Detroit Plastic Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1182 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not discriminatively discharge John Curreli, Thurlow
Kelly, Richard Montgomery , and Clifford Skodak or discriminatively refuse to
rehire these named persons as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Detroit Plastic Products Company 1 and United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO 2 and
Employees Representative Association , Party to the Contract
Employees Representative Association 3 and United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO
and Detroit Plastic Products Company,' Party to the Contract.
Cases Nos. 7-CA-1626, 7-CA-1939, and 7-CB-366. March 20,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 22, 1959, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these
cases , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions and modifications
noted below.
1. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons stated
in the Intermediate Report, we find that the Employer engaged in
surveillance of its employees for the purpose of discovering their union
sentiments thereby violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
2. As did the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons given in the
Intermediate Report, we find that ERA, by threatening employees in
order to obtain signatures for an ERA petition and to collect dues
and initiation fees, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A).
Referred to hereinafter as the Employer.
2 Referred to hereinafter as United.
Referred to hereinafter as ERA.
The caption of the Intermediate Report is hereby corrected to show the name of the
Party to the Contract in Case No . 7-CB-366 as set forth herein.
X126 NLRB No. 138.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1183
3. We find merit in the General Counsel's exception to the Trial
Examiner's finding that the Midwest Piping doctrine 5 does not apply
in this case because the General Counsel allegedly did not sustain his
burden of showing that the unit sought by United was appropriate.
At no time did the Respondents contend that the unit for which the
Union sought recognition was inappropriate; this argument was
raised sua sponte by the Trial Examiner.
ERA and the Employer engaged in collective bargaining between
May and August 1957. The agreement resulting from these negotia-
tions was not signed until November 19, 1957. However, on Novem-
ber 15, 1957, United wrote a letter to the Employer claiming to repre-
sent a majority of the latter's employees and demanding recognition
and bargaining. The letter was received by the Employer on No-
vember 18, before the collective-bargaining agreement was signed.
On November 29, 1957, United filed a representation petition with the
Regional Directors In both the letter and the petition, United
sought to represent all the production and maintenance employees of
the Employer and Jones Plastic Company.
According to the Board's Decision and Order in Hilmu H. Erickson
et al., d/b/a Detroit Plastic Products Co.,' of which we take judicial
notice, Jones Plastic Company is owned and operated by Erikson, the
Employer's president, and his father-in-law, Morrison. Morrison
manages Jones for the benefit of both principals. Until a short time
before the hearing, in the earlier case, Morrison was on the Employer's
payroll. Jones' business consists of marketing plastic advertising
products and specialties. About 90 percent of the items sold by Jones
are purchased from the Employer. Morrison directs the work of the
Employer's employees when they are engaged in production for Jones.
Jones' production, consisting of packaging and labeling shipments, is
done by its usual work force of two production employees. The
Employer and Jones frequently interchange production employees.
Jones rents a portion of the Employer's plant which is not separated
from the Employer's operations by any enclosure. In addition, Jones
rents office space in the Employer's office, in which it maintains an
office with one clerical employee. Jones' office clerical assists the
Employer's office clericals on a reciprocal basis.
Apart from the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and ERA, there is no bargaining history for either of these
firms. In view of the close relationship between the Employer and
Jones through Erikson's financial and operational control of both,
their functional integration, frequent interchange of employees, physi-
S Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060.
9 Case No. 7-RC-3645. The petition was timely filed under the rule in General Electric
I-Ray Corporation , 67 NLRB 997, then in effect. The last day of the prescribed 10-day
period following November 18, 1957 , fell on Thanksgiving , a legal holiday.
7 121 NLRB 448, 505, et seq , enfd. as mod. 273 F . 2d 477 (C.A. 6).
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cal proximity, and enjoyment of common office and plant facilities,
we find that the two companies constitute a single employer for the
purpose of collective bargaining.8 Accordingly, we further find that
the unit for which United requested bargaining rights is appropriate.'
Moreover, assuming arguendo, that the proposed inclusion of Jones'
two employees in the unit of over 80 employees was improper, the
variation between the unit sought and the admittedly appropriate unit
of the Employer's employees is too insubstantial to render the Midwest
Piping doctrine inapplicable on that account.10 Accordingly, we find
that, by entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with ERA
on November 19, 1957, in the face of United's outstanding claim of
majority status which raised a real question concerning representation,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act."
We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent
Employer also violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) by unlawfully assist-
ing the ERA. In this connection, we rely particularly upon the
Employer's conduct in ratification of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Employer and ERA. However, we do not agree
with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent Employer's
assistance to ERA amounted to unlawful domination.12 We shall,
therefore, not adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation that ERA
be disestablished.
4. In view of the Employer's unlawful assistance to ERA, we find,
in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Employer violated
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) and ERA violated Section 8(b) (2) and
(1) (A) of the Act, by entering into and enforcing a collective-
bargaining agreement containing a union-security provision.13
5. In view of ERA's use of threats to secure payment of dues and
initiation fees, we shall order ERA to reimburse the Employer's
employees for all dues and initiation fees paid by them to or for
ERA.14
8 Sunnyland Packing Company, et al, 113 NLRB 162; Sanitary Mattress Company,
Rest Line of California, Inc, 109 NLRB 1010.
9 Brown Engineering Company, Inc ., 123 NLRB 1619; Consolidated Cement Corporation,
117 NLRB 492.
10 See United Butchers Abattoir, Inc., 123 NLRB 946.
"Shea Chemical Corporation , 121 NLRB 1027.
12 Adhesive Products Corporation , 117 NLRB 265, 267, remanded on other grounds
258 F. 2d 403 (C.A. 2), where the Board summed up existing precedent as to domination
as follows :
The Board has found domination in cases where the employer not only furnished
the original impetus for the organization but there were present such additional
factors as ( a) the employer also prescribed the nature , structure, and functions of
the organization ; (b) the organization never developed any real form at all, such as
a constitution or by-laws , dues or a treasury, never held any meetings and had no
assets other than a contract bestowed by the employer; ( c) representatives of man-
agement actually took part in the meetings or activities of the committee or
attempted to influence its policies.
" Jersey Contracting Corp., 112 NLRB 660.
14 Marlin Rockwell Corporation, 114 NLRB 553.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION OF LAW
1185
By entering into a collective-bargaining contract with Employees
Representative Association on November 19, 1957, while a real ques-
tion concerning representation was pending, the Respondent Employer
contributed illegal assistance and support to the said labor organiza-
tion, thereby violating Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. The Respondent Employer, Detroit Plastic Products Company,
Mount Clemens, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Putting identifying marks under the stamps of return enve-
lopes or engaging in other forms of surveillance of its employees'
union sentiments and activities.
(b) Interfering with, assisting, or contributing support to Em-
ployees Representative Association, or any other labor organization of
its employees.
(c) Recognizing Employees Representative Association, or any
successor thereto, as the representative of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the Employer concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have
been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
exclusive representative of the Employer's employees.
(d) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated
November 19, 1957, between the Employer and Employees Repre-
sentative Association, or to any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof unless and until the said labor organization shall have been
duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of the Employer's employees; provided, however, that
nothing in this Decision and Order shall require the Employer to vary
or abandon those wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive features
of its relations with its employees, established in performance of any
such agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any
rights they may have thereunder.
(e) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the
554461-60-vol. 126-76
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Employees Rep-
resentative Association as the exclusive representative of its employees
for the purposes of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, unless and until the said labor organization has been
duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
(b) Post at its plant in Mount Clemens, Michigan, copies of the
notices attached hereto marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B." 15
Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), shall, after being duly signed by
the respective representatives, be posted by the Employer and main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Employer to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Seventh Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A," for post-
ing by Employees Representative Association. Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by said Regional Director, shall, after being duly
signed by the Employer's representative, be forthwith returned to
said Regional Director for such posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps the Em-
ployer has taken to comply herewith.
