Bethlehem Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1941

33 N.L.R.B. 1190 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION , A DELAWARE COR-
PORATION , BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY , A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORA-
TION , and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-1908.-Decided August 7,1941
Jurisdiction : iron and steel producing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Company-Dominated Unions: employee representation plan : initiated by Com-
pany ; form , analysis, and operation-successor organization : similar in struc-
ture to predecessor dominated Plan ; formation of, by employees while still
serving as employee representatives of Plan, held in so doing such representa-
tives acted for and on behalf of Company ; participation in by supervisory
employees ; failure of Company to repudiate.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of company-dominated Plan and successor
organization.
Definition : corporation exercising substantial control over the labor policies of
the Company held an employer within respect to employees of Company.
Mr. Jack Davis, for the Board.
Cravath, DeGersdor ff, Swaine, and Wood, by Mr. E. Fontaine Broum,
and Mr. Francis A. O'Connell, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Pete MacCagno, of Stowe, Pa., and Mr. Smyle Chatak, of Breck-
enridge, Pa., for the S. W. O. C.
Mr. William A. O'Donnell, Jr., of Pottstown, Pa., for the Inde-
pendent.
Mr. Raymond J. Compton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, herein called the S. W. O. C., the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) issued its complaint dated Feb-
ruary 26, 1941, against Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware cor-
poration, and Bethlehem Steel Company, a Pennsylvania corporation,
33 N. L. R. B., No. 201.
1190
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1191
herein collectively called the respondents,' alleging that the respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notices of
hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondents, the Independ-
ent Steel Workers Association, herein called the Independent, Plan
of Employees' Representation, herein called the Plan, and the
S. W. O. C.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that with respect to the matters referred to in the com-
plaint the respondents constitute a completely integrated enterprise;
(2) that on and after 1918, the respondents dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of a labor organization or labor
organizations, known as the "Plan of Employees' Representation" at
their many plants located in various States of the United States,
including their plant at Pottstown, Pennsylvania; herein called the
Pottstown plant, and that such labor organization is known as the
"Plan of Employees' Representation at the Pottstown Works of the
Bethlehem Steel Company," herein called the Pottstown Plan, and
have contributed financial and other support to the Plans; (3) that
on or about February 26, 1936, the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a New
Jersey corporation, and other corporations were merged with and
into the respondent, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware cor-
poration, and after that date; the respondents, Bethlehem Steel Corpo-
ration and Bethlehem Steel Company, have continued to dominate and
interfere with the formation and administration of the Pottstown Plan
and have contributed financial and other support thereto; (4) that
from on or about August 1940, and thereafter, the respondents at their
Pottstown plant fostered, dominated, and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of a labor organization known as the Inde-
pendent, to which it contributed financial and other support ; (5) that
the Independent is a successor to and an outgrowth of the Pottstown
Plan, and (6) that by the afore-mentioned acts, as well as by threaten-
ing to discharge, lay off, or demote employees in the event they should
join or assist the S. W. O. C., by denouncing the S. W. O. C., its organ-
izers and members, and by offering inducements to certain employees
net to join or assist the S. W. O. C., the respondents interfered with,
restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On March 11, 1941, the respondents filed with the Regional Director
a request for a continuance of the hearing. The request was denied.
The Corporation thereafter filed an answer and motion to dismiss
'Bethlehem Steel Company is herein called the Company and Bethlehem Steel Corporation
to herein called the Corporation.
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint dated March 12, 1941, in which, in substance, it denied
that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and in which
it alleged that it had not at any time mentioned in the complaint
directed, controlled, or supervised the relations between the em-
ployees of any corporation whose,stock it owned and such corpora-
tion or any matter in connection therewith. The answer of the
Company, dated March 12, 1941, denied that it had engaged in unfair
labor practices, as alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Pottstown, Pennsylvania,
from March 13 through April 11, 1941, before James C. Batten,- the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At
the commencement of the hearing, the Independent moved for leave
to intervene in the proceeding. The Trial Examiner granted the
motion in so far as the interests 'of the Independent were affected.
The Board, the respondents, and the Independent were represented
by counsel, and the S. W. 0. C. by its representatives, and all par-
ticipated in the hearing. The Plan did not participate in the pro-
ceedings. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner granted the respondents' motion for a bill of par-
ticulars only in so far as it concerned paragraph 14 of the complaint,
which alleged in general terms violations of Section 8 (1) of the
Act, and denied the motion to dismiss the complaint contained in the
answer of the Corporation. At the close of the Board's case, the
respondents and the Independent moved to dismiss the complaint.
The Trial Examiner denied the motions. During the hearing, the
respondents moved to strike Board Exhibit 21. The Trial Examiner
reserved ruling on the motion, which he later denied in his Inter-
mediate Report: The Trial Examiner also reserved decision upon
the offer by counsel for the Board of Board Exhibit 52 for identifi-
cation, which exhibit was thereafter received in evidence by the Trial
Examiner in his Intermediate Report. At the close of the hearing,
the respondents and the Independent renewed their motions- to dis-
miss the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling and denied'
the motions in his Intermediate Report. At the close of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to.
conform the pleadings to the proof in minor particulars. During the
course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled upon other motions
and upon objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At
the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board, the respondents,
and the Independent, argued orally before the Trial Examiner. All
the parties submitted briefs to the Trial Examiner.
BETHLEHEM STEEL , CORPORATION 1193
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report dated
June 20, 1941, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in
which he found that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. He accordingly recommended that the respondents
cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
No exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by either the
respondents or the Independent, and none of the parties requested
oral argument before the Board. The Board has considered the
arguments and briefs presented to the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
A. The Company
Bethlehem Steel Company is a Pennsylvania corporation having its
general offices in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The Company is engaged,
among other things, in the business of producing and selling iron and
steel, building and repairing ships, building railroad cars, mining iron
ore, quarrying limestone, producing bituminous coal, coke, and foundry,
sand, and fabricating and erecting structural steel. The Company
operates several structural steel fabricating works, each of which
receives a substantial proportion of its raw materials from outside the
State in which it is located, and each of which ships a substantial por-
tion of its products to destinations outside the State in which it is
located. The Pottstown plant is engaged in the business of fabricating
steel for the building of bridges, tanks, and other structures composed
largely of steel. By value approximately 27 per cent of the steel
fabricated at Pottstown is shipped to the plant from outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and approximately 90 per cent of
such steel' after fabrication at Pottstown, is shipped to destinations
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.2
B. The Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, owns all the
issued and outstanding capital stock of the Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany. It also owns directly or through subsidiaries 50 percent or more
of the stock of 57 other companies. The Bethlehem Steel Corpora-
2 A complete statement of the activities of the Bethlehem Steel Company is contained in
stipulated Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 herein . See also Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, et al. and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 14 N. L R. B , No.
