Corn Products Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1377 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY and LOCAL IN-
DUSTRIAL UNION No. 1216, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUS-
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS (CIO) and THE CORN PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES'
UNION OF NORTH KANSAS CITY, PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT 1
Case No: V-2575.1-Decided May 09, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 1, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent,
Corn Products Refining Comany, 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 C. P. E. U., and the Union filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report with briefs in support thereof. The Board has
considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was"held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on May 11, 1943.
Counsel for the respondent participated in the oral argument.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and -briefs .of- the parties, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby sustains the exceptions of, the respondent to the extent indi-
cated below. In all other respects, the Board hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
(1) The Trial Examiner made no specific finding that the 1940
settlement of the charges against the respondent was intended by the
parties to dispose of the allegations that the Plan was company-
dominated in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act. We find, how-
ever, that the parties did so contemplate. At the time of the settle-
ment, the parties also knew that the C. P. E. U. had been in exist-
ence for more than 2 years and they were familiar with the facts
49 N. L R' B., No. 193.
i This labor organization was named in the complaint as Corn Products Employees' Union
of North ,Kansas City , Missouri (CPEU). The evidence showed the name to be as set forth
above. At the hearing the pleadings were ordered-amended to conform to the proof with
respect to names and dates.
1 1377
1378 IYEICTSIOu\T'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
attending its formation. Under all the circumstances, therefore, we
also find that the agreement disposed of any unfair labor practices
respecting the C. P. E. U., as well.
(2) The Trial Examiner found that 'the settlement agreement did
not, in, any event, bar the Board from. considering the respondent's,
prior unfair labor practices, including. the matter of company-domi-
nation, for'the reason, as he further found, that the respondent con-
tinued to violate the Act in derogation of the settlement. But we are
not satisfied that the respondent did breach the agreement by further
violations. We do not find- that the statements' of Thompson and
Schroeder were of any consequence. Thus, it appears that Deckman
reported the incident of Thompson's statement to Holmes, who was
Thompson's superior, and that Holmes thereupon assured Deckman
of his freedom to join any union. And in the case of Schroeder's
statement, we do not find that any coercion was intended or caused
thereby. Nor do we find that the notice prohibiting solicitation or
the 'manner of distributing the wage increases was intended by the
respondent to operate in favor of the G. P. E. U. and against the
Union.la Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, we do
believe that the policies of the Act will be effectuated by going behind
the settlement agreement and, accordingly, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint in its'entirety.
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 complaint issued herein against the'
respondent, Corn Products Refining Company, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Clarence D. Musser and Mr. Robert S. Fousek, for the Board.
Mr. Frank T. Miller and Mr. D. A. Nicoll of Peoria , Ill., and Mr. William G. Holt,
of Kansas City, Mo., for the respondent.
, Mr. William E Leivis and Mr. Harvey C. Freming , of Kansas City, Mo., for the
6.1 O
Mr. Powhatan H. Jackson , of Kansas City, Mo ., for the C. P E. U.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed by Local Industrial Union No. 1216,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), herein at times
called the C. I. 0.,2 the National Labor Relations Board; herein called the Board, by
while we are dismissing the complaint in its entirety, we note that the notice iss too
broad insofar as it prohibits solicitation on the employees ' own time:
? Local Industrial Union No, 1216 filed a charge on September 8, 1942 , an amended charge'
op,Septernber 1-1, 1942, ' and the second amended charge on February 5, 1943, "', '
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY- 1379
its Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region 3 (Kansas City, Missouri), issued
its complaint dated February 5, 1943, against Corn Products Refining Company,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent bad,engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat 449. herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the C. I 0, and The Corn
Products Employees' Union of North Kansas City, named in the complaint as a
"party to the agreement'; and herem.at times called the C. P. E. U.
In respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that
Employees' Council Plan of Representation of the' respondent's North Kansas City
plant and the C. P. E. U. constitute a continuous, integrated labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act; that the respondent on and after
July 5, 1935, by its officers, agents, supervisory employees, and representatives
continued in operation this labor organization which it had pi•evionsly formed and
dominated and at all times since said date has continued to dominate and interfere
with said organization and to contribute financial and other support to it; that
the respondent, at its North Kansas City plant, has since July 5, 1935, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced, and is now interfering with, restraining, and coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
in thht by its officers, agents, supervisory employees, and representatives it has :
interrogated employees about their union membership; disparaged and expressed
disapproval of the C. I. 0.; urged, persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain
from assisting, becoiniug'members of or remaining members of the C. I. O. ; urged,
persuaded, and warned its employees to assist, to become members of or to remain
members of the C. P. E U. ; threatened to close its plant if its employees continued
membership and activities in behalf of the C. I. 0 ; sought, by promises of wage,
increases to some, by withholding wage increases from others, and by threats of
employment iiissecurity, to dissuade its employees from affiliating with any labor
organization other than the C. P E. U.; sought to have its employees accept the
C. P. E. U. by crediting the C. P. E. U. with having accomplished, through its
efforts, beneficial changes in working conditions ; threatened, with discharge
employees who affiliated-with the C I. 0.; on or about March 14, 1941, entered into
an agreement with the C P. E. U. as the sole collective bargaining agent of the
North Kansas City plant employees, on the basis of a claimed majority, which
majority was not the result of the exercise of the free and uncoerced choice of
respondent's employees.