B. The Respondent Union, Employees Representative Association,
its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Performing, enforcing, or giving effect to its collective-bar-
gaining agreement dated November 19, 1957, with the Employer or
entering into or enforcing any extension, renewal, modification, or
supplement thereof with the Employer, unless and until said labor
organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisal if they
do not sign documents for, or pay dues and initiation fees to, Em-
ployees Representative Association.
is In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1187
(c) In any like or related manner, restraining or coercing the em-
ployees of the Employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Reimburse the present and former employees of the Employer
for all dues and initiation fees, paid to or for Employees Representa-
tive Association by the said employees.
(b) Post at any office it has, copies of the notices attached hereto
marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B." Copies of said notices,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents' respective repre-
sentatives, be posted by the Employees Representative Association
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Employees Representative Association to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Seventh Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B," for post-
ing by Respondent Company. Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by said Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by a repre-
sentative of Employees Representative Association, be forthwith re-
turned to said Regional Director for such posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interfere with, assist, or contribute support to
Employees Representative Association, or any other labor organ-
ization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize Employees Representative Association,
or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev-
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
antes, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, unless and until the said labor
organization shall have been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement
dated November 19, 1957, between Employees Representative
Association, and ourselves : Provided, however, that nothing in
the Decision and Order requires us to vary or abandon those
wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive features of our rela-
tions with our employees, established in performance of such any
agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any
rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT put identifying marks under the stamps of return
envelopes or engage in any other form of surveillance of our em-
ployees' union sentiments or activities.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming members of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, except
to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in con-
formity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATION
AND TO EMPLOYEES OF DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our members and all
employees of the above-named Company that :
WE WILL NOT perform, enforce, or give effect to our collective-
bargaining agreement of November 19, 1957, with Detroit Plastic
Products Company, or enter into or enforce any extension, re-
newal, modification, or supplement thereof.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1189
WE WILL reimburse present and former employees of the Com-
pany for all initiation fees and dues paid by the employees to or
for us.
WE WILL NOT threaten the employees of Detroit Plastic Prod-
ucts Company with discharge or other reprisals for failing to sign
documents for us or failing to pay initiation fees or dues to us.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATION,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Alba B. Martin,
the duly designated Trial Examiner, in Detroit, Michigan, on December 8 to 11,
1958, on complaints of the General Counsel against Detroit Plastic Products Com-
pany, herein referred to as Respondent Company and the Company, and against
Employees Representative Association herein called the ERA. The issues litigated
were whether Respondent Company dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the ERA and contributed assistance and support to it in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act; and whether Respondent
ERA, by restraining and coercing employees, and by entering into an unlawful
union-security contract with Respondent Company and pursuant thereto unlawfully
collecting initiation fees and dues from employees, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the Act. No party presented oral argument, but the General Counsel
and the Company filed briefs which have been carefully considered. At the conclu-
sion of the testimony decision was reserved on motions of Respondent Company
and Respondent ERA to dismiss the complaint for want of proof. These motions
are hereby disposed of in accordance with the conclusions and findings herein.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
Detroit Plastic Products Company is a Michigan corporation with its principal
place of business located in Mount Clements, Michigan, where it operates a manu-
facturing plant producing plastic products. During the calendar year 1957, which
is representative of all times material hereto, Respondent Company sold and shipped
from its Mount Clemens plant to points outside the State of Michigan, an interstate
commerce, finished products valued in excess of $100,000. During said period
Respondent Company also sold finished products valued in excess of $100,000 to
firms in Michigan, each of which, in turn, shipped goods outside the State of
Michigan valued in excess of $50,000 annually. On these facts I find that Respondent
Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board I to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Rubber , Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called United , and Employees Representative Association , herein called ERA,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
'The National Labor Relations Board is referred to herein as the Board
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prior pertinent unremedie 'd unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
and its predecessors
Respondent, Detroit Plastic Products Company, came into being January 1, 1957,
succeeding to the business and unfair labor practices committed by a predecessor
partnership owned by Erik E. Erikson and his mother, the business having been
formed by Erik E. Erikson, referred to herein as Erikson, in 1950. Erikson was the
chief executive officer of the partnership and at all times has been and is the president
of the Respondent. Most of Respondent's employees are female employees.
Based upon proof before it of the activities of Erikson and of William P. Richards,
the plant production and personnel manager, during the organizational campaign
of two "outside" unions, one by a CIO union during 1952 and the other by an
AFL union during 1954-55, the Board has held that "it is clear from the above
facts . . . that while Respondents have not been adverse to self-organization of
their employees into an independent labor organization . . . they have since 1954
demonstrated hostility to their affiliation with `outside' labor organizations affiliated
with the AFL or CIO." 2 Nothing in the record of the hearing before me establishes
any change in this prevailing attitude of the Company.
The Charging Union here, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, the third "outside" union to attempt to organize Respondent's
employees, began its organizational campaign at Respondent's plant on May 31,
1956. The following day Erikson had a long talk with Angeline Romesburg, who
was known by him to be in favor of an "outside" union , about United, during which
he learned she thought well of United and during which Erikson threatened to "sell
the shop." Several days later Erikson again came to Romesburg's machine and,
after further conversation about United, asked her if she knew that Aluminum
Model Toys, another plastic manufacturer in the Detroit area, with whom Respond-
ents, to the knowledge of the employees, did business, had an "independent union"
and that it was a good one. When Romesburg asked Erikson if he wanted an
independent union , Erikson answered that her question had already been answered
by the Board,3 that Trial Examiner Shaw had already "named the Employees
Representative Group as the union, and the only thing that union lacked was cer-
tification," and that he understood a movement for certification was being "spark
plugged" by employees Martha Paga and Joyce Constance. As to the working of
such a union, Erikson explained that the girls would have to get "independent union
papers," hold a meeting and sign them, and he had a good labor lawyer who would
write up a good contract for them which would be filed with the Board, as in the
case of any other large union. Romesburg suggested Erikson call a meeting of the
female employees in the shop and talk it over with them He replied he could not
do that because the "NLRB is going to get me," and said the girls would have to
hold a meeting outside the shop. Romesburg then suggested that she would call
a meeting of the female employees at her home, and asked if Erikson would attend.
2121 NLRB 448. In its Decision and Order, issued August 14, 1958, the Board found
that Respondent and its predecessors violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) "inter-
rogating employees and applicants for employment concerning their union sympathies
and activities, (2) threatening shutdown or sale of the plant and discharges of In-
dividual employees; (3) attempting to form an unaffiliated rival union ; (4) actually
shutting down the plant, thereby curtailing plant operations and laying off employees;
and (5) issuing undeserved warning notices of discharges for allegedly bad work. The
Board held further that Respondents had discriminatorily discharged six employees.
All of these unfair labor practices except those in item (1) occurred during United's
campaign to organize between May 31 and October 9, 1956. To remedy these aggravated
unfair labor practices the Board ordered the Respondents and their successors to cease
and desist from all these activities, to offer reinstatement and backpay to the six dis-
criminatees, to make whole the employees for any loss of earnings during the plant
shutdown and lockout, and to post the appropriate notice. Concerning the unaffiliated
union aspect, the Board ordered Respondents to cease and desist from "initiating,
sponsoring, or assisting in the formation of any labor organization of their employees."