539, enf'd Bethlehem Steel Company , et al. v. N. L. R. B. (App. D. C.), decided May 12, 1941.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and its subsidiary companies constitute an interstate enterprise
of vast proportions. Until February 26, 1936, 100 per cent of the vot-
ing power in the Bethlehem Steel Company was controlled by Beth-
lehem Steel Corporation, a New Jersey corporation. On the same
date, the New Jersey corporation and other corporations were merged
into the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, which
thereupon gained control of the voting power in Bethlehem Steel,
Company.
The respondent corporation contends that despite its 100-per cent
control of the Company and the substantial identity of officers, it can-
not be held responsible for any unfair labor practices affecting the
employees at the Pottstown plant. The Corporation further asserts
that it had nothing whatever to do with the relations between the
Company and the employees. The record, however, establishes the
contrary to be the fact.
Bethlehem Steel Company is the structural steel fabricating and
erecting subsidiary of the Corporation. Nine of the 13 officers of the
Corporation are also officers of the Company.3
On February 16, 1931, McClintic-Marshall Corporation, a Penn-
sylvania corporation, affiliated with Bethlehem Steel Company, a
Pennsylvania corporation, acquired the properties of the McClintic-
Marshall Construction Company, a Pennsylvania corporation. The
properties acquired included the Pottstown plant. The Pottstown
plant was operated by the McClintic-Marshall Corporation until
August 1, 1935, when it merged with the Bethlehem Steel Company.
The Company has since August 1, 1935, operated the Pottstown plant.
This did not result in changes in the Plan except that the Company,
rather than the McClintic-Marshall Corporation, participated therein.
The McClintic-Marshall Corporation, a subsidiary of the Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, distributed among the employees the following
circular letter contained in a 4-page printed leaflet dated March 16,
1931, addressed to the employees :
To our Employees:
New advantages in working conditions and financial protection
are now available to the employees of the McClintic-Marshall
Corporation, as communicated to our organization by a letter from
Eugene G. Grace, President of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation.
As a subsidiary of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, McClintic-
Marshall employees are entitled to a series of benefits which have
been developed successfully in other companies of the Bethlehem
family over a period of years. These privileges include :
3 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. William Randolph Hearst, et al., 102 F. ( 2d) 658 (C. C. A. 9), enf'g as
mod. Matter of William Randolph Hearst, et al. and American Newspaper Guild, Seattle
Chapter, 2 N. L. R. B. 530.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1195
Plan of Employees Representation through which' employees are
given a voice with that of the management in the consideration of
all questions relating to rates of pay and working conditions.
Relief Plan affording financial assistance for employees and
their families in case of sickness or death. The Corporation will
assume the entire cost of administration of the Plan so that the
contributions of the employees will be available for distribution
in benefits.
This Plan, providing not only for death benefits, but also for
compensation when wages are lost through sickness, will super-
sede and give broader protection than, the present,-Group Insur-
ance and other Relief arrangements which will be terminated as
soon as the new Relief Plan has been installed.
Pension Plan financed entirely by the Corporation under which
employees, giving the better part of their lives in its service and
reaching an age necessitating their retirement, may be pensioned.
Continuous service in the McClintic-Marshall Corporation prior
to acquisition by Bethlehem will be credited to employees in
determining future pensions.
Saving, and Stock Ownership-Plan, in which the large majority
of our force is now participating, to help employees to save sys-
tematically a part of their earnings through pay-roll deductions
and at the same time, acquire the preferred stock of the parent
Corporation upon very favorable terms.
The major details of these plans are given in the following
pages.
It is a satisfaction that the development of McClintic-Marshall
under its new strengthening affiliations, operating as part of one
of the major corporations of the country, includes these imme-
diate benefits to our working force. The plans not only estab-
lish a continuous meeting ground for management and men to
work out problems and programs of mutual interest, but likewise
give added financial protection to our employees.
G. H. BLARELEY,
President.
The foregoing makes it.evident that the Plan of Employees' Repre-
sentation, the Relief Plan, the Pension Plan, and the Saving and Stock
Ownership Plan all were policies of the Corporation.,
In March 1937 the Company prepared and distributed to employee
representatives in practically all its plants, a 2-page booklet, the title
page reading as follows :
BETHLEHEM EMPLOYEES .
VOTE 94.4% FOR
EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATION
PLAN
1196 DECISIONS OF" NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Result of 20th Annual Election at 23 Plants of
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Statement of Policy on
Collective Bargaining
As indicated in this title, annual elections for employee representa-
tives were held in 23 of the Corporation's plants, and the "Statement
of Policy on Collective Bargaining" makes it clear there has been
established a Corporation policy on collective bargaining. The book-
let also contained a reprint of an article published by the New York
Times on March 22, 1937. Although the article was reprinted by
the. Bethlehem Steel Company, according to the news account the
announcement of the vote was made by the Corporation, as appears
in the following quotation from the reprinted article :
A vote of 96.4% for the Employee Representation Plan as their
collective bargaining agency was cast by employees of the Beth-
lehem Steel Corporation at the 20th annual election of employee
representatives held in the past 2 days according to the final
returns of the election tellers as announced by the corporation
today.
It thus becomes more evident that the corporation concerned 'itself
with labor relations and uniform labor policies for its subsidiaries.
