sent Weyer a letter dated November 19;
1941, stating that upon advice of counsel the respondent had decided to discon-
tinue its dealings with the Association and that a notice to that effect would be
posted on November 21. The respondent posted a notice stating that the respond-
ent would no longer bargain with, the Association. The date of the posting of this
notice is iiot definitely fixed, except for the statement in McLaughlin's letter that
it would be posted on November 21. The undersigned finds that, on or about
November 21; the respondent posted of notice that it would no longer bargain with
the Association.
2. Conclusions as to the Association
From the foregoing it is clear that the respondent interfered with, dominated,
and supported the formation and administration of the Association. The speech
delivered by Norris on May 15, the solicitation in the plant immediately follow-
ing it, and the subsequent solicitation in the plant during working hours, in
which Plant Superintendent Leonard participated, were invaluable assistance
to the Association during its formative period. The respondent, throughout
the entire history of the Association, continued to give the Association its moral
and financial support. Such support consisted, among other things, of "propa-
ganda talks" on the relative merits of affiliated and unaffiliated labor organ-
izations ; closing the plant to permit the employees to attend an Association
meeting ; introducing the Association's ofihcers, and praising their organizational
activity to the employees; donation to the Association of profits from coca cola
vending machines; collection of dues through a check-off arrangement; and
clear expressions of hostility toward the Union and favoritism toward unaffiliated
organizations.
Some of these things, separately considered, may be said to be trivial; col-
lectively viewed, they are significant. They were of immeasurable assistance
coming, as they did, on the heels of Norris' May 15 address to the employees.
As the Supreme Court has had occasion to note :
Known hostility to one union and clear discrimination against it may
indeed make seemingly trivial intimations of preference for another union
powerful assistance for it. Slight suggestions as to the employer's choice
between unions may have telling effect among men who know the conse-
quences of incurring that employer's strong displeasure.13
The undersigned finds that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and contributed support to it,
and thereby -interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
13 International Ass'n of Machinists V. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, 73.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Interference with, domination, and support of the independent ; the rela-
tionship between the Independent and the Association
1. History of the Independent
On October 16, 1941 , the respondent notified the Association 's committee of
the pending charges of domination and suggested the feasibility of forming a
new organization to replace the Association. Weyer and Koehl testified in
substance that on that occasion Newton S. Hoerle , at that time the respondent's
general manager , stated that the Association did not have to disband , that the
respondent was dealing with its employees and not with any labor organization,
that similar charges had been made with respect to an unaffiliated organization
at another company with which Hoerle had been associated prior to the time
he became the respondent ' s general manager, and that the employees there
formed a new organization with none of the officers of the old one and that
the new organization had had no difficulties with the Board. According to
Weyer, Hoerle further stated that he could not make any suggestions with
respect to the formation of a new organization but suggested that changes
similar to those made at the company to which he had referred would permit
the respondent to recognize and bargain with the new organization. Hoerle
cautioned the Association's committee that the organization must be "entirely
new" without any of the officers of the old organization participating in its
organization, and assured the committee that after such a reorganization the
Board "couldn't hold the charges-at all" Hoerle testified that he had been
factory manager of the Easy Washing Machine Company prior to his association
with the respondent, and that that company had had an employees' representa-
tion plan and subsequently an unaffiliated union which had been certified by the
Board. He could not recall discussing the matter at the October 16 meeting,
but testified that the situation at the Easy Company "was so fresh in my
mind . . . it, would be a natural thing for it to come out in conversation."
In view of Hoerle's failure to deny the remarks attributed to him, and his
admission that the situation at the Easy Company probably was discussed, the
undersigned credits the testimony of Weyer and Koehn and finds that Hoerle,
in substance, suggested the formation of a new unaffiliated union."
Weyer testified that during the week following the conference at which the
Association had been notified of the pending charges, he talked to Factory
Manager McLaughlin and Vice-President Norris about the possibility of form-
ing another organization. According to Weyer, McLaughlin stated that he
could not advise the employees what to do but that he made about the, same
suggestions as Hoerle had made at the conference. Weyer testified that Norris
called him to Norris' office and stated that if a new organization was formed
the officers of the old organization could become members of the new, but that
the new organization should have different officers. Weyer's testimony is un-
contradicted. The undersigned credits it and finds that McLaughlin and Norris,
as well as Hoerle, made suggestions for.the organization of -a new union.
Weyer testified without contradiction that Factory Manager McLaughlin
suggested that he talk with Slattery about forming a new organization. The
14 Alfred McCaghren testified that Hoerie said nothing about another plant where ari
unaffiliated organization had reorganized . Leonard testified that formation of a new
organization was not discussed . Leonard later testified that lie did not hear Hoerie say
anything , then still'later, that Hoerle said something but lie did not remember what and
that he was not sure he was present for the whole meeting . In view , of the . credited
evidence of Weyer and Koehl concerning Hoerle's statements and Leonard's confusion as
to Hoerle 's participation in the discussion at the October 16 meeting , the undersigned
does not credit McCaghren 's and Leonaid ' s testimony on this point.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY 475
respondent failed-to call McLaughlin as a' witness and offered no explanation
of its failure to do so. The undersigned credits Weyer's testimony and finds
that McLaughlin suggested to Weyer that he and Slattery consider the formation
of a new organization. Weyer and Slattery discussed the matter and agreed
that Jim Knight should be president of the new union. According to Slattery Is
undisputed and credible testimony, Weyer informed him of the charge that
the respondent had dominated and supported the Association and stated that,
"Wei" 'would have to start, probably, a new organization . . ." This conver-
sation took place in the plant during working hours. Slattery further testi-
fied, and his testimony is credited, that "the majority of our people 1" were
talking about Jim Knight at the head of anew organization."