Respondents, Including Respondent herein, the successor, chose not to comply with this
Order. The Board has petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit to enforce its Order The court's decisions has not yet been announced
3 This was a reference to the Board's decision in 114 NLRB 1014, wherein the Board
found that the Employees Representative Group was not company dominated In its
formation or administration.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1191
He said he could not do that. Romesburg asked if he would post a notice on the
plant bulletin board announcing a Saturday meeting at her home. He said he could
not do that either, because of the Board, but suggested that Romesburg could have
Lucille, Respondents' office clerk,4 type copies of a notice for her, which she could
post on the plant bulletin board, and also distribute to workers on all shifts through
their ERG representative. He also said that Romesburg would not have to procure
"independent union papers," because Martha Paga already had them in her locker
in the plant. Romesburg at once called a relief girl to take over her machine and
went to the office to have Lucille prepare the notice. Erikson told Lucille she could
type it for Romesburg, but since neither girl knew how to word it, he told Lucille
what to say in the notice. Lucille typed the notice which read:
ATTENTION-GIRLS
THERE WILL BE A SHOP MEETING OF ALL SHIFTS ON SAT. JUNE 9,
1956, 3: P.M. at 16760 STRICKER, CORNER OF STRICKER AND
SHAKESPEARE, EAST DETROIT, MICHIGAN. PLEASE ATTEND.
Lucille brought the slips in three separate envelopes to Romesburg, who gave one
envelope to Julia Schaller, the day shift representative, and the other two to Joyce
Constance, the afternoon shift representative, asking her to deliver one to Alice
DeCook, the midnight shift representative, for distribution to girls on their respec-
tive shifts. She also left word for Paga to leave the "independent union papers"
at Romesburg's machine the next morning. Romesburg found them there at that
time.5 Romesburg, whose testimony was credited, testified that after they had re-
ceived the slips announcing the meeting,
. then the girls all came up to my machine and asked me if Mr. Erikson
knew all about this, and I said, "Yes, he knows all about it. . . . I am going
to explain to all of you girls at that meeting what he explained to me."
Concerning the meeting Romesburg testified as follows:
We had this meeting in my home on June 9th, at three o'clock in the after-
noon. There were twenty-six girls present, so I started the meeting, and I told
the girls why we were there, and I explained everything to them, like Mr.
Erikson explained to me, and one girl jumps up-Rose DeBash-she said,
"Well, listen. Mr. Erikson came to me yesterday, came to Edith and I"-those
were our two relief girls on days-and she says, "He came to us just yesterday
and said, `When you go to that meeting tomorrow, Angie wants the independent
union , not me. I don't want any." '
So I spoke up, and I said, "You want to know what I want?" I said, "I want
the big International Union." I said, "I don't want the Independent Union."
I said, "I am just here explaining the Independent Union as he explained it to
me," and another girl jumped up by the name of Myrtle Clark, and she said,
"That's right. Mr. Erikson wants the Independent Union." So that broke up
the meeting. Everyone started talking at once, and that was the end of the
meeting.5
On an unidentified date after the meeting, Erikson heard rumors around the
plant that Romesburg had tried to "organize the union" (meaning United) at the
meeting, and had promised the employees a 10-cent wage raise if they would sign
some sort of petition. On the basis of that rumor, Erikson came to Romesburg
while working at her machine and asked her if she had made that promise. She
admitted she had, saying, "You have got to promise them something." Erikson
replied that "you cannot in the name of the company promise anything anywhere,
and I want you to go back to the people you promised and say that it is a black-
faced lie." 7
Employees Representative Group (ERG), an independent labor organization, had
been in existence since 1952, but had never achieved formal status with a charter,
nor collected dues, issued membership cards, held regular meetings, or exercised
other functions usually indicative of a formal labor organization . It had never
4 At the hearing before me Lucille Wantland identified herself as "the bookkeeper
and office manager"
5 The facts set forth in this paragraph were 'found by the Board in 121 NLRB 448, of
which I take official notice
e Romesburg 's quoted testimony was given at the hearing in 121 NLRB 448, and was
the basis of the Board' s findings concerning the meeting and Erikson ' s statements and
activities leading up to it.
7 The facts set forth in this paragraph were found by the Board in 121 NLRB 448.
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiated or signed a formal collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent or its
predecessors, and had never been certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees. During the pendency of a 1955 representation
proceeding, a Board agent apparently sent Respondent and the representatives of
ERG the appropriate documents which would enable ERG to intervene and be
placed on the ballot at the 1955 election, but ERG never took that step. Since
that election, and in view of its outcome (the defeat of the "outside" AFL union),
Respondent and its predecessors dealt in desultory fashion with ERG as a grievance
committee until the birth of Employees Representative Association, considered below.
In the light of these facts, found by the Board in 121 NLRB 448, the Board
there found that Erikson's suggestions to Romesburg regarding the formation of an
independent union, including his mention of the fact that ERG lacked only certifica-
tion, and that Romesburg could make use of the "independent union papers" which
another employee had already procured, were made,
with the purpose of persuading Romesburg, an employee of long service
who had been an open advocate of unionism, to take steps to complete the
formalization of ERG as a labor organization, with the intent that it seek
certification by the Board, so that Respondents could sign a formal collective-
bargaining contract with it. He implemented these suggestions by using facilities
and worktime of employees for preparation of the notice of the meeting he had
suggested, and its distribution to all female employees. Finally, when Erikson
got reports after the meeting about Romesburg's attempts to organize the
workers there, including a reported promise of a wage raise, he tried to per-
suade her to retract the promise publicly, on the assumption that it had been
made in the name of the Partnership, which further indicates that the meeting
was employer-sponsored and that Erikson was well aware that the employees
knew it and would have reason to believe that any statements made by
Romesburg emanated from management. Erikson's suggestions and assistance
coming a few days after the Union began its campaign, and in a context of
other coercive remarks which demonstrated Respondents' hostility to an "out-
side" labor union, support the conclusion that Erikson was thereby trying to
initiate and set up a formal labor organization, using ERG as the foundation,
for the purpose of combating and forestalling the Union's [United's] organiza-
tional drive. Such conduct was an unwarranted intrusion by the employer upon
the right of employees, protected by the Act, to engage in concerted activity
for or against a union, and to freely choose their own bargaining representa-
tive, and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The violation is not lessened
or eliminated by the fact that the attempt was abortive. The DeVilbiss Com-
pany, 102 NLRB 1317, 1322, 1323; Harrisburg Building Units Co., Inc., et at.,
116 NLRB 334, 352, 353.
B. Domination of and assistance to ERA
Despite the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent's predecessors,
including President Erikson, during United's organizational campaign in 1956,
United waived any effect these unfair labor practices may have had upon an election
and was the only union on the ballot of a Board-conducted election held October 9,
1956, which United lost. It is impossible not to conclude that the unfair labor
practices and Erikson's hostility towards the "outside" union had a considerable
impact upon the result of the election.
Immediately after this election Myrtle Clark picked up the promotion of an
"independent" union exactly where Romesburg had left off, and with a strong
drive executed Erikson's ideas as to the nature and structure of the organization and
the procedure for attaining it. Her effort carried through to Erikson's objective
of a contract between the Company and the "independent" union, and the filing of
a petition for certification with the Board .8 Executing Erikson's idea she contacted
the independent union at Aluminum Model Toys, and then escorted groups of the
Company's employees to the vicinity of the Aluminum Model Toys plant to talk
with the president of the independent union there. With the help of a lawyer sug-
gested to her by Respondent's attorney, as prescribed by Erikson, an "independent
union paper" (the so-called "first petition") was drawn up and, as suggested by
Erikson, employees were solicited to sign it . As prescribed by Erikson meetings of
$ ERA's petition was filed June 3, 1957 (Case No. 7-RC-3519), unpublished. On
January 9, 1958, the Regional Director informed ERA that he was refusing to issue a
notice of hearing because ERA was not in compliance with Section 9(f) and (g) of the
Act. Upon review, the Board affirmed the Regional Director's action on February 10, 1958.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1193
employees were held, meetings of employees apparently not having been held under
the ERG. As suggested by Erikson, the organization retained the shift representa-
tive system called ERG, and, insofar as the record shows, it did so without any
discussion.