On February 15, 1943, the respondent filed an answer, in which it denied that
it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. On or about February 16,
1943, the C. P. E U. also filed an answer, in which it denied it was the same
organization as the Employees' Council Plan of Representation, alleged that it
was organized on or about March 23, 193S, and denied that the respondent or
any other person or persons had in any way dominated, supported, or encouraged
it in violation of the Act 4
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held from February 18 to 25, 1943, at Kansas
City, Missouri, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner The Board, the respondent, 'and the C. P. E.' U. were
represented by counsel and the C. I. O. by'its representatives. Full opportunity
to be, heard, to examine and cross-examine, witnesses, and to introduce evidence
'Reference in this Report to the Regional Office, the Regional Director , and the Regional
Attorney in all instances have application to the Board's Seventeenth Region '
4 The C P . E U answer also summarized the history of the contractual relations between,
it and the respondent from and after November 16, 1938.
531647-43-vol. 49-88
1380 IYEU1SIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bearing on the 'issues was afforded, all parties. At the commencement of the
hearing the answer of the C. P. E. U. was treated as a motion by it for leave to
intervene. The motion was granted without objection. Also at the cotnmence-
ment of the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. In support
of the motion, the respondent contended that the allegat.ans of paragraph six of
the complaint were indefinite. The undersigned treated this contention as"a mo-
tion for a bill of particulars and required counsel for the Board, to furnish the
respondent with the names of its officers, agents, supervisory employees, and
representatives referred to in the various sections of this paragraph, but in other
respects denied the motion without prejudice. The respondent renewed the
motion at the close of the hearing.` Ruling was reserved. The motion is hereby
denied. At the close of the hearing a motion was made that the pleadings be'
amended to conform to the, proof with respect to such matters as dates and
names.' ' The motion was granted. Also at the close of the hearing, counsel for
the Board, the respondent and the C. P.'E..U., respectively, argued orally before
the 'undersigned. The parties were also given opportunity to file briefs with the
undersigned. The respondent and the C. P. E. U. have availed themselves of
this privilege.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
- FINDINGS ,OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Corn Products Refining Company, is a New Jersey Corporation
with its principal office and place of business in New York City. It operates plants
end warehouses at Kansas City, Missouri, and Argo and Pekin, Illinois. It also
maintains and operates various plants in foreign countries. The respondent's
principal business is the manufacture, sale, and distribution of food and food
products throughout the United States of America and foreign countries. The
principal products sold by its consist of starch, syrup, sugar, vegetable oils, and
cattle feed. Some of its trade marks are Karo Syrup, Mazola Oil, Argo Corn
Starch, Argo Gloss Starch, Linit, and Kre-Mel Dessert. The principal raw
materials used by it are corn, wheat, cane, cottonseed, sugar, chocolate, lumber,
paper, cardboard, and package materials
These proceedings are concerned }with a-. branch, plant and warehouse consisting
of about 12 inter-connected buildings located at North Kansas City,-Missouri, and
This motion was filed in writing at the Regional Office prior to the bearing, was sub-
mitted to the undersigned at the hearing and pursuant to leave granted was filed in
amended form after the close of the hearing . The grounds in support of the motion as set
forth in its amended form mentioned an election conducted by the Board in December 1935,
after which "The Employees Representation Plan" was certified by the Regional Director,
referred to an investigation by Board agents, in the Regional Office of charges by an
American Federation of Labor Union in 1937 of domination of The Employees Representation
Plan ; stated that a settlement of the charges was effected through Board agents in the
Regional Office and approved by the Regional Director on or about June 14, 1940; stated
that The Employees Representation Plan was abandoned in March 1938, that the C P E U.
was thereafter organized, and alleged that the respondent recognized the C P., It. U. only.
after it* had proved its majority and after discussions with Board representatives The
written grounds in support of the motion' also stated that by issuing the complaint aad,,"
holding the instant hearing the Board is "attempting to repudiate its own said previous
decisions, adjustments, and agreements . . They alleged that the Board is now estopped
in the matter ; also that the instant proceedings hamper production in hindrance of the
war effort.
° Counsel for the Board made such a motion and respective, counselfor the respondent
and the C.'P . E U. Joined therein. I -
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 1381
-known as the North Kansas City plant, where the respondent employs approx-
imately-600 hourly-paid production employees and manufactures products of the
type mentioned above. The gross sales of the respondent for the year 1942 were
approximately $93,000,000, and those for the North Kansas City plant were in
excess of $5,000,000. In the operation of its North Kansas City plant, it causes
a substantial amount of materials used in that plant to be purchased, delivered,
and transported to it from States other than Missouri, and from and through'
Countries other than the United States of -America. It also causes a substantial
amount of the products sold and distributed by it from its North Kansas City
plant, as a part' of its- business, to be sold and distributed and transported in
States other than the State of Missouri and in foreign countries.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Industrial Union No. 1216, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations (CIO), is a labor organization. The Corn/Products Employee's
Union of North Kansas City is an unaffiliated labor organization. Both labor
organizations admit to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The background; the Plan
Early,in 1834; while-the National,'Indusirial•Recovery Act' was in operation,
about 200 employees at the respondent's North Kansas City plant met one day
during working hours in the plant cafeteria and discussed the-formation of a
labor organization. Harry W. Curry, plant manager, was called to the meeting
during its progress, and In response to an inquiry, told the group that he would
"go along" in the matter of having such an organization. Officers of the group
were elected during Manager Curry's presence at the meeting.
After this meeting a committee of management and employee representatives
began preparation of a written plan for the organization. Charles Copeland,
general supervisor in the plant, and Wallace Daley, in charge of personnel, served
with other representatives of the management on this committee. Manager
Curry, at the request of certain members of the committee, obtained from various,
other companies, and turned over to-members of the committee, written copies of
plans established in their plants. Manager Curry also on occasion conferred with
the committee during',,the;t)me,it; was,;reducilig;the plan .to,writing.