During the last week in October, Weyer and Harry Carpenter, while at the
plant during working hours, spoke to Knight about the matter, and Weyer
suggested to Knight that he should be the president of a new organization.
He told Knight that Slattery would arrange a conference with an attorney
and asked Knight to attend such a conference. Knight agreed to do so.
The following night-Weyer, Slattery, and Knight went to the office of Barton
Griffith, a local attorney selected by Slattery, and asked his advice as to
whether they should fight the charges which had been filed with the board or
organize a new union. Griffith stated that he would get a copy of the charges
from the respondent's attorney, investigate the matter, and inform Weyer,
Slattery, and Knight of his conclusions. Three or four nights later Weyer,
Slattery, Knight, and Harry Carpenter again met with Griffith and were ad-
vised by Griffith that he had investigated the charges and had concluded that it
would be better to start a new organization without "a curse on you." No
decision with respect to the formation of the organization was reached at this
meeting Griffith told Weyer on this occasion that officers and others who had
held positions of leadership in the Association could hold no office in the new
organization until the lapse of at least one year.
On November 3, Knight went throughout the plant during working hours,
selected several employees in the different departments, and asked them to meet
him that night at the Riverside Grill. That night about 10 employees met at the
Riverside Grill. Knight told the others that he had seen a letter which Mc-
Laughlin had written to Weyer summarizing the charges of domination and
support which the Union had filed, stated that Weyer and Carpenter had asked
him to form a new union, told them he had conferred with an attorney, and
asked them to accompany him to another conference with the attorney and
decide whether they should form a new organization. Knight stated that he
did not know how long the Association would be able to "carry on" and that
he thought it best to form a new union.
On November 6, the employees who had met with Knight at the Riverside
Grill on November 3 conferred with Griffith, who stated that the employees
could "fight the charges or else form a new union" and those present decided
upon the latter course. They then retained Griffith as their counsel and elected
temporary officers. Knight, William Vaughn, Ely and Norman Koehl were
elected temporary president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer, respec-
tively. knight appointed those not elected to temporary office to act as tem-
porary departmental representatives or "councilmen "
On November 12, another meeting was held at Griffith's office. Those present
signed Independent membership cards and adopted a constitution. Knight
designated certain employees to solicit members and gave each of them a list
"Emphasis added.
10 Emphasis added.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
of the employees they were to solicit. The Independent's membership cards
contained a provision., authorizing the respondent to deduct 50 cents per month
dues from the wages of the Independent's members and pay it over to the
Independent's treasurer. When the employees were. solicited. to join the Inde-
pendent they were presented with two identical membership cards and were
asked to sign the cards in duplicate. Every employee who joined the Inde-
pendent was compelled to authorize the deduction of his dues from his wages,
since one copy.of -each card was given -to the respondent for dues check-off
purposes. Thus the respondent collects the Independent's dues and thereby
assures it a regular and'certain monthly income.
On December 6,•a general meeting was held at Townsend Hall and permanent
officers were elected. Knight, Vaughn, Ely, and Koehl were elected to the same
offices they had held as temporary officers.
On December 8, a committee of the Independent, at a conference with Mc-
Laughlin, stated that the Independent represented a majority of the employees
and would like to submit their membership cards to be audited by a disinterested
person as proof of their claim. It was agreed that a local minister should
check the'Independent's membership cards. This was done the following week
and the check showed that a majority of the employees had joined the 'Inde-
pendent. On December 11, the respondent, by a letter bearing that date,
recognized the Independent as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
of its production employees.17 From that date until the hearing herein the
respondent has bargained with the Independent, entering into a written contract
with it on May 28, 1942.
2 The Independent as successor to the Association
The impetus for the formation of the Independent came from the suggestions
of Hoerle , McLaughlin, and Norris , that the Association could purge itself of its
infirmities by a reorganization by employees who were not active in the Asso-
ciation's affairs. The credible testimony concerning the suggestions of these
three officials leads to but one conclusion-the respondent was anxious to
preserve the Association in a -form which would not disclose its real, identity.
It was interested in the simulation , not the substance , of freedom of action by
its employees . The respondent 's suggestions for reorganization were followed ;
its admonitions to -avoid appearance of identity between the old and the new
organizations were not.
By either of two tests-first, the identity of those active in both organizations,
and second , the timing of the, formation of the Independent with the simul-
taneous dissolution of the Association-it is clear that the Independent is the
Association 's direct successor.
First, many of the organizers and leading members of the Association were
active in the formation of the Independent and some of them later became its
officers and council members . Knight, the Independent's president and leading
organizer, had been the Association 's temporary vice president . Vaughn, one
of the Independent 's organizers and its vice - president , at whose home many of
the Independent 's early organizational meeting were held, bad actively par-
ticipated in the formation of the Association , was a temporary and permanent
councilman in the Association , and many of the Association 's council meetings
were held at his home . Ely, one of the Independent 's organizers and its secre-
tary, had been the assistant editor of The Leader, the Association 's publication.