To engage a lawyer for the organization Myrtle Clark made what she called an
"anonymous" telephone call to Erikson's lawyer, Miss Dee Edwards, Clark having
testified as a witness called by Miss Edwards in the first case against the Company,
114 NLRB 1014, about 13/4 years earlier. As Clark expressed it, "I was in court
with her, and I got to know her." Clark, who has a distinctive and easily ,remem-
bered voice, refused to give her name and asked Miss Edwards to recommend a
good labor lawyer other than herself "to take care of delicate matters for a
company." That Clark phrased her request in this way strongly suggests that in
setting up the new organization she was acting on behalf of the Company rather
than the employees, that she knew this and considered the matter "delicate." Clark
specified that she would prefer a lawyer "not quite so far downtown" as Edwards was,
thereby disclosing to Edwards that the caller knew where Edwards was. When
Miss Edwards asked who was calling Clark replied that she would rather not say,
that Edwards could either give her a name or she didn't have to. Without insisting
that the person on the other end of the line identify herself, and apparently willing
to assist the unnamed voice, Miss Edwards said, "Well, Howard Kelley in Royal Oak
is a pretty good labor lawyer." That was the end of the conversation. Although
Miss Edwards represented Respondent at the hearing herein, she did not take the
witness stand and deny that she recognized the voice of Myrtle Clark, and she did
not deny that she suspected that the "company," for whom the labor lawyer was
wanted to take care of a delicate matter, was Respondent or its predecessor. The
record does not reveal when or under what circumstances Miss Edwards definitely
learned that Howard Kelley was ERA's lawyer or what she said on that occasion.
Nor does the record suggest any other client for whom Miss Edwards might receive
an anonymous telephone call from a female voice which wanted a labor lawyer
to handle a delicate matter for a company.
With Myrtle Clark when she went to see Howard Kelley were Lillian Adams and
Edith Maison, two other employees. These three employees engaged Kelley to
serve as the lawyer for the new group. Attorney Kelley prepared a document,
referred to herein as the "first petition," dated October 15, 1956, addressed to "Erik
Erikson, Detroit Plastic Products Company," which after some writing provided
space for signatures , addresses, and clock numbers of employees. In two short pe-
riods that afternoon and night the three employees stood outside the plant and
obtained on this "first petition" 24 signatures of employees going to and from work.
The following day and without any verbal request in doing so, Myrtle Clark pre-
sented this document to Erikson, who without checking the authenticity of the
signatures or the number then on the payroll or discussing the composition of an
appropriate bargaining unit, said to Clark in substance, "This is apparently what my
employees want. I have no choice but to accept the Employees Representative
Association because you have way over a majority." Thereupon Erikson posted
a notice on the Company's only bulletin board saying in substance that he "accepted"
the ERA but that he could not "recognize" it because it was not "registered" with
the Board. The "first petition" drawn up by Kelley and handed to Erikson by
Clark said,
We the undersigned, employees of Detroit Plastic Products Company, exclusive
of Supervisory and Office Employees, desire that the Employees Representative
Association, represent us in all matters concerning wages, hours and working
conditions and hereby designate said Employees Representatives Association our
bargaining agent. By our signatures attached hereto, we indicate our mem-
bership on the Employees Representative Association and our designation of
bargaining agent.
To be noted is that this "first petition" was at most a statement of joining and a
designation of bargaining agent by the signers and was not a request for either
"acceptance" or "recognition" by the Company; and that Erikson therefore "accepted"
the ERA and posted a notice about not recognizing it before any request or demand
that he accept or recognize it was made upon him. By contrast, as will be seen
below, when later United made written request for bargaining and recognition,
Erikson did not even answer its letter but instead signed a contract with ERA. This
rapid "acceptance" of ERA was in great contrast also to the hostility displayed by
Erikson towards a local of the International Union of Doll and Toy Workers, AFL,
during its 1954-55 organizational campaign and towards United during its June to
October 1956 campaign-as found by the Board in 121 NLRB 448.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the name of ERA first appeared in the "first petition" drawn up by Kelley
after consultation with Clark and the two other employees, it was apparently these
four who determined the name of ERA prior to any organizational meeting of the
employees.
ERA held organizational meetings away from the plant on Sunday, November 11,
1956, and on Saturdays, December 8, 1956, and March 23, 1957. Much testimony
was directed to the question as to whether Respondent assisted ERA by excusing the
employees from work so that they could attend any or all of these meetings. In
the estimation of ERA President Myrtle Clark, Erikson was very cooperative with
them in giving them time off for meetings, the requests for time off being "by a
majority of the people in the plant." The only requests in the record for time off
for meetings were made by Myrtle Clark.
During October and November 1956 the plant was working 7 days a week.
Several times during this period Clark asked Erikson for a Sunday off for all the
employees so that they could hold a meeting, Clark explaining to Erikson that there
was an urgency to get things discussed. Finally they were given Sunday, November
11, off and ERA held its first meeting.
At the first meeting, not well attended, officers were elected and those present
discussed what they would like to have in a contract. According to Clark,
That was like pulling teeth, to try to get the people to give suggestions. I tried
to explain to them as much as I could what you could ask for in a contract, and
what we would like to have, and I asked for other suggestions. I even asked
people to go out and read other contracts.
Kelley was not present at this meeting.
As a result of alleged dissatisfaction among employees with the officers elected
at the first meeting, and because so few had been present at the first meeting, at the
second meeting the election of officers of the first meeting was somehow voided and
new officers were elected. This meeting was attended by Kelley and Myrtle Clark
was elected president. An uncle of Erik Erikson, Edward Erikson, an employee in
the plant, was elected treasurer.
At one, or possibly both, of the first two meetings, a collection was taken up for
the payment of rent for the meeting hall.
At this time the Company worked three shifts, a morning shift from 7 a in. until
3 p.m.; an afternoon shift from 3 until 11 p m.; and a midnight shift from 11 p.m.
until 7 a.m. Ever since the beginning of the Employees Representative Group the
employees of each shift had elected one shift representative to deal with manage-
ment on their behalf on grievance matters, and these shift representatives had always
been elected in the plant on company time. At the second meeting of ERA there
were not enough present from each shift to elect shift representatives, so Kelley
suggested that shift representatives be elected in the shop as they had been in the past.
Shortly after the December 8 meeting the three shift representatives were elected
in the shop on company time while the girls were working at their machines. On
the day shift where she worked, Myrtle Clark had the relief girl, whose duty is to
go from machine to machine, take a poll for nominations, and then take a poll for
the shift representative. The girls wrote their choice on "okay" slips which they
used in their work .9 Myrtle Clark testified in substance that the Company knew
nothing about this election on company time. In view of the long history of con-
ducting such elections on company time, however, and in view of the full informa-
tion Respondent had concerning the employees' union activities-as disclosed in 121
NLRB 448-it is probable that Erikson knew of these elections of shift representa-
tives on company time and certain that he condoned any of those he heard about.
To be noted in this connection is that Clark's affidavit previously given to a Board
field examiner was silent as to company knowledge or lack of it concerning the
conduct of this election on company time.10
a In her affidavit Clark stated that "I believe the afternoon shift conducted their
election in the same manner."
10 Called as a witness by the General Counsel, during direct examination Myrtle Clark,
professing a poor memory concerning much of her testimony, leaned heavily upon her
affidavit. The affidavit contains a clear and unambiguous narration of facts concerning
the events about which she testified, including some self-serving declarations The
affidavit was executed June 12, 1957, which was 18 months closer to the events and when
her memory was necessarily fresher concerning the events than it was at the hearing.