The record further contains undisputed testimony, of numerous
other acts and statements by E. E. Grace, President of the Company
and the Corporation, and of articles in the "Bethlehem Review,"
described as "A Bulletin of News for the Employees of the Sub-
sidiary Companies of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation," reflecting
the labor policies to be followed by the subsidiaries of the Corpora-
tion.
From all the evidence it is apparent that the Corporation exercises
substantial control over the labor policies of the Company, and we
find that at all times herein material the Corporation has occupied
the status of an employer with respect to the employees involved
herein, and that it has- participated in and is responsible for the-
activities of the Company in connection with labor relations 4
* In Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation , a Delaware corporation et al and Steel
' Workers Organizing Committee , 14 N L R B., 539 , enf'd Bethlehem Steel Company, et at. v.
N. L. R. B. (App. D C ), decided May 12, 1941, the Board made a similar finding with respect
to the responsibility of the Corporation for the labor relations activities of the Company.
In considering the contention of the Corporation that it was not properly the subject of the
order issued by the Board in that case , the Court stated :
The Corporation petitioner , which operates no physical properties , contends that
the Board's order is , at all events, invalid as to it. Though the Company is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Corporation , and to a large extent both have the same officers,
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
If. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
1197
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called
the C. I. 0., admitting to membership employees of the respondents
at the Pottstown plant.
Plan of Employees' Representation at the Pottstown Works is an
unaffiliated labor organization having its membership among the
respondent's employees at the Pottstown plant.
Independent Steel Workers Association is an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the respondents
at the Pottstown plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Plan
1. Its origin and operation
Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, the Board had issued
a Decision and Order involving similar plans of employee repre-
sentation in a number of plants of the Corporation and the Company.
Upon appeal by the Corporation and the Company to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia-, the Court, in a
decision rendered May 12, 1941, sustained the Decision and Order of
the Board and found that the findings of fact made by the Board
were supported by the record.; In its decision, the Court set forth
the Corporation 's responsibility does not turn on those facts . Section 2 (2) of the
Act defines "employer" as including "any person acting in the interest of an em-
ployer . . The Board found that the Corporation, as well as the Company,
had dominated, interfered with , and contributed support to the Plans, and had ex-
pressed to the Company 's employees an animus against the S. W. O . C. These findings
are supported by substantial evidence Labor relations of the Corporation 's subsidi-
aries have long been subject to a uniform policy emanating from it Support of the
Plans , with opposition to other unions , has been the essence of this policy
The Court then reviewed substantially the same facts herein set forth and stated :
In short , the Corporation , over a long period, actively supported the Plans and
actively opposed efforts of the men to join other labor organizations It thereby made
the Company ' s domination , interference , restraint, etc , its own . From 1935 to the time
of the hearing, the Corporation was a persistent violator of Sections 8 (1) and 8 (2)
of the Act . It follows that the Board 's Order directing it to refrain from similar viola-
tions was valid
•Cf N. L. R B. v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc ., 303 U. S 261 ; Consolidated Edison
,Go v. N . L R. B, 305 U. S . 197, aff'g 95 F. (2d) 390, 393 ( C C. A. 2 ). See also Union
Drawn Steel Co. v. N. L . R. B, 109 F. ( 2d) 587, 589, 594-595 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Lund, 103 F . ( 2d) 815, 818 (C C. A. 8) ; N L. R. B. v. Hopwood Rettnntng Co, 98 F. (2d)
'97, on contempt citation , 104 F. ( 2d) 302 ( C. C. A. 2 ). See Chicago-Milwaukee & St Paul
R. R. Co . v. Minneapolis Civic and Commerce Association, 247 U . S. 490 , 500-501; Trustee
System Co . v Payne, 65 F. (2d) 103, 107 ( C. C. A 3 ) ; Chicago Mill -Lumber Co v. Boat-
men's Bank , 234 Fed. 41-45 (C C. A 8 ) ; Texas Co. v . Ross, 93 F (2d) 380 , 383 (C. C. A.
5) ; Commerce Trust Co. v . Woodbury, 77 F. (2d ) 478, 487 (C. C. A. 8) for the well-known
'doctrine that when in any given transaction the control exercised by one corporation over
another whose voting stock it owns, is that of the dominance of an owner , the substance of
the transaction governs over the form in which it is cast.
5 See footnote 4, supra
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the principal facts upon which the Board based its decision. In-
cluded in that case were the employee representation plans at the
Leetsdale Works No. 1 and Leetsdale Works No. 2, 2 of the respond-
ents' 10 plants involved in those proceedings. During the course of
the instant hearing, a stipulation was entered into by the parties to
the effect that the Pottstown Works was acquired by an affiliate of
the Company at the same time as the Leetsdale Works, and that the
Pottstown Plan was inaugurated at the Pottstown Works at approxi-
mately the same time and in substantially the same manner as was
the one at the Leetsdale Works. It was further 'stipulated that the.
provisions of the Pottstown Plan, as so initiated, were the same pro-
visions as those of the plan at the Leetsdale Works and that where-
ever in various documents herein, reference is made to the Leetsdale
Works or the Leetsdale Plan, such reference may be deemed, for the
purposes of this proceeding, to be a reference to the Pottstown Works
or the Pottstown Plan, as the case may be. In view of this stipula-
tion and the general recognition by the parties that the Plan of
Employees Representation at the Pottstown plant was substantially
identical with the Plan of Employees' Representation at the other
Bethlehem plants, including the ones at the Leetsdale Works, it is
appropriate to consider again the decision of the Circuit Court of
Appeals in the, case decided May 12, 1941, inasmuch as such decision
is conclusive on many of the issues presented herein with reference
to the Plan of Employees' Representation at the Pottstown plant.e
Concerning the creation of the Plan, the Court stated :
Petitioners created most of the Plans and issued their char-
ters. In material respects, the charters are nearly identical. In
1918, petitioners devised them, and distributed copies to em-
ployees at some of the plants together with an announcement
that the Plan "is to be established." In the course of a few
years" the charters were put into operation by the Company, at
its various plants. For years the Company recognized that the
Plans were created by it, or by it and the Corporation, as a uni-
lateral act. Thus a pamphlet entitled "Hints to Foremen in
Meeting the New Employee," which the Company distributed at
some of the plants about 1920, instructed foremen to explain to
new men that "the Company . . . has adopted the Plan of Em-
ployees' Representation" and that it "is one of the most im-
portant policies of the Company."