17 The respondent later posted in the plant a notice of recognition dated December 22,
1941. According to Knight ' s testimony , this notice was posted at his request some time
after the Independent had been recognized.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY - - - _ '. 477
Knight and-Wright published the Independent's bulletin ; McCaghren, the Asso-
ciation's temporary secretary-treasurer," its permanent secretary, one of its
permanent councilmen, and the editor of its publication, mimeographed the
bulletin on the mimeograph machine which the Independent had indirectly pur-
chased from the Association" Slattery, who selected the Independent's attorney,,
was one of its organizers, an active solicitor for new members, and its council-
man-at-large representing all the small departments, and at whose home many
council meetings were held, had been the Association's "biggest -membership
driver" and some of the Association's organizational meetings had been, held at
his home. Weyer, whose part in initiating the formation of the Independent
has already been noted, was permanent president and a permanent councilman
of the Association. He talked to 30 or 40 employees about the Independent and
told them "it was all right to sign over into the new union." Carpenter, who,
together with Weyer, had talked to Knight about forming the Independent and
had guided him through the first conferences with Griffith, shad been an organizer,
and charter member of the Association as well as one of its councilmen. Walter
Smith, who participated in the organization of the Independent and solicited
employees to join it, was a charter member of the Association, had attended at
least one of its first organizational meetings, and had solicited employees to
join it.
Second, there was no clean break between the Association and the Independent.
Nor was there any elapsed time between the dissolution of the old organization
and the formation of the new during which the employees 'were made aware of
their freedom to act as they desired. Indeed, the formation of the Independent
was started as soon as the Association's leaders became aware that the Associa-
tion's infirmities were known to the Board, but the Association continued to
function until the Independent was ready to takeover. The Association was still
acting as the employees bargaining representative at the time Weyer and Carpen-
ter spoke to Knight about forming the Independent, and while Weyer, Carpenter,
Slattery, and Knight were conferring with Griffith. Knight testified that the
Independent was organized and ready to function before the respondent posted
its notice that it would no longer deal with the Association. According to
McCaghren's credible testimony, at the Association's last general meeting held
after McLaughlin had notified its representative of the pending charges, there was
a discussion as to the course which should be taken. Some members wanted to
contest the charges, but several members stated that they desired "to just let the
whole thing drop and to start another organization."
The members of the Association, however, never voted to dissolve. Two wit-
nesses for the Independent, Vaughn and Wright, testified that the first knowledge
they had that the Association was to dissolve was the discussion to that effect
at the Independent's organizational meeting on November 3. The formation` of
the Independent'is epitomized in Weyer's succinct and credible testimony: "Well,
the new organization-we got the wheels of it going and drew-the membership
from the old union into the new union and just drained the membership from one
union into the other."
The organizers, officers,'and leading members of the Independent had, almost
without exception, been leading members of the Association, and the Independent
was organized and_ ready to function at least.-two weeks before the respondent
28 McCaghren testified positively that he was the temporary secretary-treasurer. Weyer
testified that RobertrHenry was treasurer,and that he thought Ely was the secretary. In
view of Weyer's uncertainty as to Ely, the undersigned credits McCaghren's testimony
that he was secretary-treasurer.
19 During the' dissolution of the Association, Ely purchased the mimeograph machind
from the Association for $15, and shortly thereafter"sold'it'to-the Independent for $20.
478 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posted the November 21 notice that it would no longer bargain with the Associa-
tion. It is clear from the context of this notice 20 and the time at which it was
posted that the respondent, purporting to notify its employees of the disestablish-
ment of the Association, in fact used the notice to express to its employees its
continuing preference for an organization similar in type to the Association.,
Under these circumstances the employees could not be expected to consider the
Independent anything but the Association, revamped and renamed. It is a
reasonable inference, moreover, that the leaders of the Independent who had been
leaders of the employer-dominated Association would be considered by the em-
ployees to be representatives of management .'a The Independent appeared to be
the successor of the Association, for it emanated from-those who had -been active
in the Association. During the formative stages of the Independent the respond-
ent did nothing to mark the separation of the two organizations. This the
respondent was required to do if the Independent was to-escape the stigma which
attached to the Association. The respondent had a duty, which it failed to
discharge, to make it plain to the employees that it had ceased to favor one type
of organization over another and that the Independent did not enjoy the sunshine
of the respondent's support, as had the Association. Otherwise, in cases such as
the instant one, "the Board may, take it as datum, in the absence of satisfactory
evidence to the contrary, that the employees will suppose that the company
approves the new, as it did the old, and that their'choice is for-that reason not
as free as-the statute demands." 22
The undersigned finds that the Independent is the direct successor of the
Association ; that it is the beneficiary of the impetus and support the respondent
had given to the Association ; that the respondent, therefore, dominated and
20 The notice in full is as follows :
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
On October 15, 1941, I called a meeting of our employes and advised you that Mr.
Phillips, representing the National Labor Relations Board in Cincinnati, had told
Mr. McLaughlin that he considered that the Company had influenced the organiza-
tion of Armstrong Employes Association. I told you that I felt that the Company
had acted in good faith and in a kindly spirit towards the employes who wished to
organize and that the Company had not disobeyed any law. I told you that we
would tell you frankly if we decided on any change in our position.
The charges against the Company are based on affidavits of some of our employes
who charge that the Company attempted to influence employes to join the Associa-
tion and contributed advice and assistance in its formation. Some of the other
charges are that members were signed up during working hours, the factory was
closed during the election and that the Association got the profits from the Coca Cola
machines Some of these charges are trivial, some immaterial and some untrue.
Nevertheless we are advised by counsel that in view of the attitude of Mr Phillips we
should withdraw recognition of the Association. Accordingly all employes will take
notice that after today the management cannot bargain collectively with the Arm-
strong Employes Association. -
The long established policy of this company has been one of friendliness and
cooperation with all employes and this policy will be observed in the future to the
fullest extent permitted to the Company by the law.