In or about May 1934 the written plan was completed. It provided for an
organization known as "Plan of Employee Representation Kansas City Plant
Corn Products Refining Company," herein-at times called the Plan. The Plan
in final written form was submitted to Manager Curry for approval soon after its
completion. It was thereupon put into effect in the plant. It divided the plant
into nine units and provided that the employees in each unit should elect one
Representative annually by secret ballot. All employees except the respondent's
officials and employees with power to hire or discharge were made eligible to vote
for and serve as Representatives. The Plan provided also for a "Management's
Representative," to be appointed by the respondent for the purpose of keeping
"the Management in touch with the Representatives, and represent the Manage-
ment in negotiations with the Representatives; their 'officers, alid.Committees.",
' The National Industrial Recovery Act became effective on June 16, 1933. Section 7 (a)
of that Act provided that employees should have the right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining through representatives of their own choosing.
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The preamble'of the Plan stated that it was adopted jointly by the employees,
the management and the directors of the respondent because of a "desire to main-
tain the close personal contact between the employees and the managelent and
to continue and develop the mutual understanding and harmonious relations which
have prevailed in the past." It constituted the Employees' Representatives, a
General Committee to deal with certain specified subjects 8 of interest to the
employees, and also constituted these Representatives together with "Representa-
'tives named by the management, who may equal but shall not exceed in number
the Employees' Representatives," a General Joint Committee on Appeals. The
Plan provided that any employee or group of employees, either in person or
through his or their Representative, could ultimately refer natters which required
adjustment to the General Joint Committee on Appeals.' In event of failure of
the General Joint Committee on Appeals to effect a settlement of the matter, the
Plan provided that the matter be referred to the respondent's president and the
L+smployees' Representatives, and that if they "fail to effect a satisfactory settle-
ment, they may refer the matter to the Regional Labor Board or the proper Code
Authority."
The Plan made no provision for payment of dues ; nor did it provide for meetings
of employees at which they might instruct their Representatives. It provided for
monthly meetings of each committee created under the Plan, and reimbursement
.of employees by the respondent for time lost from work in attending duly' held
meetings.10
In 1935 a union chartered, by the `American 'Federation, of Labor, known as
Federal Labor Union No. 19964, claimed to represent the respondent's employees
at the North Kansas City plant for purposes of collective bargaining. The
respondent, Employees' Representatives of the Plan and Federal Labor Union
No. 19964 consented that the Board's Regional Director should conduct an election
among employees in the plant to determine whether they desired to be represented
by the Plan or Federal Labor Union No. 19964. The consent election took place on
December 16, 1935, and a majority of the employees voted in favor of the Plan.
The Regional Director thereupon 'certified the Plan as representative of the'
employees in the plant for purposes of collective bargaining.
The Plan, substantially as described above, continued in operation until March
1938." Until that time, meetings of committees which functioned pursuant to the
Phan took-place on company time and property.
8 The subjects so specified were: Rules, Ways and Means, Economy and Waste Prevention,
Wages, Hours of Employment and Working Conditions, Health and Sanitation. Education
and Publications, Athletics and Recreation, and Continuity of Employment and Condition
of Industry.
9 Such matters, according to the Plan, were to be taken 'up, first, with the superintendent
concerned, second, with the Management's Representative, and, third, "with the Manage-
ment, who shall endeavor to effect a settlement, or who may with the approval of all the
parties refer the matter to proper Joint Committee."
to The provision set forth in the•Plan regarding, reimbursement for attendance at meetings
is not entirely clear It provided : "For time necessarily lost by employees in actual
attendance at regular meetings or at special meetings of conferences jointly approved
Repiesentatives shall receive from the Company payment commensurate with their average
earnings
33 In 1937 after,the United States Supreme Court declared the Act constitutional, a new
written document was drafted, which changed the title or 'name from "Plan of Employee
Representation Kansas City P1antCorn''Products Refinmg•Comphny^ to "Employees' Council
Plan of Representation Of The North Kansas City Plant " The provisions of this docu-
ment,were substantially the same as those of the 1934 document. From 1934 until the
advent of the C P. E. U. in 1938 as described below both the employees and the management
commonly referred'to'tbe Plan as the "Workers' Council."
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 1383
B The C. P. E. U.
On February'17, 1938, Federal Labor Union No. 19964 filed with the Board's
Regional Office a charge, alleging-among other things that the respondent had
sponsored, dominated, and furnished financial support to the Plan." A few
days later the Board's Regional Office notified Manager Curry that such a
charge had,-been, filed. About that time the Regional Director ihdicated doubt
to Curry as to whether the Plan still represented a majority of the employees
in the plant. Moreover, the question as to whether the Plan constituted a com-
pany dominated union was discussed a number of times between Curry and the
Regional Director Curry thereupon advised B. H. Wantland, chairman of
the Employees' Representatives under the Plan, that the respondent would no
longer deal with the' Plan unless it submitted proof of majority and that it
must no longer conduct its activities on company time and property.
Wantland, shortly after this communication from Curry, called at the Board's
Regional Office where he held a discussion with the Regional Attorney. On this
occasion Wantland asked whether it was possible to have "an independent or-
ganization" in the plant. The Regional Attorney suggested the possibility
of obtaining counsel and effecting an organization that would pay its own way
and "have nothing to do with the company."
Soon thereafter Wantland talked to various employees about what should
be done Kenneth Hard! nger,_ another Employees' Representative under the
Plan, suggested that Ralph E. Murray, a Kansas City attorney, be consulted.
Wantland called at Murray's office and ascertained that the latter's services
would be available." The next day after work Wantland and the others who
were Employees' Representatives under the Plan called as a group at Mur-
ray's Office." Murray suggested that a general meeting of employees be held.