There is no question here of the Plan having been initiated prior
to 1931. The above is set forth to indicate the beginning of the
"It was recognized by all the parties that the Plan involved herein is substantially the
same as the Plans involved in the other proceeding.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1199
Plan throughout the Bethlehem system. As indicated previously
the parties have stipulated that the Pottstown plan came into exist-
ence at about the time that the Company took over the McClintic-
Marshall properties; in 1931 the Pottstown Plan was installed in the
Pottstown plant concurrently with its installation in the Leetsdale
Works and the Rankin Works.
Concerning the employees' choice of the Plan as their bargaining
representative, the Court has the following significant statement to
make :
Although majorities have voted in various Plan elections, it
is not found, and there is no evidence, that a majority of the men
in any of the plants have ever approved of the Plans, or have
ever been given an opportunity to vote for or against them.7
The facts in the present case indicate that the identical situation
prevailed in the Pottstown Works as it did in the other plants of
the Company referred to by the Court, including the Leetsdale
Works. Here, too, the men were offered no opportunity to vote on
whether or not they desired a plan at all. They were merely given
the privilege of participating in Plan elections. They have had no
voice whatsoever in determining whether or not the Plan should
function as their bargaining representative. However, as stated fur-
ther by the Court, the Company and Corporation have not been con-
tent merely to provide the Plan and permit the employees to par-
ticipate therein if they so desired; the fact is that the respondents
have at all times been exceedingly desirous and insistent that the em-
ployees participate in the Plan, and especially in the nomination and
election of Plan representatives. Many documents are in the record
indicating the persistence with which the Company and Corporation
extolled the virtues of the Plan and urged their employees to partici-
pate therein. As stated by the Court :
Petitioners have continued not merely to hold out the Plans
as a part of Company policy but to facilitate and encourage
voting in the Plans ; to represent to employees that the Plans are
beneficial to them; and to advise employees to suppose the Plans
and not to join other unions-specifically, not to join the C. I. 0.
(S. W. 0. C.). Up to 1937 the charters required the Company
to pay all the expenses involved in the conduct of nominations
a This portion of the Court's opinion carries the following footnote :
Their only choice is to vote or note to vote, under the Plan. If they do not vote,
representatives will be chosen by those who do, and these representatives will be recog-
nized by the company as the sole bargaining agents for the employees . Bethlehem
Shtpbutldting Corp. Limited, et at. v. National Labor Relations Board, 114 F. (2d) 930,
938 (7 LRR 189 ) (C. C. A 1).
At Midvale (now, Cambria ), Bethlehem , and perhaps some of the other plants , elected
representatives of the employees approved the charters.
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and elections , and to pay Employees ' Representatives , for time
spent in Plan meetings or in any Plan activties , at the rate they
ordinarily received for their work.
The employees were restricted by the very nature of the constitu-
tion and bylaws of the Plans. At all times the respondent desired
to and did exercise complete control over the workings of the Plans'
by means of Joint' Committees , control over amendments to the
Plan, and by participation of management representatives in various
meetings of the Plan representatives . Some of these meetings were
not ones at which such representatives were entitled , as a matter of
right, to be present; in fact, however, they were usually present, by
prearranged invitation on the part of the Plan representatives. The
Court of Appeals considered these various phases of the respondents'
activities in connection with the Plan as follows
The charters of the Plans preclude independence and embody
Company dominance . The Plans have no power to admit,
exclude, expel, control or discipline members. All nonsuper-
visory employees , whatever their character , abilities , or sym-
pathies, automatically become members as soon as they have
worked for the Company for 60 days . The charters severely
limit the power of the Plans to choose their own representatives.
"Employees ' Representatives " must be ( 1) employees of the
Company, ( 2) of at least one year's standing, (3) working in
the department which elects them, and ( 4) adult American citi
zens. However much Plan members may wish to select as their
representatives a good bargainer or 'administrator who does not
meet all four of those requirements , the Plan charters prevent it.
The charters authorize practically no action by the membership
other than voting for Employees ' Representatives . While the
Employees' Representatives meet as a "General Body" or "Com-
mittee of Representatives" and choose committees. the charters
also provide for Joint Committees composed of a group of
Employees' Representatives and a group of Management Repre-
sentatives . They two groups have equal voting power in the
Joint Committees . There is a "Management 's Special Repre-
sentative ," who may be and sometimes is invited to attend meet-
ings of the Employees ' Representatives . The charters provide
for no meetings of members and set up no machinery for formu-
lating demands or for controlling or instructing representatives.
Meetings are not held in practice . The charters made no pro-
vision for the raising of funds, by dues or otherwise . Independ-
ent action in such circumstances is obviously impossible.
The method of amending the Plan at Pottstown as practiced in
1935 and 1937 was identical with that existing at the other plants
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1201
of the Company . This method is set forth in detail in the opinion
of the Court as follows:
Until 1935, the charters of the Plans could not be amended with-
out the concurrence of Management Representatives in the Joint
Committees on Rules. In 1935 and 1936, the charters were
amended to permit further amendment by a two-thirds vote of the
Employees ' Representatives ; but with important exceptions. One
exception is that no amendment which "might prevent the Plan
from operating as a fair method of selecting representatives of the
whole body of employees of the Company and as a fair method of
collective bargaining" can be made without the approval of the
Joint Committee on Rules, in which the Company has half the
voting power.
In other words , the Company requires , as a condition of dealing
with a Plan, (1 ) that the Plan shall continue to receive and retain
as a member , regardless of his conduct , principles , or views, every
non-supervisory employee whom the Company sees fit to employ,
and (2 ) that the Company shall have a voice in determining the
fairness of any desired changes in the method of choosing Plan
representatives or of Plan bargaining . This insures the perma-
nence of a large decree of control by petitioners over the subjects
of Plan membership , choice of representatives , and bargaining
methods. Obviously no labor organization is -independent when
management shares control over such matters.