Under these circumstances I credit Clark's oral testimony before me no more than that
such testimony is not inconsistent with her earlier sworn affidavit. Cf. County Electric
Co., Inc., et al., 116 NLRB 1080, 1083.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1195
During March 1957, the plant was working the usual three shifts on Saturdays as
well as weekdays, but on Saturdays with a reduced number of personnel on each
shift. When the plant was working 6 or 7 days a week the custom was that manage-
ment would post a notice on Thursday or Friday indicating whether the plant would
be operating Saturday or Sunday or both. About the middle of March, President
Myrtle Clark asked Production Manager Richards when would be the first Saturday
that they would have off, and Richards gave her the date of March 23. Shortly
thereafter Clark asked and received Richards' permission to post on the plant's only
bulletin board a notice for a meeting and then had another employee post a notice
announcing an ERA meeting for March 23 sometime between 1 and 2 p.m. Re-
spondent's first weekend work notice for that weekend stated that there would be no
work on Saturday, March 23, but then a rush order came in with the result that on
Friday Respondent posted another notice changing the weekend work order.ll In-
stead of not working at all that Saturday the morning shift worked until noon, at
which time the plant closed down. Insofar as the record shows this was the only
occasion when the morning shift working Saturday was let off at noon. The after-
noon shift worked that afternoon, presumably starting at its normal time of 3 p.m.
The midnight shift worked also that Saturday. Of a total of 43 on the morning
shift that week, 35 worked on Saturday; of a total of 11 on the afternoon shift that
week, 6 worked on Saturday; of a total of 12 on the midnight shift that week, 11
worked on Saturday. The notice of the ERA meeting had been on the bulletin
board for a week or two when Respondent changed its no-work order for that
Saturday and worked the clock around as usual except for the 3-hour period noon to
3 p.m., during which period the ERA held its meeting. The record suggests no rea-
son except to assist the ERA that Respondent, with its rush order to be filled,
excused the morning shift for its last 3 hours and then worked the other two full
time and with quite full complement of personnel. On the entire record considered
as a whole I believe and hold that on March 23, 1957, Respondent closed the plant
from noon until 3 p.m. in order to assist ERA in having a good turnout of em-
ployees at its meeting.
In addition to the above, Respondent assisted ERA by preparing a list of the
Company's employees for ERA's lawyer, by permitting the use of company facilities
such as the bulletin board and office typewriters, and by posting a notice recogniz-
ing ERA before ERA explicitly requested recognition.
Doubt of ERA's "majority" having arisen, and Attorney Kelley wanting Clark to
send him a list of the employees in the plant, Clark copied on a page of a notebook
Kelley's language from the top of the "first petition," given above, which language,
as has been seen above, was at most a statement of joining and designation of
bargaining agent but was not a request for recognition by the Company. Then on
March 14, 1957, she had shift meetings of employees on their own time in the
lunchroom and obtained 54 signatures to this "second petition." What was said to
employees to obtain some of the signatures is considered below. Having obtained
the signatures President Clark and the other officers of ERA on March 15, 1957,
presented this "second petition" to President Erikson. As before in the case of the
"first petition," without checking the authenticity of the signatures or the number
then on the payroll or discussing the composition of an appropriate bargaining unit,
President Erikson said in substance that ERA had the "majority" and that he had
no choice but to "accept it; that the ERA was representing the majority of the people
in the plant." When Erikson asked if he could keep the second petition, at least
long enough to have photostatic copies made of it, Clark told him that she had
obtained the signatures for ERA's lawyer, who wanted a list of all the employees in
the plant; that, in substance, Erikson could keep the second petition if Erikson would
have his secretary prepare a list of all the employees in the plant for ERA's lawyer.
This Erikson did. The same day, March 15, 1957, Erikson posted on the Company's
bulletin board the following notice dated that day and signed by him:
Your union officers have presented the company with a notice of designation
of the Employees Representative Association as your collective bargaining agent
under the Labor Management Relations Act, which document has been signed
by over fifty percent of the employees of this company, exclusive of supervisory
and office employees.
u Edith Maison's affidavit, which was received by stipulation in lieu of her testimony,
states that "The Company knew that the girls were going to have the meeting that
Saturday but a rush order came in and so the Company asked them if they would come
in until noon. I believe they had an order for 3,000,000 Thunderbirds"-(presumably
model car assembly kits).
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with the requirements of the Labor Management Relations
Act, the company recognizes the Employees Representative Association as your
union and will negotiate with them as to wages, hours, and working conditions.
Although the presentation of the "second petition" by all the officers of ERA may
have carried with it an implicit request or demand that ERA be recognized, the record
does not establish that any explicit request or demand or discussion on the point
was made prior to the posting of the recognition notice. Thus Respondent was
again in the position of forcing its "acceptance" and recognition of ERA in con-
trast to its later failure even to reply to United's written request for recognition-as
will be seen below.
On March 25, 1957, an ERA notice over the signature of Treasurer Edward
Erikson was posted on the company bulletin board. This notice was typed by
ERA's vice president on a company typewriter in the company office during the
lunch hour.
On June 14, 1957, another ERA notice, over the signature of Treasurer Edward
Erikson, was posted on the company bulletin board. This notice was typed by
ERA's secretary on a company typewriter with the permission of Respondent's
office manager. The secretary, Alice DeCook, testified that some three or four
times she asked permission to use the typewriter, usually from the office manager,
and that she did not use it except for ERA business. She credibly testified further
that it was not customary for employees to use the company typewriter, but that
"seeing that I was secretary, and there were notices that had to be posted, I asked
them if I could please come and use the typewriter, and they said it would be all
right." She testified that some other employees used the company facilities, such
as the telephone, pencils, and possibly the typewriter. To be noted here is that at
the beginning of United's campaign and the beginning of the "independent" union
'which at the hearing in 121 NLRB 484 had not yet come fully into being, at
President Erikson's suggestion the notice of the first meeting was typed by the office
manager, placed on the bulletin board, and distributed to employees during working
hours-as has been seen above.
"Bargaining" between ERA and the Company consisted of some three to five
meetings over a period of 2 or 3 months, possibly 4, beginning in May 1957 and
ending no later than August 1957. The record offers no explanation of why it took
from August until November 19 for the "contract" to be executed. With some
exceptions, such as paid holidays, the contract principally incorporated then-existing
conditions, possibly somewhat improved, such as a seniority system, a vacation
system, regular increases after so much time, a slightly improved wage scale, and
a grievance procedure. The principal change in working conditions embodied in
the contract was a union-shop clause allowing a 60-day escape period and a checkoff
clause covering initiation fees, dues, and assessments.
After Respondent's receipt on November 18, 1957, of United's letter dated
November 15 claiming a majority, requesting recognition and bargaining, and
cautioning against bargaining or entering into a contract with any other bargaining
agent, the pace towards a contract between Respondent and ERA greatly quick-
ened-although Respondent never answered United's letter. Someone having the
idea that to make any contract "legal" a majority or all of those covered by it must
sign it, on November 19 ERA held a meeting during working hours, gave final
consideration and approval to each clause in the written contract, and those who
had not already signed it did so. Of the 50 employee signatures on the original
contract, 27 were undated and presumably signed prior to the meeting; 18 were
dated opposite their names "11-19-57"; 4 followed these undated and so were
signed the 19th or later; and the last were dated "11-25-57."
In substance Myrtle Clark testified that President Erikson gave ERA permission
to hold this November 19 meeting. Asked how the "shift situation" was managed-
meaning how did those who attended the meeting get off from work (it was on
a Tuesday)-Clark replied, "We really didn't give Mr. Erikson much choice. We
just told him everyone wanted off from work, and it was necessary, and I asked
him if he would be kind enough to go along with it. You know Mr. Erikson. He
threw his hands in the air and he said, `What the hell can I do about it if people
won't work?"' The same day Erikson signed the contract, which included a no-
strike clause.