Wantland then arranged for use of a hall in North Kansas City away from
the respondent's plant and the meeting took place there on or about March 26,
1938.15 There was general discussion on this occasion about the formation of
an "independent. union"' and Murray, who was present, gave some explana-
tion regarding the steps to be taken. It was determined that there should be
another meeting later to effect the organization, and that Murray should pie-
pare a memorandum of procedure for use at that meeting.
Some of those who were Employees' Representatives under the Plan had an-
other conference with Murray at the latter's office on or 'about April 11, 1938.
Wantland again arranged for the use of the meeting hall and the further general
meeting of employees interested in forming the "independent union," took
place as had been planned on April 16, 1933." Murray attended this meeting
also- and -,read:praoposed•by-laws' which °he had, prepared` for the, organization.
1z A similar charge had also berm filed by this labor organization on May 19_193T.
15 Counsel for the C. P . E. U stated at the hearing that Attorney Murray was deceased
14 That the Employees ' Representatives dealt with Murray during this time is indicated
not only by the testimony , but' also by a letter dated April 5, 1938, written by Murray to
Wantland and seven other employees who were Representatives under the Plan. See
footnotes 18, 22, and 23 , infra.
15 There is some confusion in the testimony as to the exact date of this meeting, although
it is clear that it took place the latter part of March The memorandum , mentioned below,
prepared by Murray for use at the meeting on April 16 , refers to the first meeting as having
been held on March 26, 1$38.
16T e evidence does not show the number who attended this meeting . However, about
260 " ersonsNsi '" 'p geed 9 members$ip`peti'tiona^.tir `=applications'on this - occasion ; as discussed
below.
1384 BE!C'ISSONS OF NATIOI' iAL LABOR RELA(nONS BOARD
The group voted adoption of these by-laws. The by-laws provided that the-
name of the organization should be "The Corn Products Employees' Union of
North Kansas City," established a board of nine Representatives to be elected
by the employees in each of nine units or departments in the plant, and em-
powered the Representatives to bargain collectively with the respondent on
behalf of the organization, its members, and the other employees in the plant.
The by-laws imposed monthly dues of 25 cents per person and made eligible
for membership all employees on the pay roll except company officials, em-
ployees with power to hire and discharge, and'tliose whose ,',duties were incon-
sistent with membership in the organization."
Besides adopting the by-laws at, the meeting on April 16, a number of
employees signed applications for membership in the organization and Rep-
resentatives were elected. Of the eight employees who had been serving as.
Employees' Representatives under the Plan, four were elected to serve as Repre-
sentatives of the C. P. E. U.'s On May 2, 1938, Al Friend and Gail R. Butts,
who had been elected chairman and secretary respectively of the C. P. E. U.
Representatives, wrote a letter to Curry demanding recognition of the C. P.
E. U. Further demands for recognition followed this letter. About that time
the respondent agreed with-the C. P. E. U. that a committee, to consist of a
clergyman and a school principal in North Kansas City, might compare the
C. P. E. U. membership list with the respondent's pay roll in order to ascertain
whether that labor organization represented a majority, of the respondent's
employees.
On or about June 28, 1938, Friend wrote a letter to the C. P. E. U. in which
he expressed doubt as to the legality of the C. P. E. U. under the Act, and
tendered his resignation as chairman of the Representatives. On July 28,
1938, the C. P. E. U. had not yet obtained recognition, and Butts as its sec-
retary wrote Curry a letter. Butts asked Curry if the Plan had "been declared
out," explaining that. the question 'of its status was interfering with coopera-
tion of the Representatives." Curry replied that the request of the C. P. E U.
for recognition in effect disestablished the Plan and that if the committee ap-
pointed to compare the C. P. E. U. membership list with the respondent's pay
roll should find that the C. P. E. U. represented a majority of the respondent's
employees, the respondent was "ready to execute its legal obligation under the
National Labor Relations Act," and recognize the C. P. E. U. Thereafter, the
committee, reported that the C. P. E. U. represented ,a majority of the respond-
ent's employees. In August, apparently as a result of Friend 's resignation as
chairman, the C. P. E. U. amended its by-laws to -provide for the election of
a president rather than a'chairman . Wantland was elected to-this office. Want-
17 The by-laws provided that whether an employees' duties were inconsistent with menr
bersbip in the organization should be determined by vote of the members In the same
department with that employee.
18 Although the Plan provided for nine Employees ' Representatives , only eight are named
in the evidence Albert S. Friend, William R Reese, John B. Fox, and Oren A. Hamlett of
the Plan's Employees ' Representatives were elected C. P. It U. Representatives on April 16.
See footnote 22, infra.
19 Butts' letter to Curry was as follows :
The Board of Representatives of :the Corn Products Employees Union of She, North
Kansas City plant voted at their meeting Saturday - night 'July 23rd , to send' a letter to
you asking if the Labor Board has declared our old'CounJl form of representation to be
Illegal, and if our old contract is still in effect.
This seems to hold up the-cooperation of our Board ' as to the certification of our
membership.
It is the opinion of some of the members that we would be taking the wrong step in
going ahead until it is known for sure that the old Council has been declared out.
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 1385
land and the other Representatives then presented a proposed contract to Curry
and he in turn presented them with a written counter-proposal. There were
several meetings between Curry and the Representatives and a written contract
between the respondent and the C. P. E U was thereafter executed on Noveiu-
ber 19, 1338. Similar contracts have been executed since between the respond-
ent and the C. P. E. U., the last such contract, which is still in force and effect,
having been executed on March 14, 1941.40
In or about June 1942, the C. I. O. began an organizational drive among the
respondent's employees. On June 19, 1942, it filed a petition for investigation -
and certification of representatives with respect to employees in the power
house at the respondent's- North Kansas City plant. Thereafter on or about
July 18, 1942, the respondent placed on the bulletin hoard in its North Kansas
City plant a notice which was as follows: _
NOTICE
Solicitation of any kind is not permitted on the Plant premises . Violations
will be sufficient grounds for dismissal.