In 1937 , the Management 's Special Representatives at various
plants sent identical letters to Plan officers in response to inquiries
regarding the effect of N. L . R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Cor-'
poration .8 * These letters called attention to the necessity, under
theAct, of limiting the Company 's financial support of the Plans,
and assured the Plan officers that no other changes in the charters
were necessary . In the course of 1937 , accordingly , substantially
identical amendments were made in the charters , but the Com-
pany continues to pay Employees ' Representatives for time spent
in conference with Management Representatives during working
hours. At the Cambria plant it pays them for the time ( within
working hours) during which a Management Representative is
present at meetings of the General Body of Employees ' Repre-
sentatives. It thereby pays them , in effect , to have him present at
their meetings . There is no evidence that a different practice is
followed at the other plants. Apart from the amendment clauses
and the financial support clauses , the charters, at the time of the
hearing, retained substantially their original form. The amend-
a 301 U. S. 1.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ments could not erase from the minds of the employees the well-
known and long-continued Company encouragement and approval
of the Plans.
Testimony was taken and findings were made with regard to
the practical operation of the Cambria Plan. It was stipulated
that the other Plans operated in all material respects substantially
in accordance with their respective provisions.
After setting forth the facts, the Court concluded that the Company
had both dominated and interfered with, and supported the Plan. It
commented also upon the fact that "a Board order disestablishing
similarly dominated plans in other plants of the Company has been
upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the
Company's petition for certiorari has been dismissed on its own
motion:" ° In the District of Columbia Court of Appeals case there
were other issues not here present, and the Court discussed them in
some detail. Finally, in its conclusion, the same Court stated, "Peti-
tioners' defiance of the law as stated in the Wagner Act and plain
decisions of the Supreme Court was clearly shown."
In view of the clear and unequivocal language of the Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the stipulation of the
parties that the facts here concerning the Plan were similar to one of
the Plans involved in the case before that Court, there is no need to set
forth in detail the facts in the present.case. They are substantially
identical with those in the other proceeding.- The decision of the
Circuit Court of Appeals refers to the situation disclosed by the record
as of the end of the hearing on August 15, 1938. In the 2 years that
elapsed after that time, when the Plan was actively- functioning, there
was no change in the fundamental nature of the Plan itself, in its
operation, or in its control by the respondents.
2. Conclusions as to the Plan
The Plan was originally initiated and installed throughout the
Bethlehem system by the respondents in 1918. Thereafter, as plants
were acquired, the Plan almost automatically followed. In 1931, when
the Pottstown plant was acquired, the Plan was shortly installed in
the-manner herein described. The employees generally had no part in
the formation of the Pottstown Plan; their part was confined to the
election of employee representatives. No general meetings were pro-
vided for, or held. The employee representatives attended meetings
. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation , Ltd, et at. v . N. L. R. B , 114 F ( 2d) 930 (C C. A.
1) enf 'g Matter of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation , Limited and Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 5, 11 N. L. R. B. 105.
io In fact, much of the documentary evidence in this case is made up of stipulations con-
tained in the record of the other proceeding. _
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1203
with management representatives and settled minor grievances, but
otherwise functioned in no,conspicuous manner as bargaining repre-
sentatives. The Pottstown Plan was and is completely a creature of the
respondents' manifest desire to prevent the employees from exercising
the rights guaranteed by the Act.
We find that on and after July 5, 1935, the respondents dominated
and interfered with the administration of the Plan and contributed
support to it and that the respondents thereby have interfered with,
restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The Independent
1. Employees ' Representatives and their relationship to the
respondents
In view of their role in organizing the Independent, it is necessary to
assay in general the status and function of the employee representa-
tives in terms of their relationship to the management, and to examine
in some detail this relationship with respect to two employee repre-
sentatives who led in the formation of the Independent. We have
already found that the respondents dominated the Plan and conse-
quently controlled the activities of the employee representatives.
The close relationship of the employee representatives to manage-
ment is further indicated in the following excerpt from a letter ad-
dressed to the Committee of Employees' Representatives, on June 28,
1940, by F. T. Cadmus, manager of the Company :
During the past year we have held numerous conferences with
your Committee on subjects of interest to the Pottstown Works
and its employees, and the results of these conferences, have been
mutually satisfactory. We sincerely appreciate your cooperative
spirit which in turn deserves, at all times, our full consideration,
and we cannot emphasize too strongly our appreciation of your
general attitude and your loyalty, all of which helps to create
steady and improved operations, consistent v,-ith the amount of
work available."'
This letter, in its entirety, was reprinted in the souvenir program of
the employees' annual outing, held on July 27, 1940. The program
was distributed to all employees attending.
Employee representatives were also consulted by management in
the application of company-administered policies not included within
the scope of the Plan. Announcement that this relationship existed
was made to all the respondents' employees in the respondents' period-
Italics supplied.
450122-42-vol 33--77
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ical , "Bethlehem Review," issue of September 25, 1933, as shown by
the following quotations :
More than five million dollars . . . have been paid out under
the Pension Plan during its ten years of operation ... These
pensions are wholly company contributions, without any con-
tribution by the men. The Pension Plan is company admin-
istered, but is made effective through the Employees' Representa-
tive Plan, representatives.o f which are consulted in developing
the application of the pension system.
A direct adjunct of the Employees' Representative Plan is
the Relief Plan, handled jointly by employee trustees and com-
pany trustees . . . Under the Relief Plan contributions are paid
out with maximum effectiveness, since the Employees' Representa-
tives, acting as trustees, are in a position to know which cases are
the most needful.
* * * * * * *
One of the major means of assisting employees during hard
times was the program of emergency work carried on by Bethle-
hem during the most trying months of the depression ... This
emergency work was allocated to various employees, and the
fairness of the allocation was materially aided by the fact that
the Employees' Representatives served as advisors in the working
out of the Program 12
Five days before the election of employee representatives in March
1940, alternate representative Gene M. Hoover was appointed
"supervisor" of the election by the Committee of Employees' Repre-
sentatives.13 Whatever the purpose of the appointment, in the per-
formance of this office, Hoover immediately began militantly to cam-
paign for the Plan and against an outside labor organization. In a
circular addressed to all employees, issued just before the election
and signed by Hoover and two other members of the "campaign com-
mittee," the workers were urged to :
. . . support the Plan of Employees' Representation, which
through years of successful operation has proven to all of us,
the value of this independent Works organization, wherein every
officer and member thereof is an experienced fellow employee,
fully acquainted with all employees and their working condi-
tions, in their respective divisions and, therefore is in a most
'a Id.