The only "necessity" for a quick ERA meeting to approve and sign the contract,
negotiations having been in abeyance since August, was obviously United's letter
to Respondent. As no copy of this letter was sent to ERA but as ERA was clearly
galvanized into action by the Company's receipt of it, I find that Respondent assisted
ERA by informing it of the receipt of this letter.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1197
After the contract was executed Respondent Company further assisted ERA and
displayed an eagerness to clamp ERA solidly upon the employees by having copies
of the contract mimeographed and distributed to each employee.
Conclusions
As the Board has already found, after years of hostility to "outside" unions and
while concurrently committing aggravated unfair labor practices in actively opposing
United's organizing drive, Erikson furnished the original impetus for converting
ERG into a more formal labor organization so that he could sign a contract with
it and thereby further combat and forestall United's drive. In addition to supplying
the original impetus, Erikson prescribed the nature and structure of the changes,
modelled on Aluminum Model Toys' independent union, and the procedure for
attaining them. He began implementation of his plan by drafting the notice
of the first meeting and by using company facilities and worktime of employees
for preparation of the notice and its distribution to all female employees. This
meeting,12 apparently the first "inside " meeting of employees for self-organizational
purposes despite years of ERG, failed to achieve the results desired by Erikson and
the matter was held in temporary abeyance. Romesburg, who had half-heartedly
undertaken the mission, dropped out of the picture and Myrtle Clark assumed
leadership. At the first meeting, when doubts were raised as to Erikson's wishes,
it was Myrtle Clark who spoke up and assured the employees that Erikson wanted
the "independent union."
Four months later, immediately after the election, Clark suddenly went into action
and carried forward the plans and ideas of Erikson which Romesburg had begun
to execute before she dropped out. These ideas were not only the ideas of Erikson,
but both before and at the first meeting Romesburg had made it plain to the
employees that they were Erikson's ideas. These ideas were, in substance, to check
with the independent union at Aluminum Model Toys, which was a "good one"
and therefore a good model, that the shift representative system called ERG should
be preserved and certified and "independent union papers" gotten for it bcause the
Board had already "named" it as "the union" and that all it lacked was certification,
that a meeting should be held and the "independent union papers" signed by the
employees, and that the Company would sign a contract with this union. As has
been seen above, Clark took all the necessary steps to effectuate those portions of
Erikson's plan which Romesburg left undone, including visits to the Aluminum
Model Toys union, the preparation of "independent union papers"-the first and
second petitions-and the signing of them by the employees, and the holding of
organizational meetings.13 The Company assisted the plan by excusing employees
from work to attend the meetings, by condoning the election of shift representa-
tives during working hours, by immediately upon receipt of the first and second
"petitions" posting notices "accepting" and later "recognizing" ERA without
questioning either signatures or unit and even though acceptance and recognition
were never clearly asked for by ERA, and, finally, by excusing employees to sign
the contract and then executing the contract with ERA containing union-shop and
checkoff clauses just after receiving a request to bargain from United which it ignored.
This was the first labor agreement entered into by Respondent and, insofar as the
records in the three cases show 14 its predecessors. Also Respondent Company
rendered ERA certain additional acts of assistance, such as preparing a list of all
company employees for the use of ERA, permitting ERA to use company facilities
such as the office typewriter and bulletin board.
I The Board has already held (121 NLRB 448) that ". . . the meeting was employer-
11sponsored and . . Erikson was well aware that the employees knew it. .. .
"Clark testified that the "girls" had been talking for years about "coming down to
the NLRB and filing all of our papers, which we just never get around to." The record
establishes that for years the employees had never been free of company coercion, in-
timidation, and discrimination. Clark's only explanation for going into action when she
did was that she made up her mind to do so. As Clark was a reluctant and unreliable
witness, I do not credit this testimony. Even if it were credited, however, this testimony
did not negative the conclusion that the ideas as to the nature and structure of the
organization and the procedure for achieving it were prescribed by Erikson, and that in
executing Erikson's ideas and plan Clark was carrying out Erikson's design and purpose.
Further, the fact that Clark told Miss Edwards that she was looking for a labor lawyer
"to take care of delicate matters for a company" confirms that Clark's mission of setting
up ERA was company-motivated and that Clark knew it.
14 114 NLRB 1014, 121 NLRB 448, and the case at bar.
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thus the evidence shows that ERA was conceived in Erikson's mind, that it
was born with his active assistance , established in accordance with his plans, and
furthered by his and the Company's acts of assistance-all with the purpose and
with the effect of preventing United or any other "outside" union from gaining
bargaining rights in the plant. Thus the evidence impels the conclusion, which I
reach, not only that Respondent Company has assisted and supported ERA and
otherwise interfered with employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act, but that the
character of Erik-son's and Respondent Company's conduct is such as to identify
and make ERA the Company's and Erikson's own organization and thus to con-
stitute domination of ERA as well. I accordingly conclude that Respondent Com-
pany has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. See Doyle W. Terry,
d/b/a Terry Poultry Company, et al. 109 NLRB 1097, 1107-1108; Essex Wire Cor-
poration, a Michigan Corporation, d/b/a Essex Wire Corporation of California, 113
NLRB 344, 369, enfd. 245 F. 2d 589 (C.A. 9); Hardware Engineering Company, Inc.,
117 NLRB 896, 905; O. E. Szekely and Associates, Inc., 118 NLRB 1125, 1135-1136,
enfd. 259 F. 2d 652 (C.A. 5); International Association of Machinists etc., Lodge
No. 35 v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 72, 78, 80; N.L.R.B. v. Link-Belt Company, 311 U.S.
584, 598-599, 600; Independent Employees Association of Neptune Meter Company
v. N.L.R.B., 158 F. 2d 448 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 333 U.S. 826; N.L.R.B. v. Shedd-
Brown Mfg. Co., 125 F 2d 436 (C.A. 7). By granting ERA union-shop and check-
off clauses and by withholding money from employees under the checkoff clause
which it turned over to ERA,15 Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act. By executing and maintaining the unlawful union-security
clauses of the contract, ERA violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
Lakeland Bus Lines, Incorporated, 122 NLRB 281, Harold Hibbard, and Ben R.
Stein, etc., d/b/a Hibbard Dowel Co., 113 NLRB 28, 30.
In contrast with many dominated and assisted organizations, ERA had officers, a
treasury, initiation fees and dues, and a constitution and bylaws, although it has
never held meetings at regular intervals. Under all the circumstances, including
the fact that the employees were never free of employer intimidation, coercion, and
discrimination, this fact does not alter the above conclusions as to company
domination.
On April 1, 1957, during a week's recess in the hearing in 121 NLRB 448,
because of the illness of Respondent's counsel, Erikson sent each employee a 21/2
page single-spaced typewritten letter in which he said, inter alia, that he preferred
to deal with no union at all and that the decision as to what union, if any, should
represent them was one solely for the employees to make. By April 1, due to the
domination and assistance and support of Erikson, the existence of ERA was an
established fact. In view of this domination and assistance, known to the employees
as found above, and in view of Erikson's sustained hostility to "outside" unions over
a period of years, and his unremedied unfair labor practices, I do not believe that
his April 1 letter completely overcame and dispelled from the minds of the employees
the results of his prior actions. Cf. The Falmouth Company, 114 NLRB 896, 900-
901.
In substance Respondent Company contended that 3 times-by the "first petition,"
the "second petition," and by returned tear-off slips from a leaflet distributed by ERA
about April 11, 1957-ERA submitted evidence of its majority to it, so that it was
justified in recognizing and bargaining with it. The answer to this is that as ERA
was a dominated and assisted union, and as the employees had been interfered with
and coerced by the Company in the exercise of their rights with respect to self-
organization, ERA's majority was never an uncoerced majority and the Company
could not lawfully bargain with it. Cf. The Englander Company, Inc., 114 NLRB
1034, 1042.