In keeping with this policy the management will discuss grievances with- any,
employe or group of employes, however organized . The law guarantees to every
employe the right to decide whether he will act for himself or join a union or other
organization of employes. This right will be respected by the management and
there will be no discrimination, favoritism or coercion practiced by the Company
toward any employe no matter what employes' organization he may join or whether
or not he joins any organization. •
n N. L.,R. B. v. Thompson Products, Inc., 130 F. ( 2d) 363 (C. C. A. 6). -
22Westinghouse Electric d to. Co v N. L. R B., 112 F. (2d) 657 (C. C. A. 2),
aff'd (per curiam ).312 U. S. 660.. See also: N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co.,'311 U. S. 584;
and the Thompson Products case, supra.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY 479
interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent and con-
tributed support to it; and that by such conduct the respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. It is further found that the contract dated May 28, 1942,,
between the respondent and the Independent is an agreement made with an
organization not freely chosen by the respondent's employees as their collective
bargaining, representative and constitutes an illegal interference with the exercise
of the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The lay-offs and the discharge
1. The lay-off of Shaffer and Stamper
On October. 23, 1941, the respondent had approximately 198 production em-
ployees. Twenty-seven of these had signed union membership cards. One hun-
dred eighty-one had signed Association membership cards. On October 23, the
respondent laid off 70 production employees, including Roy Shaffer and Earl
Stamper; whose lay-offs are claimed to have been discriminatory. Of the 70 laid
off, 9 had signed union membership cards. Sixty-two of the 70, including 6 of
those who bad signed union cards, had signed Association cards. Of the 128'
employees retained after the October 23 lay-offs, 1S had signed union membership
cards, 119 had signed Association membership cards. It thus appears that ap-
proximately 35 percent of all the respondent's production employees were laid off
on October 23, that approximately 33 percent of the Union's members were laid
off, and that approximately 34 percent of the Association's members were laid
off There is no claim that the October 23 lay-off was a general discriminatory
move against the Union. It would be difficult to sustain such a claim in view of
the above-stated comparative figures.
The selection of the men to be laid off on October 23 was made pursuant to an
oral seniority agreement between the respondent and the Association. It pro-
vided that lay-offs should be' made within a particular department according to
the needs of that department, but that seniority within that department should
be determined by the employee's original hiring date. It also provided that the
seniority rule should be modified by the employee's relative ability and that an
employee could be transferred back to a previous position if such transfer did
not displace any employee capable of doing the work in that department. On
October 23, representatives of the respondent and the Association met and dis-
cussed the cases of those who were to be laid off, addressing themselves partic-
ularly to those employees who had been selected for lay-off despite the fact
that they had more seniority than some of those retained. The representatives
of the Association made the final decision as to whether or not a particular em-
ployee should be laid off. According to the credible and undisputed evidence,
the union membership of the employees to be laid off was not discussed at this
meeting The lay-off of Shaffer and Stamper must be considered against this
general background.
Roy Shaffer joined the Union on May 13, 1941, during its initial membership
drive. He was active in the Union's organizational campaign. He successfully
solicited union membership of 10 employees and became an alternate committee-
man on the Union's shop committee He wore his union button in the plant.
Plant Superintendent Leonard admittedly saw Shaffer wearing his union button
and knew that he was a member of the Union..
Shaffer was first employed by-the respondent on April 2, 1941,. as a carpenter
in the crating and shipping department, where he made shipping crates for fur-
naces. During the latter part of May 1941, he was laid off for about three weeks
480 DECISIONS- ,OF NATIONAL LABOR: RELATIONS BOARD
because of slack work. He was recalled to work in the 'shipping' department,
where he remained until his lay-off on October 23. : _
On October 23, there were 43 employees in the shipping department. Twenty-
of these, -including 6 union members, were laid off Of the 23 who were retained,:
7 were union members. Two employees who were doing work similar to that of,
Shaffer'were retained after the lay-offs. One of them had more seniority,than,
Shaffer and no question is raised as to his retention in preference to Shaff`er.t
Counsel for the Board argues, however,' that' the retention of the other, Rollie,
Ford, was a departure from the standards generally applied in the selection of
men for lay-off and therefore indicates discrimination against Shaffer On the
respondent's lay-off list Ford is designated a semi-skilled carpenter, while Shaf-
fer is designated an unskilled employee in the crating department. Although the
respondent's lay-off list states that Ford was first employed by the respondent on
February 1, 1941, counsel for the Board and the respondent stipulated at the
hearing that Ford was employed as a carpenter in construction work at and,
about the respondent's plant from July 6 to August 30,,1939,' that on the latter
date he was laid off, and rehired on November 22, 1940, as a laborer on construc-
tion work, where he remained until September 8, 1941, at which time he was
transferred to the crating department as a carpenter, and that during all of this
time he was, according to the respondent's records, on the respondent's pay roll.,
The peculiar nature of Ford's duties and his relation to the respondent prior to,
September 8, 1941, raise some doubt as to the respondent's good faith in retaining
him in preference to Shaffer at the time of the October 23 lay-offs. iThe evidence„
-however, does not warrant a finding that Shaffer was discriminatorily laid off.