'a The record does not reveal why the representatives saw fit to establish the position of
election "supervisor" in 1940 It had never existed before . It is unnecessary here to deter-
mine whether or not the change in Plan procedure was instigated directly by the respondents.
As described above, Hoover 's activities , immediately after this appointment , clearly demon-
strated that he was acting 'with the approval and support of the management.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1205
capable position , free from outside , inexperienced and dictatorial
influences , to present grievances affecting both the Representa=
tives and his fellow employees.
This circular was produced on the respondents' hectograph machine.
The same committee also distributed at the plant gates a printed cir-
cular, urging employees to "vote for men who support the Plan," and
stating that :
The purpose of the E. R. P.• is to keep men working . . . The
purpose of the C. I. 0. is to collect your dues-to assess and fine
you-to call you for picket duty to unionize other plants-to dic-
tate to you by outsiders.
Although it is Hoover's undisputed testimony that he paid for
the latter circular with his own money, it is clear, and we find, as did _
the Trial Examiner, (1) that the respondents well knew of Hoover's
aggressive campaign in support of the company-dominated Plan; (2)'
that by absorbing the expense of one circular and not disavowing the
distribution of another of similar import the respondents incurred
full responsibility for the anti-C. I. 0. statements appearing in them;
and (3) that employees were thereby given reason to believe that
Hoover, in his capacity as alternative representative and election
"supervisor," was acting as an agent of the respondents.
With further respect to Hoover, an incident occurring during a
brief strike of certain workers in March 1940 gave employees gen-
erally an added reason to believe that he fully enjoyed the manage-
ment's confidence. According to Hoover's undenied testimony, which
we find to be true, he requested Cadmus, the plant manager, to address
the employees who had not gone out on strike. Cadmus agreed to
do so, and Hoover, assisted by several employee representatives ar-
ranged the meeting and notified the superintendents and foremen that
they were to give permission for the men to attend: All employees
at the plant were convened in the templet shop, and Hoover assisted
Cadmus to the platform and introduced him to the employees. Fol-
lowing Cadmus' speech, during which Cadmus berated the S. W. 0. C.
walk-out, Hoover addressed the gathering and called for a "vote of
confidence."
Another incident revelatory of Hoover's intimate relationship with
management also occurred in March 1940. During working hours,
and without objection on the part of foremen, Hoover called employees
Ellis, an officer of the S. W. -0. C., and James from another part of
the plant to his own working place and openly urged them to leave
the S. W. 0. C. and to assist him in further developing the Plan.
Following this conversation, Hoover arranged with Superintendent
Russell, one of management's representatives on the Plan, for a meet-
1206 " DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing to be held at Russell's home. Wertz, chairman of the employee
representatives, Hoover, Ellis, and James met at the superintendent's
home '. In Russell 's presence the two employee representatives urged
Ellis and James to withdraw from the S. W. 0. C. and support the
Plan. Possibilities of enlarging the Plan, or forming a new organiza-
tion, were discussed. The meeting closed when Ellis and James as-
sured Russell that they would inform him of their decision in the
morning. The next morning both men told the superintendent that
they would "go along with" Hoover. Although Russell denied that
he was aware of the purpose of the meeting when Hoover made
arrangements with him, and although there is no evidence that Russell
himself made statements urging Ellis and James to leave one labor
organization and support another, it is plain that both employees
could have drawn no other conclusion than that Russell had prompted
Hoover's action in inviting them to his home, and could hardly have
escaped being impressed with Russell's position and presence while
being urged by Hoover and Wertz that they alter their union affilia-
tions. We are convinced, and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the incident was not only coercive, and in violation of rights guaran-
teed to employees in Section 7 of the Act, but also that Superintendent
Russell on this occasion clearly clothed Hoover with the mantle of
authority as an agent of the respondent, for the purpose of organizing
the Independent, the possible formation of which was then discussed.
In summary, the employee representatives occupied their positions
by virtue of a Plan dominated and controlled by the respondents;
they were called upon to assist management in the application of com-
pany policies outside the scope of the Plan ; and they were openly and
publicly acclaimed by management for their "loyalty" and "coopera-
tive spirit." It is plain that these representatives occupied a dual
role and, because of'their close association with management officials,
were in a position accurately to reflect and execute the views and de-
sires of management. For these reasons, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the employee representatives were acting for and on
behalf of the respondents in all their activities herein described and
that the respondents are responsible for their activities as employee
representatives.'
^ See International Association of Machinists v N. L R B , 311 U S . 72, aff'g 110 F. (2d)
29 (App D. C. ), enf'g Matter of The Herrick Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L. R. B 621 . See also Matter of Inter-
national Harvester Company, a corporation, and Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Com-
mittee and Employees Mutual Association of McCormick Works, Party to the Contract,
et al ., 29 N L. R B. 456.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1207
2. Formation of the Independent-activities of employee representa-
tives and respondents' supervisory officials and employees
The Independent stemmed directly from the Plan through the ac-
tivities of the employee representatives who were assisted in organizing
efforts by various supporting acts of supervisory officials and em-
ployees.
a. Activities of the mepresentatives
Soon after the meeting at Superintendent Russell's home, described
above, and the election of representatives, Hoover led his associate
representatives in a two-pronged drive, in complete conformity with
the plans discussed at Russell's home. One phase of this drive was
to probe the possibilities of expanding the activities of the Plan and
of revising certain operating features; the other phase was to lay the
ground work for a substitute organization-the Independent. During
the summer of 1940 the first-described phase was abandoned; there-
after the second project was developed and the Independent was for-
mally set up. The same employee representatives took part in the
simultaneous campaigns.