As United's majority or lack of it was not in issue, at the hearing Respondent
Company's subpenas requiring evidence relating to this issue were revoked.
The General Counsel contended that by entering into the contract with ERA on
November 19, 1957, in the face of the existence of a question concerning repre-
sentation raised by United's letter of November 15 received by Respondent Com-
pany on November 18, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) under the Midwest
Piping doctrine.16 But the Midwest Piping doctrine does not apply in situations
'" Since July 1958, the Company has held the collected funds in a special account in
a bank
1e 3fidicest Piping & Supply Co , Inc, 63 NLRB 1060, recently reaffirmed in Novak
Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1573; Scherrer and Davisson Logging Company, 119
NLRB 1587; The Wheland Company, 120 NLRB 814; Shea Chemical Corporation, 121
NLRB 1027.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1199
where, because of inappropriate unit, the rival claim does not raise a real question
concerning representation. Shea Chemical Corporation, supra. The burden of
proving that the employees claimed to be represented by United constituted an
appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purposes, was upon the General Counsel.
William Penn Broadcasting Company, 93 NLRB 1104, 1106. United's letter was
addressed to two companies, "Detroit Plastic Products Co." and "The Jones Plastic
Co.," at the same address, and set forth United's claim to represent and request for
recognition for "the production and maintenance employees . in the plant of
the Detroit Plastic Products Co., and Jones Plastic Co... .. Thus United was
claiming as the appropriate unit the employees of both companies. The Board's
Decision and Order in 121 NLRB 448, in the section on "The discharge of Mary
Louise Wuestewald," and the testimony of Lawrence R. Morrison, show that Jones
Plastic Co., owned one-half by Erikson and one-half by his father-in-law, Morrison,
and run by the latter, occupied a small corner of Respondent's plant and employed
usually one and never more than three production and maintenance employees.
There was frequent interchange of employees between the companies. The appro-
priate unit in the consent election of October 9, 1956, consented to by United and
approved by the Board's Regional Director, consisted only of the production
employees of Respondent's predecessors and did not include the Jones Company
employees even though United then urged that the latter should be included No
evidence was offered herein that the Jones employees should be included. Under
all the circumstances I conclude that the General Counsel has failed to establish
that an appropriate unit consists of the employees of both companies and has there-
fore failed to establish that a real question concerning representation was raised by
United's letter. Therefore the Midwest Piping doctrine does not apply.
C. Respondent Company's November 11, 1958, letter to employees
On November 19, 1958, President Erikson caused to be mailed to each of Respond-
ent's employees a mimeographed letter dated November 11, 1958, signed by him,
and reading, in pertinent part, as follows:
This letter is to inform you that an unfair labor practice complaint has been
filed against the Detroit Plastic Products Company and the Employees Repre-
sentative Association. Among other things, it is charged that the company
entered into a contract last November with the Employees Representative
Association at a time when a majority of you had named the Cork and Rubber
Workers as your union.17
You will recall that the Employees Representative Association approached us
about April or May of 1957 and told us that they had received authorizations
from a majority of the employees to represent you in collective bargaining and
demanded that we recognize them and enter into a contract. . .
In order to decide what to do about the present situation, it is necessary
that we know whether a majority of you changed your minds between April,
1957, when the Employees Representative Association made its claim that it
represented a majority, and November 19, 1957, at which time the Cork and
Rubber Workers claimed they represented a majority. Accordingly, we are
asking you this question:
Did you, or did you not, sign a card authorizing the Cork and Rubber
Workers to represent you, during 1957.
It is not necessary for you to sign your answer. Just tear off the bottom of
this letter and return it to the company.
We want to emphasize again that the response we receive from you will have
no effect whatsoever on your present, past, future or potential employment
relationship with this company.
Sincerely yours, DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS Co.
Erik E. Erikson
I did not authorize the Cork and Rubber Workers to represent
me during 1957.
I did authorize the Cork and Rubber Workers to represent me
during 1957.
Check one
17 The complaint alleged Respondent had entered into a contract with ERA, Including
Illegal union-shop and checkoff clauses, at a time when United had made a claim upon
Respondent that it represented a majority. In view of Erikson's history of deception of
his employees, his misstatement here cannot be dismissed as accidental.
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Included in the envelopes in which this letter was mailed to the employees were
stamped return envelopes addressed to Respondent . Written in ink under the stamps
on at least eight of the return envelopes , including those of the president and the
ex-secretary of ERA, were marks obviously put on them to inform the Company
from whom they came . These marks were something like a "5," some kind of an
"s," a dotted " i," a wide "u" in a circle , 3 dots forming a triangle and in a circle,
an "x" with a small circle above it, a "101." When the employees , suspecting some-
thing, discovered the fraud by looking through the stamps at light , there was tele-
phoning between them and much conversation at work the following morning.
The letter and envelopes were prepared for mailing on November 11, but upon
Eriksons unexplained order were not mailed until November 19. In the meantime
they lay flat, a letter , an outside envelope, and an inside envelope together , in a box
on a desk in the office. The record does not reveal when or by whom the marks
under the stamps , and the stamps , were placed on the return envelopes The office
force worked weekdays from 8:30 a.m . to 5 p m., so that these documents were
available to Erikson and Richards and any others of their selection during the
evening and night hours and on the weekend November 15 to 16. The record before
me and the Board 's Decision and Order in 121 NLRB 448, adopting a thorough
73-page Intermediate Report , raise a serious question concerning the motivation of
Erikson and Richards in all of their actions toward the self-organization of their
employees . Despite this, and although this November 11 letter was Erikson's letter
over his signature and was mailed out to employees by Erikson's order and under
very suspicious circumstances , Respondent did not produce Erikson ( or Richards) as
a witness to explain the situation and said nothing as to their unavailability as
witnesses . As the letter in all its aspects was Erikson 's act and deed for which
Respondent was fully responsible , the burden was upon it to explain , if it could,
the strange handwritten ink marks under the stamps of the return envelopes . This it
failed to do.
The returns from the letters began to arrive at Respondent 's office on Friday,
November 21, where they were opened and given to Richards . Although some had
already been opened and given to him , a notice on the bulletin board bearing
Richards ' initials and dated November 22 (Saturday , when the office force did not
work) said that "letters which have been returned will be held unopened ." Despite
this statement in his notice, Richards never instructed his office manager, Lucille
Wantland, if her testimony is to be believed , not to open any more of the returns,
and she opened them all as they came in the following week . This deception of the
employees by Richards , together with the markings under the stamps and other
deceptions or attempted deceptions upon the employees disclosed in 121 NLRB 448,
suggest that Richards ' entire November 22 notice was a deception and a self-
serving declaration . The notice read:
NOTICE
Regarding the letter sent to all employees dated November 11, 1958 asking
for a anonymous reply. Evidence of foul play has been discovered and brought
to the attention of the management . The intention was to carry out an im-
partial survey and since this cannot be done without interference we advise that
all who have not returned the self -addressed envelope to destroy it and the
contents . Letters which have been returned will be held unopened.
Wantland heard about the markings under the stamps "by the grapevine," but
testified that she had no curiosity about the matter and never held one of the return
envelopes up to the light to see if there was a mark under it. If her testimony is to
be believed she did not have enough curiosity to look under or through a stamp
even after Richards had allegedly asked her if she knew anything about the
markings . This extreme alleged lack of curiosity despite considerable curiosity and
considerable conversation in the plant concerning the markings , and her self-
contradiction as to who put the stamps on the return envelopes , deprives Wantland's
testimony of full credence , and raises in my mind a question as to credence to be
given her testimony that she threw the incoming envelopes away and that she had
no special instructions from Erikson or Richards concerning them.