CORN PRODUCIrS REFINING COMPANY.
On August 24, 1942, the C. I. O. filed a petition for investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives which amended the petition filed on June 19 in that it
alleged that this labor organization represented a majority of all employees in
the plant. About that time the C. I. O. asked the respondent and the C. P. E. U.
if they were willing to settle the majority question by consenting to an election.
The C. P. E U. agreed to this procedure, but the respondent did not. The C. I. O.
then withdrew its petition and filed the charges in the instant case.
Meanwhile, since early in 1942 the C. P. E. U. had been urging a general wage
increase for employees in the respondent's North Kansas City plant. On one
occasion in April, during negotiations on the subject, that labor organization
issued a strike threat. Similarly, about that time a wage increase was under
discussion with respect to the respondent's employees at its Pekin,. Illinois, plant
pursuant to demands made at that plant by a union affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor. Negotiations at both the Pekin and North Kansas City
plants continued into the summer and in June or July the wage controversy
at the Pekin plant was referred to a conciliator of the United States Department
of Labor. Both the union at that plant and the respondent agreed to abide by
his decision. The respondent informed the C. P. E. U. of this fact and indicated
that it was willing to make the decision of the conciliator regarding the wage
controversy at the Pekin'plant applicable also at the North-Kansas City plant.
The C. P. E U. agreed to this and negotiations between it and the respondent
were suspended for a few weeks pending the conciliator's decision. On or about
-August 28, 1942, the conciliator rendered a decision which provided for an
hourly wage increase at the Pekin plant of 3i/> cents retroactive to August 1.
Accordingly, the respondent put the same increase into effect at the North Kansas
City plant and issued checks to the employees for the retroactive period.
Although pay checks were usually given out at "the'pay window," these checks
were distributed to the employees personally by their respective supervisors.
s0 This contract remains in force and effect pursuant to a proviso contained therein which
is as follows : "This agreement shall continue in full force and effect from March 14, 1941
until March 14, 1942 and shall continue in full force and effect thereafter , until superceded
(sic) by a new agreement."
1386 D'E'ClST ONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'R-E.LAATIONS BOARD
I
About the same time the respondent posted 'on the plant bulletin board a notice
which was as follows :
As a result of the negotiations with the Corn Products Employees Union,
the Company is granting a 31/_,0 per hour increase, retroactive to August
1st, 1942.
We will arrange to have separate checks given to each employee covering
the back pay for the period beginning August 1st and ending August '29th.
These checks will be given to you by your Supervisor.
The Company's part in the war effort is increasing in volume from day
to day. Products being sent to the Army and Navy and Coast Guard are
assisting in a very substantial way to the winning of the war. Your part
in this effort cannot be overemphasized.
We hope that this expression by your Company in granting this increase '
will be conducive to even more harmonious relationships between us and
that we can make an even better contribution to the war effort than we
have in the past.
CORN PRODUCTS RI`FININO COMPANY. -
Other events of significance during the time of the C I O. organizational drive'
consisted of remarks directed to certain employees by their superiors. One
such remark was by Carl Thompson, a relief foreman in the wet starch depart-
ment, to John O. Deckman, an employee working under Thompson's supervision
at, the time of the remark. Thompson served'as relief'foreman-3 days-each week
in place of 3 regular foremen, respectively, each of whom was off duty 1 day,
during the week. It was at such a time that he made the remark to Deckinali.
Deckman had joined the C. I. 6 in July shortly before Thompson's remark to
him and was wearing his union button at the time. Deckman testified without
contradiction, and.the undersigned finds, that Thompson on this occasion referred
to Deckman's "wearing that- damn button," stated that Deckman had joined a
"damn Communist outfit" and that Deckman was a Communist. ,
During the.organizational drive of the C. I. 0 most of the employees in the
power house joined that, labor organization. Early in August 1942, during
working hours, Richard Schroeder, assistant chief engineer with supervision over
these employees2' asked Herb C. Pennock, one of this group who had, joined
the C. I. 0, why the "boys joined the C. I. 0."
C. Concluding findings
It is obvious that the Plan was created in 1934 with substantial assistance
from the respondent. The-meeting at which the- idea'"was- conceived" took" place
on company time and property, Manager Curry attended the meeting; he collected
material to assist the, committee put the Plan, in written form, high super-
visory employees worked as members of the Committee, Curry approved the writ-
ten document before it was finally placed in operation, supervisory employees
served as officers under the Plan, its activities until early in 1938 took place on
company time and property, and those who lost time from their work by reason of
Plan meetings were paid by the respondent.. It is clear, and the undersigned finds,
that the Plan was a company-dominated labor organization within the meaning
of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
21 As set forth above , the undersigned requiredicounsel for the Board dt the beginning of
.the bearing to name the officers, agents, sgperyisory'employees , and-representatives referred
to in paragraph six of the complaint . Schroeder was one of those so specified . Although
the respondent objected that some of those so named were not supervisory employees, it
made no such objection to Schroeder and certain others who , it conceded , had supervisory
authority.
.1'
CORN PRODUCTS RET'INING COMPANY 1387
The question which must be determined is whether the C. P E U. arose out
of and was the successor to the Plan. Wantland was chairman of the Employ-
ees' Representatives ender the Plan at the time the Regional Attorney and the
Regional Director, respectively, indicated to him and Curry early in 1938 that
the Plan,might be illegal. It was Wantland who made the appointments to
have the Employees' Representatives under the Plan confer with Murray in order
to have legal guidance, made arrangements for use of a hall in North' Kansas
City for the organizational meetings of March 26 and April 16, and presided at
both of those meetings. , Al Friend, another-Employees' Representative under the
Plan, acted as secretary at the April 16 meeting. Moreover, all the Employees'
Representatives under the Plan continued to serve under Wantland's leadership
in evolving the C. P. E. U. by conferring with Murray.' It was in such a
setting that employees at the meeting on April 16 signed applications for mem-
bership in the C. P. E. U. Of the eight who were elected C. P. E. U. Representatives
on this occasion four were Employees' Representatives under the Plan.