This conclusion is based primarily upon the absence of a general, discrimination,
against union members in the October 23 lay-offs ; the fact that other members
of the Union were retained although they too wore their union buttons in the
plant and were almost as active in the Union as was Shaffer ; and the fact that
Shaffer was laid off and recalled in the latter part of May after his union mem-,
bership was known to, the respondent. It is reasonable to assume that if the
respondent desired to rid itself of Shaffer it would have failed to recall him to
work in May 1941 when the Union was seriously threatening to organize the em-
ployees rather than waiting until the latter part of October, at which time the
activity of Shaffer and the other employees on behalf of the Union had subsided.
The undersigned is not unmindful of the fact that the lay-off occurred during
the dissolution of the Association and the formation of the Independent. There
is no evidence, however, of a resumption of union activity which would supply a
discriminatory motive for the lay-off In view'of these considerations, the under-
signed finds that Shaffer's union membership and activity was not the reason for
his lay-off on October 23.
- Earl Stamper was one of the employees who initiated the formation of the
Union. He wore his union button in the plant. He became the Union's first
president. -
Stamper began working for the respondent on August 26, 1940, as an unskilled
employee in the shipping department. Upon his request for piece-rate work he
was transferred to the steel shop. When he made some complaints about work-
There is some dispute in the evidence as to the particular work Shaffer was doing in
the shipping department at the time he was laid oft. The respondent's list of the em-
ployees laid off on October 23 designates Shaffer an unskilled employee in' the crating
department . Shaffer testified that he was working in the crating department at the time
of the lay-off. Leonard testified that Shaffer , was handling castings in another sub-
division of the shipping department The undersigned does not credit the testimony of
Leonard and finds , in accordance '-with Shaffer' s testimony and the respondent's lay-off
list, that Shaffer at the time , he,was laid off was , %working in the crating department. I
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COIVIPANI • 481
ing at night in the steel shop, he was transferred back to the shipping depart-
ment, where he worked with another employee converting furnaces to air con-
ditioning units. In the fall of 1941, work on the air conditioning furnaces became
slack and Stamper was sent back 'to the steel shop as a weld grinder, an unskilled
employee who is required'to remove the excess weld from furnaces. 24 He re-
.inained,on this job until he was laid off on October 23
On October 23, there were 83 employees in the steel shop. Twenty-seven
,employees, including Stamper, were ]aid off. He was the only member of the
Union who *as laid off in that department ; the only other member of the Union
in that department was retained. Of the 55 employees retained, 14 had less
seniority than Stamper. Of these 14, one was a skilled snout fitter, 12 were
semi-skilled employees, and one was a janitor to whom the seniority agreement
was not applicable. According to McCaghren's credible and undisputed testi-
mony, each of these 14 positions and Stamper's ability to fill them was discussed
-at the October 23-lay-off meeting and it was decided that he was not qualified
for any of them There is no evidence that Stamper was qualified to fill any
of the positions occupied by those employees who were retained despite their
lack of seniority. ,
!Stamper and Shaffer were laid off on the same day. What has been said above
with respect to the'absence of a discriminatory motive for Shaffer's lay-off is
equally applicable to Stamper's case.
The undersigned finds that the respondent laid off Shaffer and Stamper on
October 23, 1941, in accordance ivith the current standard of seniority and rela-
tive ability, and for the reason that the respondent's business was seasonably
depressed, and that the lay-offs were not inade because of Shaffer's and Stamper's
membership in or activity on behalf of the Union.
2 The Discharge of William Quigley
Quigley joined the Union on May 17, 1941. He wore his union button in the
plant from the time lie joined the Union until the October 23 lay-offs. He at-
tended union, meetings regularly and solicited other employees to join the union.
Quigley began working for the respondent on August 20, 1940, as a drill.press
operator in the casting department In October 1941, lie was transferred to
handling castings in the receiving department where he worked for several
weeks, at the end of which time he was transferred to the stockroom, where he
remained' about 6 weeks until he was discharged on April 23, 1942
26 Stamper 's work on the air conditioning furnaces required him to go throughout the
plant to collect the vauous parts of these furnaces He testified that while he was doing
this work he was closely watched and that when he was transferred, to the steel shop,
Factory Manager McLaughlin told him that he was being transferred because he spent
'too much time talking to other employees on these trips throughout the plant. Stamper
also testified that.before he was transferred from the air conditioning work he had to train
William Vaughn to replace him ' There is no evidence other than Stamper's testimony
,that' he was closely ,watched or that he was ever criticised for talking too much or con-
'sinning too much-time on his trips throughout the plant, or that such conduct was the
reason for his transfer to the steel shop The undersigned , does not credit Stamper's
testimony, on this point. Nor is there any evidence corroborating Staniper 's testimony
,that he had to train Vaughn to replace him According to the testimony of Vaughn,
Foreman Bernhard, and Plant Superintendent Leonard, Stamper was actually Vaughn's
assistant on the air' conditioning work, Vaughn had trained him to do the work, and
• when this work became slack, the air conditioning work was returned to Vaughn in
addition to his other duties which lie had acquired while Stamper was assisting him
-The undersigned credits the testimony of -Vaughn , Bernhard , and Leonard and finds that
-Stamper was transferred from the air conditioning department to the steel shop because
of the slack work in the former department and that Vaughn assumed Stamper's former
"duties at the,time of Stamper's transter
513024-43-vol 47-31
482 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint alleges that Quigley was discharged because of his union mem-
bership and activity. - In its, answer, .,the respondent avers that Quigley was
discharged because of his inefficiency, neglect of duty, and,insubordination. There
is abundant credible evidence supporting the, respondent's claim. Plant Super-
intendent Leonard testified that shortly after'the employees in the,casting de-
partment were put on a group piece-work basis, the employees who worked in
the group,with Quigley complained that he was not doing his share of the work,
thereby depressing the, earnings of the entire group. Foreman Homer Coseo
testified that he received similar, complaints, and Foreman Martin testified that
such complaints ,were made to him about every week and that he reported the
complaints to Leonard. Leonard testified that when he brought these , com-
plaints to Quigley's attention, Quigley would "stand there and grin at me" and
that he "didn't get any place with him (Quigley) " Leonard further testified
that because of these complaints Quigley was transferred from his job as drill
press operator to handling castings and other material in the, receiving depart-
ment. Quigley admitted that when he was transferred from the casting de-
-partment to the receiving department Leonard and Martin told him that he was
being transferred because of the complaints registered against him by his
fellow employees. The undersigned credits the testimony of Leonard , Martin
and Coseo, as well as the admission of Quigley, and finds that Quigley was trans-
ferred to the receiving department because of his unsatisfactory work in the
casting department.