It is unnecessary here to discuss at length the details of the efforts
made by the employee representatives to expand or alter the Plan and
its function. These efforts consisted mainly of consultations of a sub-
committee of representatives with Attorney O'Donnell concerning
changes in bylaws. The subcommittee consisted of Bartzer, vice chair-
man of the employees' committee, Harrison, and Swavely. During the
period of these consultations with O'Donnell, in April, Wertz, Hoover,
and Bartzer further conferred with respect to forming the Independ-
ent. On May 10, Hoover visited O'Donnell and was advised that an
unaffiliated labor organization would be legal. On May 31 Represent-
atives Wertz, Bartzer, Harrison, Bradley, Capp, and Allen met with
O'Donnell and considered the rumor that a pending court decision
would order disestablishment of the Plan." At the same meeting, the
problem of obtaining certain benefits then being granted by the re-
spondents under the Plan, if an independent organization were set
up, was discussed. Further discussions relative to forming the Inde-
pendent were had with O'Donnel by Hoover, Bartzer, and another
employee on June 7, and by Hoover, Bartzer, and Harrison on August
15. At the latter meeting, O'Donnell was asked to prepare a draft of
a constitution for an independent organization. The attorney sub-
mitted his draft to Hoover, Bartzer, Wertz, and Harrison on August
30, and at the same meeting plans were made to hold a meeting of
employees on September 4, 1940.
'b The representatives undoubtedly had reference to the case then pending in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia , which decision was rendered May 12,
1941 , and which has been referred to above . See footnote 4, supra.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Invited by the four above-named representatives, about 75 employees
attended the meeting of September 4. Hoover served as chairman.
urged the need of an "independent" union and, following a vote of
those present to form such an organization, appointed 11 individuals
to serve as a temporary organizing committee. Both Wertz and
Bartzer were appointed to this committee. It was voted that the or-
ganization should be called the "Independent Steel Workers Asso-
ciation."
O'Donnell addressed the second meeting of the Independent, held
on September 10. It was then formally decided to organize. A tem-
porary board of directors was elected on October 1 and 2. Elected to
the Board, were Hoover, Wertz, Bartzer, and another employee repre-
sentative. Officers were thereafter elected; including Hoover as pres-
ident, Wertz as vice president, and Bartzer as treasurer.
Not until October 4, 1940, after the Independent had been formed
and was functioning as a labor organization, did the-employee repre-
sentatives, including those named above who, formed the Independent,
submit their resignations as representatives to management.' On
October 4 the committee of employee representatives formally resolved
to submit a joint resignation to the management, and it was inscribed
in the committee's minutes of that date that it was to be the final
meeting. However, the Plan has never been disestablished or repudi-
ated by the respondents, although it has lapsed into a passive state
since the creation of the Independent.
b. Activities of supervisory employees
It has been established above that the first recorded meeting, at which
plans were discussed for the forming of an independent organization,
was held at the home of Superintendent Russell, and in his presence.
Foreman Binder was present at one' of the early organization meet-
ings of the Independent. Skean, who on a number of occasions had
acted in the capacity of a foreman, actively aided in the organization of
the Independent and became a charter member. Soon after the Inde-
dependent was formed, Skean was permanently appointed as a fore-
man.
3. Conclusions as to the Independent
It is plain from the foregoing that the respondents, through the ac-
tivities of Superintendent Russell, Foremen Binder and Skean, as well
as of the employee reprsentatives, has not permitted the employees their
free choice of a bargaining representative. The chronology of events
leading to the formation of the Independent reveals a planned proce-
d ure designed to retain the representation of employees in the hands of
old and trusted employees who had served as employee representatives.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1209
Events occurring at the meeting at the home of Russell, when two C. I.
0. leaders were persuaded to leave the union of their choice, and where
the expansion of the Plan or the development of a new organization
was discussed, clearly epitomize the respondents' resolution that no
outside labor organization would be permitted to represent its employ-
ees and that, if the Plan must be abandoned by Court order, there
should be organized another inside organization over which it might
wield equal control. With the open approval of Russell, the employee
representatives, led by Hoover and Wertz, promptly began to carry out
the respondents' desires; Hoover to stimulate interest in an unaffili-
ated labor organization, and Wertz to investigate, through a committee
appointed to consult with Attorney O'Donnell, the possibilities of re-
vamping the Plan into a legal organization. The plan to organize an
independent prevailed. Wertz, Hoover, and other representatives
thereupon began formally-to organize, while still serving as employee
representatives under the Plan. The significance of their action cannot
be overestimated. Not only does it further establish management's ap-
proval of their acts, since it cannot be reasonably believed that repre-
sentatives who were so stoutly upholding management policies in gen-
eral would set up a labor organization competitive with the Plan,
installed and formed by the respondents, but their action could hardly
have been interpreted by employees generally other than as company-
inspired. In any event, we find that by reason of the close relationship
which existed between the employee representatives and the manage-
ment, as described above, the general body of employees reasonably
believed them to be acting for the respondents. Under such circum-
stances, it was incumbent upon the respondents to openly disavow the
activities of the employee representatives in organizing the Independ-
ent so as to leave no doubt in the minds of their employees that the
Independent did not occupy the favored position which its emanation
from the Plan would indicate. Not only did the respondents fail to do
this, but they made no other efforts to dispel any belief of the employees
that membership in the Independent would evoke their approval or
that failure to join would incur their displeasure."'