Moreover, developments at the -time of the C. P. E. U's inception show that
there was no break or line of cleavage between the two organizations. The
respondent did nothing to dissipate the effect on the employees of its prior active
assistance to the Plan. It did nothing to inform them that the activities of
Wantland and the other Employees' Representatives in initiating the Plan were
not regarded by it with- the same favor it had shown the 'Plan by its active
assistance. to that, labor organization. Under the circumstances the C. P. E. U.
necessarily appeared to the employees as a revision or revival of the Plan. That
the employees were not effectively and unmistakably informed that there was
a disestablishment of the Plan is shown by Butts' letter of July 28 to Manager
Curry in which Butts as Secretary of the C. P. E. U. Representatives inquired
as to the status of the Plan. The organization of the C. P. E. U. had by that
time been perfected. The respondent indicated in its reply written to Friend
and Butts, as Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the C. P. E. U. Repre-
sentatives that on May 10, 1938, the C. P. E U. demand for collective bargaining
re See footnote 14, supra
73 Although the Plan , as stated above , provided for nine Employees ' Representatives. only
eight were serving as such when the C. P. E. U. had its inception. Likewise the C P. E U.
by-laws provided for a board of nine Representatives. Al Friend and Hamlett in then
testimony named between them only eight C.• P. E U. Representatives as having been
elected on April 16. In addition to Friend, Hamlett, Reese, and Fox, they named William
Rose, B. E Haidin, L E. Fehrman, and Gail R Butts Wantland in his testimony named
also Cleo Schoolfield Frank A. Whaley, and himself. He apparently was referring, however,
to the situation at the time he took office in Septeinber-1938'and also was apparently includ-
ing among those named certain committee members who assisted the Representatives with
the bargaining, but were not Representatives The instant case is clearly distinguishable
on the basis of these facts from Matter of Providence Gas Company and Local No 122;3,
District 50, United Mine Workers of America (C. 1 0 ), 41 N L. R. B 1121 It was there
recognized that "the case turned upon the relationship of the officers of the Plan to the
creation of a new organization." There "employees wholly unconnected in representative
capacity with the Plan undertook the initiation of the Association." As indicated above,
In the case under consideration , Employee Representatives under the Plan initiated the
formation of the C. P. E U. by meeting with Murray, and subsequently attending the meetings
and participating in the formal organization of the C. P E . U Other acts of interference,
support, and domination which further distinguish the instant case are the subsequent
posting , of, notices - by ,.the , respondent , i- forbidding - solicitation , 'and announcing ' the-wage,
Increases hereinafter discussed . Cf Westinghouse Electric & Mfg, Co v. N L. R B., 112
F. (2d) 657, aff'd. per curiam, 312 U. S. 600; N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding if
Dry Dock Company, 308 U. S. 241; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F. (2d)
992; International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, aff'd 71 App. D C.
175; 110 F. ( 2d) 29, enfg . Matter of The derrick Corporation and International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 449, 8 N. L R B. 621.
1388 D'EICISJONTS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE ,LAff1ONS BOARD
rights had effected a disestablishment of the Plan " Even so, however, the
respondent still did not undertake to disabuse the minds of its employees gen-
erally of the effect of its support of the Plan.
As stated above, Federal Union No. 19964 on February 17, 1938, had filed
a charge against the respondent . This charge amended a previous charge filed
by this labor organization on May 19, 1937 . These charges alleged that the
respondent had discriminatorily discharged certain named employees and that
it had "sponsored , dominated , furnished financial support, and interfered with
the formation , and administration" of the Plan n The respondent contends
that regardless of the events detailed above , a stttlement effected on or about
May 10, 1940 , with respect to the allegations in these charges is a defense to the
complaint in this proceeding. Prior to the date of this settlement the respond-
ent had carried on certain negotiations through the Regional Office about these
charges.. On May 1, 1940 , the respondent wrote a Field Examiner of the
Board Ze a letter in which it disclaimed that it was admitting itself "guilty"
of the charges against it, but agreed " in full and final settlement of all charges
and amended charges" pending with the Board to reinstate four named em-
ployees alleged in the charges to have been discriminatorily discharged. It
also agreed to post on its plant bulletin boards for a period of 60 (lays a notice
which recited Section 7 and Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act. The notice
also recited that the respondent intended to abide by the spirit and substance
of the Act .2" The respondent reinstated the four named employees and posted
the agreed notices. Federal Union No.' 19964 withdrew the 'charges it had filed
against the respondent and on June 14, 1940 , the Regional Director wrote
Manager Curry," . .'. pursuant to the terms of the settlement , the charge in
the above matter has been withdrawn without prejudice by the charging party."
[Italics supplied I
Although the Board may proceed to a hearing and issue a decision and order
with respect to unfair labor practices regardless of a settlement agreement
affecting them, it has held that it will as a matter' of policy give effect to such
an agreement if doing so will effectuate the policies of the Act and further its
effective administration." It is not clear from the evidence whether the respond-
ent, Federal Union No. 19964, and the agents of the Board intended the settle-
ment mentioned above to be with prejudice . The respondent 's letter of May' 1,
1940, in which it states an understanding that the settlement was "in full 'and
final settlement of all charges and amended charges ," indicates an intention to
effectuate a settlement with prejudice . However, the Regional Director 's letter
of June 14, 1940, stating that "the charge" 2' had been withdrawn without
24 The portion of the respondent's reply letter here adverted to is as follows : "Your action
of May 10, 1938 , in requesting recognition of the Corn Products Employees Union as the sole
collective bargaining agent , because a majority of the employees are members of the organiza-
tion, in effect has disestablished collective bargaining activities with the Worker's Council."