Leonard testified that after Quigley started to work in,the receiving department,
the receiving clerk complained about Quigley's work and that thereupon-lid Began
to check on Quigley's activities and constantly found him away from his work
"fooling around; talking to fellows." Leonard testified that he reprimanded
Quigley for his conduct on about three occasions, and the last time told him that
he was going to transfer him to the stockroom and give "him one more chance.
Coseo corroborated Leonard's testimony with respect to the quality of Quigley's
work in the receiving department and the reason for his transfer to the stockroom.
Quigley admitted that Leonard informed him of the complaints about his work
in the receiving department and that he was being transferred to the stockroom in
order that he might have another chance to improve his work.
Quigley's chief duty in the stockroom was to fill requisitions for material.
Leonard and Coseo testified that Quigley did not stay in the stockroom and that
the employees complained that they were unable to get their requisitions filled 26
According to the testimony of Leonard, Martin, and Coseo,=-Qui`gl'ey1frequently,
left his work early for lunch or returned to work -late''after lunch. 28 Leonard
.testified, and his testimony is credited, that he had seen Quigley leave the plant
early five or six times and that he warned Quigley about the matter several times.
26 Quigley testified that his duties in the stockroom required him to go to different parts
of the plant to get materials. His testimony in this respect is confused and he finally
excused his absences from the stockroom by testifying that Coseo sent him on errands.
Leonard'testified that Quigley's duties did not require him to leave the stockroom. Coseo
admitted that he sometimes sent Quigley on errands but testified that this did not account
for his many absences from his work Coseo further testified that on many occasions he
had to locate Quigley and send him back to the stockroom and that on one occasion in
the middle of the morning he found Quigley in the washroom talking to another employee,
where he remained for 15 or 20 minutes and ignore&Coseo when he told him to return to
the stockroom. The undersigned credits the testimony of Leonard 'aiid' Coseo'and `finds that
Quigley was absent from the stockroom on many occasions when his duties did not re-
quire it
26 Quigley denied that he left the plant early, except on one or two occasions, and testi-
fied that the reason for doing so then was that he could not hear the whistle in his de-
partment.' Leonard and Martin testified that none of the other employees left early for
lunch. There is no evidence to the contrary. The undersigned credits the testimony of
Leonard and Martin.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY 483
Leonard testified that about one week before Quigley was discharged Coseo
complained that Quigley again lift the stockroom early at lunch time and stated
that he could not keep Quigley in the stockroom any longer. Leonard then
warned Quigley that the next time he had to be warned about anything he would
be discharged. Leonard further testified that on April 23. the day of Quigley's
discharge,, he saw Quigley leaving early for land, and that he called him back
and made him wait until the whistle blew Quigley testified that on that day
he was called to Leonard's office, where Leonard reminded him that he had
again left the plant early and thereubon discharged him. Coseo testified that at
the time of Quigley's discharge Leonard told Quigley that he had given him a
chance in,every department where he thought he could work satisfactorily and
told him-that since he slid not fit in any place he was being discharged. From this
undisputed evidence and Quigley's admission, it is clear that there were many
complaints about Quigley's work in every department in which he worked, that'
these complaints were many times brought to Quigley's attention, and that he re-
ceived a final warning that continuation of the practices which provoked the
complaints would result in, his dismissal. The undersigned is convinced that
Quigley's union membership and activity was not the cause of his discharge. Had
the respondent desired to rid itself of Quigley it is unlikely that it would have
waited until almost a year after the Union had started to organize the employees
and until long after the Union's threat to organize the plant had passed. The
respondent had numerous occasions during the 6 months prior to the, discharge
when it could have dismissed Quigley for bona fide reasons There is no evidence
that-Quigley' was engaging in union activity at the time of his discharge which
would indicate that the respondent discriminatorily discharged him.
The undersigned finds that the respondent, on April 23, 1942, discharged Wil-
liam Quigley for cause and not because of his membership-in or activity on behalf
of the Union.
3. The lay-off of Cameron Weyer
Cameron Weyer was first employed by the respondent on Octobei 1, 1940, as a
laborer in the shipping department. On November 11, 1940, he was made receiv-
ing clerk in the receiving department, where he remained until about February
23, 1942, when he was transferred to the mounting crew on the night shift. About
three weeks prior to his lay-off on April 24, 1942, Weyer was transferred from the
mounting department to "brick packing" where he remained until he was laid off.