10 In Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company v. N. L. R. B., 112 F (2d) 657
(C. C. A. 2), enf'g as mod . Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company and
United Electrical Radio if Machine Workers of America, Local #410, 18 N. L R B. 300,
aff'd (per curiam ) 312 U S. 660, the Court stated :
But that was not the circumstance which counted , as we understand it ;
It was rather that the employees at large had not been advised that the company as
wholly indifferent whether they joined the new union, and that, as it might, and prob-
ably did, appear to be a successor of the old, the separation should have been made
plain, and with it the discontinuance of any continued countenance from the em-
ployer The theory is that in cases such as this , where an unaffiliated union seems to
the employees at large to have evolved out of an earlier joint organization of employer
and employees , 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:
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record we are convinced, as was the Trial Examiner,
that the Independent is not and never has been the freely chosen bar-
gaining representative of the respondents' employees.17
We find that the respondents dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Independent and contributed sup-
port to it and that the respondents thereby have interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find that by the above-
cited acts of superintendents, foremen, and employee representatives in
attempting to discourage membership in an outside labor organiza-
tion, the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.18
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondents described
in Section I above, have a close, intimate, -and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have interfered with, restrained,
and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, we shall order the respondents to cease and desist
11 See also The Colorado Fuet and Iron Corporation v. N. L. R. B, ( C. C. A. 10 ), decided
June 23, 1941 , enf'g Matter of The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation and International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 442 and Steel Workers Organizing Com-
mittee , 22 N L . R. B 184; N. L . R B V. Lank-Belt Co, 311 U. S 584 , rev'g mod. of
Board's order in 110 F. ( 2d) 506 (C. C. A. 7), and enf 'g Matter of Link-Belt Company and
Lodge 1604 of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America
through the Steel Workers Organizing Committee affiliated with the Committee for Indus-
trial Organization, 12 N L. R. B. 854; International Association of Machinists v. N L. R B ,
311 U. S 72, aff'g 110 F . ( 2d) 29 (App D C ), enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N L. R B.
621 ; Kansas City Power d Light Co . v N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d) 340 ( C C. A. 8 ), enf'g as
mod. Matter of Kansas City Power & Light Company and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union B-412, 12 N . L R B. 1414; Magnolia Petroleum Co Y.
N. L R. B, 115 F . ( 2d) 1007 (C. C. A. 10), enf'g Matter of Magnolia Petroleum Company
and Oil Woikers International Union , Locals Nos 280 and 378, 19 N L R B. 184; cf Con-
sumers Power Co. v N. L. R. B, 113 F. (2d) 38 (C. C. A 6 ), enf'g Matter of Consumers'
Power Company , a corporation and Local No 740, United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America , 9 N L R . B 701; New Idea, Inc. v N L R B, 117 F (2d) 517, de-
cided February 6, 1941 (C. C. A 7), enf'g Mattes of New Idea, Inc and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and International
Brotherhood of Blacksmiths , Drop Forgers and Helpers, affiliated with the American Feder-
ation of Labor, and Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., also 7, noien as
Independent Employees Association , party to the contract, 21 N L R B 223
18 See Matter of International Harvester Company, et at and Farm Equipnient Workers
Organizing Committee, et al, 29 N . L R B 456
BETHLEHEM STEEL C'ORPORAT'ION 1211
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which will restore the
status quo and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondents have dominated and inter-
fered With the administration of the Plan and with the formation
and administration of the Independent. In order to effectuate the
policies of the Act and free the employees of the respondents from
such interference and domination and the effects thereof, which con-
stitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by their employees of
rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondents
to withdraw all recognition from the Plan and the Independent as
representatives of the respondents' employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes,
'wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment 19
As we have found above, the respondents have by varying methods
and over a long period of time dominated and interfered with labor
organizations of their employees and thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondents' course of conduct
in this respect, by virtue both of its intensive and extensive character,
discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization and its objects. The
preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is
coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and to prevent a recur-
rence of the unfair labor practices, we will order the respondent to
cease and desist from in any manner infringing the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.20
19 National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S 272, 275.
Cf. also , Consolidated Edison Co, Inc, et at . v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U S.
197, at 236 (1938), wherein the Court said
The continued existence of a company union established by unfair labor practices or
of a union dominated by the employer is a consequence of a violation of the Act whose
continuance thwarts the purposes of the Act and renders ineffectual any order restrain-
ing the unfair labor practices.
10 In Bethlehem Steel Company , et at v N . L R. B (App D C .), decided May 12, 1941,
enf'g Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation , a Delaware Corporation , et at and Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, 14 N. L R B 539, the Court stated .
Petitioners attack the breadth of the order Having found that they had dominated,
interfered with, and contributed support to the Plans, had expressed to the men their
animus against S W 0 C , and hod interfered with, restrained, and coerced the Com-
pany's employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
Board ordered petitioners to cease from dominating, interfering with, or contributing
support to either the Plans or "any other labor organization ," and to cease from "in any
other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing the employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization , to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing," etc , as guaranteed
by Section 7. The cider is in substantially the language of Sections 7, 8 (1) and 8 (2),
the, subdivisions which petitioners are found to have violated Violation of Sections
8 (3), 8 (4), and 8 (5) is neither found nor forbidden . The Act would be ineffectual
if each new example of interference, domination , etc, required a new hearing and a
new order . Under the Railway Labor Act, a similar statutory purpose was enforced
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the- basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations Plan of Employees' Representation
at the Pottstown Works, and Independent Steel Workers Associa-
tion, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of
Plan of Employees' Representation at the Pottstown Works, and con-
tributing support to it, the respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Independent Steel Workers Association, and contribut-
ing support to it, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the
Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relation's
Act, the, National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondents, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany, and each of them, and their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Plan of Employees' Representation at the Pottstown plant, and the
formation and administration of Independent Steel Workers Asso-
ciation, or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of their employees, and from contributing financial or
by a similar order, which the Supreme Court upheld over the protest of the employers.
Accordingly, Labor Board orders in the form used here have repeatedly been enforced
by the Supreme Court
Cf N. L. If. B. v Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 1213
other support to said labor organizations or to any other labor
organization of their employees;
(b) Recognizing the said Plan of Employees' Representation or
the said Independent Steel Workers Association as the representa-
tives of any of the employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
the employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed 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 Plan of Employees' Repre-
sentation at the Pottstown plant and Independent Steel Workers
Association as the representatives of any of the employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, and completely disestablish the Plan of Em-
ployees' Representation at the Pottstown plant and the Independent
Steel Workers Association as such representatives;
(b) Post immediately' in conspicuous places throughout their
Pottstown plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of said posting, notices to their em-
ployees stating that the respondents will not engage in the conduct
from which they have been ordered to cease and desist in para-
graphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and that they will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HARRY A. Minus took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.