28 See footnote 12, supra. -
24 Erroneously addressed in the respondent ' s letter as "Attorney."
27 The notice further recited' "This company interprets these provisions ( of the Act) to
mean that every employee is free from any interference or domination of the employer in any
form with respect to the exercise of his individual judgment regarding labor organizations and
that the employer must refrain from interfering in any manner with the employees ' rights
asset forth " herein.
29 Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc. and Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and,
No. 2188 affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N L R. B 5138; Matter of
Shenandoah -Dives Mining CompanV 'and International Union of Mine , Mill & Smelter Workers,
Iiocal No. 26, 11 N. L. R. B. 885.
29 As stated above, there were both an original and '.an ' amended charge - on file ' The
Regional Director 's letter, however , refers to "the charge"
CORN PRODUCTS' R'EPININGI COMPANY 1389
prejudice indicates a different intention from that expressed in the respond-
ent's letter to him. Moreover, a consideration of the language in the respond
ent's letter of May 1, 1940, and in the notice posted by it raises doubt as to
whether the parties contemplated a settlement of the 8 (2) allegations. They
were not mentioned in the respondent's letter. Furthermore, although the
notice posted by the respondent quoted Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act,
,it neither quoted nor mentioned Section 8 (2). Nor did the respondent do any-
thing at the time which might reasonably be deemed a settlement of the (8) (2)
allegations.'0
However, even if the parties did intend the agreement to effectuate a settle-
ment of the 8 (2) allegations in the charges, it would neither effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act nor further its effective administration to treat the settlement
as a defense to these proceedings in event after making- the settlement the
respondent committed further unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (2)
of the Act. In another similar situation the Board in considering whether a
settlement agreement should be deemed a defense stated :
Any such understanding obviously contemplated that the respondent
would not further engage in unfair labor practices and clearly was not
understood by the parties to be a bar to any determination by the Board
if the respondent did further engage in unfair labor practices"
The remarks in Thompson and Schroeder, after the advent of the C. I. O. in
1942 were acts of assistance to the C. P. E. U. and to the detriment of the C. I. O.
Moreover, the notice posted. by the respondent on or about July 18, 1942, pro-
hibiting all solicitation of any kind "on the plant premises" had the further effect
of interfering with C. I. 0. activities and inured to the benefit of the C. P. E U.,
which was then an established organization and under contract with the re-
spondent. Although normally the posting of such it notice might be innocuous, the
effect of posting it while the C. 1. O. was conducting an organizational drive and
was petitioning for an investigation and certification of representatives, was in-
evitable in its effect as interfering with the C. I. O. activities and assisting the
already well-entrenched C. P. E. U. Similarly, the method of distributing the
wage increase checks the latter part of August and the posting of the notice
announcing the increase could inevitably have only the same effect. Distribution
of the checks by the employees' supervisors necessarily vivified the event in the_
minds of the employees. Furthermore, such means of communicating the fact of
the increase, together with the notice, which failed to mention the role played by
the conciliator, conveyed the erroneous impression that all credit for the increase
was directly attributable to the C. P. E U.8 Mention ,in the same notice of "har-
monious,relationships" and the expression,of hope that they would continue, al-
though a laudable expression when given without indicating partiality as between
competing labor organizations, could under the circumstances be viewed by the
employees only as a bestowal of the respondent's favor on the C. P. E. U.
The undersigned finds that the C. P E. U. arose out of and was the successor to
the Plan ; that the respondent through its domination of the Plan and its failure
80 Cf. Matter of Corn Products Refining Company and United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing
Allied Workers of America , Local 169, 22 N L R. B 824, wherein a compromise agreement
specifically mentioned Section 8 (2) of the Act
Matter 'of Picker X-Ray Corporation , Waite Manufacturing Division , Inc. and Inter-
national Association of Machinists , 12 N. L. 'R. B 1384, 1395 ; see also Matter of Ingram
Manufacturing, Company land 'T'extan ^W,orkerriaOrganiztng'Committee ,, _ 5 N , L -R -,,B., 908,,
^ It is significant that soon ' after the wage increase Lester Herman, an criicer of the
'C. P. E U., told one of the other employees that the C. P. E. U. had nothing to do with
obtaining it.
1390 DIECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
to disestablish it made possiblethe initiation and establishment of the C. P. E. U.;
that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administra-
tion of the C. P. E. U. and contributed support thereto ; that by the conduct of
Thompson and Schroeder, by the posting of the respective notices on or about July
18 and on or about August 28, 1942, and by the totality-of the acts detailed above
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PIV,CGTICE84TTPON-- COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce-
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and`
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore
as nearly as possible the conditions which existed prior to the commission of
the unfair-labor practices..