The complaint alleges that Weyer was laid off because of his membership in
and.•activity on behalf of the Union. The-respondent denies this allegation and
avers in its answer that Weser was laid off because of slack work. . .
On April 24, the respondent had approximately 147 production 'employees.
Eleven of these had signed membership cards in the Union; 109 had signed mem-
bership cards in the Independent. On April 24, the respondent laid off 63 produc-
tion employees, including Weyer. Of the 63 employees who were laid off, 5 had
signed union cards. Fitty-five of these employees, including 4 of those who had
signed union membership cards, had signed Independent membership cards. Of
the 84 employees retained, 6 had signed union membership cards; 54 had signed
Independent membership cards. It thus appears that approximately 42 percent
of all the production employees were laid off on April 24, that approximately 45
percent'of the Union's members were laid off, and approximately 50 percent of
the Independent's members were laid off. Here, as in the case of the October 23
lay-'offs, there'was not a•preponderance of union members among those who were
laid off Ori April 24 there were 65 employees in the mounting, receiving and
warehousing department, where Weyer was working at the time. Thirty-nine
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of these, including 5 union members , were laid off. Of the 26 retained, 3 were
union members Seven of the employees who were retained in this department
after the lay-offs had less seniority than Weyer.
On April 24, representatives of the, respondent and the Independent met and
discussed the cases of those who had been selected for lay-off, addressing them-
selves particularly to those employees who were to be laid off despite the fact that
they had more seniority than some of those who were to be retained. According
to the minutes of this meeting and the credible and corroborating testimony of
Vaughn-and Leonard, Weyer's case was discussed in detail and it was decided
that those employees who were retained in the mounting, receiving and ware-
housing department, despite their lack of seniority, were more cooperative and
more capable of filling the jobs available in that department than was Weyer,
that the employees on the mounting crew where Weyer had previously worked
had more seniority than Weyer, and that Weyer should not be transferred back
to the receiving department because of his poor work while employed in that
department. It is undisputed that there was no discussion of Weyer's union
membership at this meeting.
It is clear that Weyer's work in the receiving department was unsatisfactory'
His duties required him to take care of all received merchandise, check it and
weigh it, and' make out reports for the office. Leonard testified that the employees
in the office complained that they could not read Weyer's records and that on one
occasion Weyer caused considerable unnecessary work and correspondence by
leaving some merchandise on the unloading dock when he should have taken it to
one of the departments in the plant. Coseo testified that when he took charge
of the receiving department, Factory Manager McLaughlin told him that some-
thing would have to be done to improve the quality of the work in that depart-
ment. Coseo further testified that Weyer habitually' placed his records in his
pockets instead of some safe filing place, and that many of them were thus lost.
He testified that when he spoke to Weyer concerning this negligent handling of
the recoids, Weyer improved for a short time and then reverted to his previous
,habits. Coseo then reported the matter to Leonard and Leonard and Coseo
_decided to transfer Weyer from the receiving department. Weyer admitted that
of one occasion lie was called to the office and criticized for the way he had mis-
handled the parts of two furnaces and the records concerning them. Leonard
testified that because of these complaints, Weyer was transferred to handling
castings in the mounting department. Weyer's ti paper which was given
to him at the time of the lay-off states that he was being laid off for lack of work
and because his work in the receiving department was unsatisfactory.
Weyer. as we have seen, was one of the organizers of the Association and was
active in initiating the formation of the Independent He withdrew from the
Independent oh Aril 12 or 13, 1942, and joined the -Union on April 15, 1942. Ac-
cording to Weyer's own testimony, he did not wear a union button, and the extent
of his union activity was to attend union meetings and to ask "a few" employees
to join the Union.
The only direct evidence indicating a discriminatory motive in Weyer's lay-off
is his own testimony that, on April 17 or 18, Plant Superintendent Leonard asked'
him if lie wanted a 5-cent per hour wage increase and,then inquired if, Weyer had
"dropped out of the union," 2' and when Weyer answered in the affirmative
Leonard told him that there soon would be•other jobs available'in the plant and
for Weyer to see John Slattery, an fictive member of the Independent, and "get
put back on the right side of the fence and get away from the bad boys." Leonard
Weyer, testified that he understood that Leonard had reference to the Independent.
ARMSTRONG , FURNACE COMPANY 485
denied making the above statement, to Weyer and testified that he did not know
that Weyer had withdrawn from the Independent or that he had joined the Union
until a few days after his lay-off, when Leonard saw him, in the compauy`ot other
active union members, passing out union literature outside the plant. In view
of the fact that Weyer had joined the Union only a few days before the claimed
conversation with Leonard is supposed to have occurred, and the fact that Weyer
admittedly had not been active on behalf of the Union and had not worn a union
button, it is probable that Leonard had no knowledge of Weyer's withdrawal
from the Independent or his membership in the Union when he is said to have
told Weyer to again loin the Independent The undersigned therefore credits
Leonard's testimony and finds that Leonard did not make the statement which
W'i'eyer testified that lie had made.
In view of Weyer's inactivity in the Union, the unlikelihood that the respondent
knew of his union membership, the fact that there was no general discrimination
against the Union in the April 24 law-offs, the fact that Weyer's lay-off, despite
his seniority over some who were retained, was discussed in detail at the April 24
lay-off meeting with the Independent, and the convincing evidence that Weyer's
work in the receiving department had been unsatisfactory, the undersigned finds
that the respondent laid off Weyer on April 24, 1942, not because of his member-
ship in or activity on behalf of the Union, but rather because of slack work in
the department in which Weyer was working at that time and because he was
ineligible, under the current agreement with the Independent, for transfer to any
other department in which lie had previously worked because of the seniority
and superior ability of the employees retained in one of those departments and
the poor quality of Weyer's work in the other.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PR \CTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III A and B 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 RLMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be iecomniended 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 has dominated and,interfered with the
formation and administration of the Independent and has contributed support
to it. The effect and consequences of the respondent's domination of, interference
with, and support of the Independent, as well as the continuing recognition of the
Independent 'as the bargaining representative of its employees, constitutes a
continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of tile-rights guaranteed
to them in the Act. Because of the respondent's illegal conduct with regard to
the Independent, it is incapable of serving the respondent's employees as a genuine
collective, bargaining agency. It will be recommended that the respondent
disestablish and withdraw all recognition from the'Independent as the repre-
sentative of,any of its emplojees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions
of employment. The contract dated May 28, 1942, between the respondent and
the Independent, which by its terms is still in effect, has been found to be invalid
since it is a means whereby the respondent utilizes an employer-dominated labor
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
organization to frustrate self-organization and to defeat collective bargaining
by its employees. Moreover, it provides for exclusive recognition of the Inde-
pendent, although at the time the contract was entered into that organization
had not been designated by an uncoerced majority of the employees covered
by the contract as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from giving
effect to'this or any other contract with the Independent respecting rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment. Nothing in these
'recommendations, however, shall be deemed to require the respondent to vary
or abandon the wage rates or other substantive features of its relations with its
employees which the respondent may have established in conformity with the
contract, as extended, renewed, modified; supplemented, or superseded
It has been found that the respondent has assisted and is assisting the Inde-
pendent by collecting its dues through a coercively authorized check-off. It will
therefore be recommended that the respondent reimburse all of its employees for
all' dues and other fees Which it has deducted from their wages on behalf of
the Independent.
It has been found that the respondent dominated and interfered- with the
formation and administration of the Association and contributed support thereto.
Although the respondent has withdrawn recognition from the Association,
which is 'presently inactive,, the undersigned finds that the policies of the Act
will best be effectuated by a foreclosure of the possibility of a resumption of the
Association's activities 'through a requirement that the respondent disestablish
the Association. The undersigned will so recommend Since it has been found
that the respondent assisted the Association by collecting about half its dues
through a check-off system, and is presently collecting the Independent's dues
through a coercively authorized check-off, the undersigned finds that the policies
of the Act will be effectuated by,, and will therefore recommend, reimburse-
4nent, by the respondent to all its employees for all dues and other fees it has
deducted from their wages on behalf of the Association
Since the evidence does not support the allegations of the complaint that the
respondent discriminatorily discharged William Quigley and discriminatorily
discharged or laid.off Roy Shaffer, Earl Stamper, and Cameron Weyer, the
undersigned will recommend that with respect to those-allegations the complaint
be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the.undersigned makes the following :
Conclusions of Law
1. United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of'
America, Local #847, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
Armstrong Furnace Association, and.Columbus Independent Furnace' Workers
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
the Armstrong Furnace Association and Coluriibus Independent Furnace Work-
ers Association and by contributing support to them, the respondent has engaged
21 National Licorice Co v. N. L. R. B , 309 U. S 350, enf'g as mod. Matter of National
Licorice Company and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America,
Local Union 405, Gi eater New York and Vicinity, 7 N. L. R. B. 537 ; N. L. R. B v. Stack-pole
Carbon Company, 105 F. (2d) 167 (C. C. A. 3), enf'g as mod. 6 N. L. R. B 171, cert. den.
308 U S 605.
ARMSTRONG FURNACE COMPANY 487
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 exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The•,aforesaid •unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent, (by discharging William Quigley and by laying off Roy
Sliaffer, Earl Stamper, and Cameron Weyer, has not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Armstrong Furnace Company, Columbus,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and-desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Columbus Inde-
pendent Furnace Workers Association or with the formation or administration
of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial
or other support to Columbus Independent Furnace Workers Association, or any
other labor organization of its employees;
(h) Giving effect to or performing the contract of May, 28, 1942, with Colum-
bus Independent Furnace Workers Association, or any extension or renewal
thereof, or to any other agreements, understandings, or arrangements entered
into with said organization ; ,
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees 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 undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of ,the Act: -
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Columbus Independent Furnace Workers
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 work, and other conditions of employment, and completely dis-
establish Columbus Independent Furnace Workers Association as such
representative -
(b) Reimburse all of its employees for all dues and other fees it has deducted
from their wages on behalf of Columbus Independent Furnace Workers
Association ;
(c) Completely disestablish Armstrong Furnace Association as the represent-
ative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes; wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and
other conditions of employment;
(d) Reimburse all of its employees for all dues and other fees it has de-
ducted from their wages on behalf of the Armstrong Furnace Association ;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant, and maintain for a
period of at least 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 has been recommended that it cease and desist in paragraphs
Ogg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 (a), (b), and (c) of these recommendations;-and (2)-that the respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of
these recommendations ;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
It is recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the respondent
discriminated against William Quigley, Roy,Shaffer, Earl Stamper, and Cameron
Weyer with respect to their hire and tenure of employment, be dismissed
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director ins 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.
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' 14,
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 ; • Wash
ington, 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
proceeding, (including rulings on all motions and objections)' as he relies upon,
together'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 ten (10) days after the date of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
WILLIAM F. GurFEY, Jr.
Trial Exan miner.
Dated: October 27, 1942