The undersigned has found that the respondent dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the C. P. E. U. and contributed support
to it. The undersigned has also found that the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of Plan of Employee Representa-
tion Kansas City Plant Corn Products Refining Company, also known as Em-
ployees' Council Plan of Representation of the North Kansas City Plant, this
labor organization having at times been referred to as the Plan; further that
the C. P. E. U. is the successor to the Plan. The continued recognition of the
C. P. E. U. as the bargaining representative of the employees,of the respondent
constitutes a continuing obstacle to their free exercise of the right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing`. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent
withhold all recognition from the Plan and withdraw all recognition from the
T
a9 Counsel for the Boird also introduced certain evidence not discussed above , apparently
on the theory - that•it showed support , for the C . P. E. U. The , evidence"wis,designedzto
establish , among other thinzs, that the respondent gave a wage increase in November 1941
in order to assist the C. P. E. U. ; that it gave individual wage increases to certain employees
active for the C. P. E U.; that it made certain promotions of those who joined the C. P. E. U.
and granted C. P. E. U. requests that certain employees be promoted or given specified jobs ;
that it showed a discriminatory attitude toward C I 0. members ; and that it cooperated
with the C. P. E U in the method or manner in which it permitted applicants for member-
ship to fill out check -off authorizations in the personnel director 's office. The unders.gned
has considered this evidence and is not convinced that the respondent did any of the acts
referred to for the purpose of assisting the C. P . E. U or that the employees should reasonably
have viewed them as done for such purpose There is also evidence of certain remarks
signifying assistance to the C. P. E: U and opposition to the C. I. 0 by Leonard P.
Gwinn , head checker in the feed warehouse . „,The, respondent and,the C. P. E. U. contend
that Gwmn does not have supervisory authority. Although some`of the evidence-indicates
that Gwinn at times exercises minor supervisory authority by telling small groups of em-
ployees what to do , he is an hourly paid employee , has no power to hire or discharge, and
commionly does physical work with other employees in the feed warehouse. Under the
circumstances the undersigned is not convinced that the employees,should reasonably have
viewed Gwinn 's remarks a s made on behalf of the management.
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 1391
C. P. E. U. and disestablish it as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment. Since the contract of March' 14, 1941, between the respondent and
the C. P. E. U. embodies recognition of that organization as exclusive bargaining
representative of the respondent's employees, and since such contract 'represents
the fruit of the respondent's unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recom-
'mend,that"the respondent, cease 1giving effect to it or to any existing contract
between it and the C. P E. U. and to any modification or extension thereof.
Nothing in the undersigned's recommendations, however, shall be construed as
requiring the respondent to vary its wage, hour, and other substantial features
of its relations with the employees themselves, if any, which the respondent has
established,in the performance of the contract as extended, renewed, modified,
supplemented, or superseded.34
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Industrial Union No. 1216, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations (CIO), and The Corn Products Employees' Union of North Kan-
sas City are labok"organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
At.
2. Plan of Employee Representation Kansas City Plant Corn Pioducts Re-
fining Company, also known as Employees' Council Plan of Representation of
the North Kansas City Plant, was a labor organization, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Plan of Employee Representation Kansas City Plant Corn Products Refining
Company, also known as Employees' Council Plan of Representation of the
North Kansas City Plant, and contributing support thereto, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (2) of the Act. -
4 By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
The Corn Products Employees' Union of North Kansas City, and contributing
support thereto, the respondent;has;engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices; witlrin`tlie meaviii of Section 81(2) of the Act.
5. 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. -
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
94Although,the C P E U. has'for some time used voluntary check-off authorizations as a
device for.,dnes collections, its by-laws do not require members of that labor organization to
use the check-off,and,none of the contracts between'it and the respondent have provided
either for the check-off or, the closed shop. Consequently.' employment is not conditioned
upon C. P. E. U.' membership or execution' of dues-,chec1i-off autliorizationsi Under the
circumstances no 'recommendation will be made that the respondent reimburse employees
for dues checked off. See footnote 33, supra. Cf. N L R B v Virginia Electric & Power
Co, 314 U. S. 469, reveising and remanding 115 F (2d) 114 (C. C A. 4) ; 132 F. (2d) 390
(C C. A. 4), enforcing 44 N. L. R. B. 404, cert. granted March 15, 1943.
1392 D 'EICISI 'ONTS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE ,LA(I`IONS B:OiAR.D
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. the under-
signed recommends that the respondent , Corn Products Refining Company, its
officers, agents , sucessors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administration of
Plan of Employee Representation Kansas City Plant Corn Products Refining
Company, also known as Employees ' Council Plan of Representation of the
North Kansas City Plant, or of "The Corn Product's ' Employees ' Union of North
Kansas City, or with the formation and administration of any other labor
organization of its employees and from contributing support thereto ;
(b) Recognizing Plan of Employee Representation Kansas City Plant Corn
Products Refining Company , also known as Employees ' Council Plan of Rep-
resentation of the North Kansas City Plant, and The Corn Products Employees"
Union of North Kansas City as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor dis-
putes, wages , rates of pay , hours ' of employment , or other conditions 'of
employment ;
(c) Giving effect to its contract dated March 14, 1941 , with The Corn Products
Employees ' Union of North Kansas City or to any modification , extension, or
renewal thereof ;
(d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining ,, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights to self -organization , to form, join, or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes -of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the "undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withhold all recognition from Plan of Employee Representation Kansas
City Plant Corn Products Refining Company , also known as Employees ' Council
Plan of Representation of the North Kansas City Plant, and withdraw all recogni-
tion from and completely disestablish The Corn Products Employees ' Union of
North Kansas City as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other .conditions of.employment ;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places ,in its plant in North Kansas City,
Missouri , 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 is recommended that it cease and desist in
parhgraph 1 (a), (b), (c ), and (d ) hereof ; and (2 ) that the respondent will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a j hereof ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
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
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
'Labor Relations Board issue an-order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board ," Series 2-as amended-effective October 28,
1942, any party mhy within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of the entry of the
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 1393
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of
said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Shoreham Building , Washington,
D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceed-
ing (including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together
with the original and four copies of a brief iii support thereof. As further pro-
vided 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 entry of the order transferring the case to the Board.
WM. B. BARTON,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 1, 1943.