Upon the entire record before me and the Board 's Decision and Order in 121
NLRB 448, I believe and find that Respondent put the markings under the stamps
of the return envelopes for the purpose of discovering the union sentiments of its
employees . This was a form of surveillance upon its employees , which has been
outdated since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935-and as
such was a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act , as amended.
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1201
D. Coercion and restraint by ERA
1. As has been seen above, on March 14, 1957, Myrtle Clark obtained some 54
signatures on the so-called "second petition," on the top of which she had written
the same language as was on the first petition, which has been quoted above. Her
alleged purpose was to find out how many employees were working at the plant at
that time, in order to determine whether ERA still represented a majority. She told
the employees at the shift meetings in the lunchroom that she would like for them
to sign this "second petition" in order to save her the trouble of getting their names
from the timecards and in order to avoid her having to try to get a list of the
employees from the office. According to Myrtle Clark's testimony she told the
employees that she had written what was on top of the first page of the petition
"so that they would know t at I wasn't trying to pull anything on them" by asking
them to sign their names tc just a blank piece of paper. She also told them that
she wanted a list of names to give to ERA's lawyer, who wanted it. Earlier Clark
had testified, "I copied the wording from the first petition .. . so that people
wouldn't be afraid of signing anything. They would know I wasn't trying to pull
anything on them." Despite her seeming good intentions, Clark said nothing to the
employees about turning this new petition over to President Erikson, which she
nevertheless ddd the succeeding play-which petition Erikson used immediately as a
basis for posting a notice on the bulletin board recognizing ERA as has been seen
above.
When a number of employees were reluctant to sign Myrtle Clark said some-
thing to them which caused some of the reluctant ones to affix their signatures.
Three employees testified in substance that Myrtle Clark said that if they did not
sign the paper they would be or could be dismissed, two attributing to her the state-
ment that they would be dismissed in 30 days. Myrtle Clark testified that she ex-
plained to any who asked whether they had to join, that once ERA had a contract
and it had a union-shop clause in it, any who did not then join within 30 days or 60
days could be dismissed. Edith Maison's affidavit said nothing about Clark's having
referred to a contract The affidavit said, "She told the girls that after everything
was going with the union-that after 60 days-they would be either in or out."
As a result of discussions and rumors in the plant concerning how the signatures
to this petition had been obtained, and possibly as a result of President Erikson's
letter to all employees dated April 1, 1957, which took note of rumors and in sub-
stance disavowed the obtaining of signatures by threats or reprisals or promises of
benefit, on April 2, 1957, Myrtle Clark wrote out another document and offered
employees an opportunity to sign it. This document stated:
I the undersigned hereby request that my name be removed from all peti-
tions presented to Detroit Plastic Products by the employee's Representative
Assoc. (E.R.A.) requesting the . . E.R.A. to be my bargaining agent. This
request is made for the reasons that follow.
1. The president of the E.R.A. threatened my job security if I had refused
to sign said petitions.
2. The president of the E.R.A. (Myrtle Clark) promised higher wages and
better conditions.
I find now upon this date April 2, 1957, that the two (2) above statements
were not within her power whatsoever to give to any employee of Detroit
Plastic Products.
I the undersigned also request that the E.R.A. refund my donation of three
dollars ($3) which I gave to Edward Erikison [sic] treasurer. Five employees
signed this document.
As Myrtle Clark was not very clear concerning specific conversations, and as it is
entirely unlikely that she would have written this April 2 document and offered it to
employees for their signatures if there had been no truth to the earlier statements
attributed to her, I credit the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses, Cecilia
Randazzo and Margaret England, to the effect that Clark stated on March 14 that
if employees did not sign the "second petition" they would be or could be dis-
missed-and that she did not make clear to the employees that she was referring only
to the period of time after a contract has been signed which included a union-shop
clause. (In this connection I note the failure of the Maison affidavit to attribute
to Clark any reference to a contract on this occasion.) By so threatening em-
ployees' job security Respondent ERA restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, ERA thereby violating Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
554461-60-vol 126-77
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. At the ERA meeting on March 23, 1957, Attorney Kelley outlined a proposed
contract to be negotiated with the Company and all clauses were discussed. Kelley
included a proposed union-shop clause. There was much testimony as to whether,
as the meeting carried on, Kelley made it clear to the employees that they would not
have to pay initiation fees and dues before a contract was written, or whether he in-
dicated that these fees and dues would have to be paid before the contract was exe-
cuted. In substance Cecilia Randazzo and Florine Mosely, each of whom impressed
me as a credible witness, testified that when employee Madeline May asked if the
employees had to pay initiation fees and union dues before they saw a drawn-up
contract or before a contract was written, Kelley replied in the affirmative. These
witnesses added that Kelley said that those who did not pay within 30 days would
be automatically dismissed. Alice DeCook testified in substance that when some-
one in the audience inquired of Kelley whether the employees had to pay dues even
though the contract was not yet written and signed by everybody Kelley answered
that the dues should be paid "as soon as possible." During the meeting Kelley ex-
plained that money was needed now to pay for the meeting room and printer and to
pay Kelley a part of his fee for his time spent in helping get ERA organized.
Josephine McKinnon testified that when someone asked if the employees had to
join ERA without seeing the contract Kelley replied that they did have to.
Margaret England, who impressed me as a credible witness, testified that Kelley told
the employees that they would be dismissed if they did not join. To be either in or
out. No half and half. On cross-examination she allowed that Kelley had possibly
said that this condition would prevail after a union-shop clause had been negotiated.
In substance Myrtle Clark testified that Kelley made it clear throughout the meeting
that he was referring to the time after a union-shop clause had been executed. How-
ever, she recalled that someone at the meeting asked Kelley if they had to join the
Union before there was a written contract and Kelley replied, "Let's put it this way:
Eddie here is going to start collecting dues immediately." Eddie was Edward
Erikson, treasurer of ERA. Kelley, who represented ERA throughout the hearing,
did not testify at the hearing.
At the March 23 meeting it was agreed that ERA's initiation fee would be $2 and
its monthly dues $1, and it was further decided that ERA through its treasurer,
would start collecting dues on Monday, March 25. Notes of this meeting kept for
ERA's secretary by Patricia Elenko included the entry: "First month's dues and
initiation fee must be paid before contract is sealed." Although Elenko was not
asked on the witness stand to explain this entry it tends to indicate either a position
taken or a decision made at the meeting to the effect that dues and initiation fee
would be collected prior to the execution of a contract In any case the record
establishes that Treasurer Erikson collected intiation fees as well as dues prior to
the execution of the contract in November, and no claim was advanced that Treas-
urer Erikson was acting beyond his authority in doing so.
Under all the circumstances I conclude that Kelley did not make it clear to the
employees at the meeting that initiation fees and dues would not have to be paid
until after a contract had been executed ERA was in need of money immediately
to pay for the use of the meeting hall and to make a down payment to its lawyer for
his services, under which circumstances it is highly probable, as preponderance of
the testimony establishes, that Kelley put some pressure on the employees to start
paying dues immediately. Most of the testimony, and the notes kept for ERA's
secretary, suggest that he did so On all of the evidence I conclude that Kelley left
the impression with the employees at the meeting that they would have to start pay-
ing initiation fees and dues immediately upon pain of eventually losing their jobs if
they failed to-by which threat to the employees' job security Respondent ERA re-
strained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7,
ERA thereby further violating Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. Myrtle Clark testified that she told Eddie Erikson to start collecting, and that
Edward Erikson put a notice on the bulletin board on March 25, 1957. Edith
Maison's affidavit stated "on March 25, 1957, a notice was posted on the bulletin
board about paying dues and initiation fee by April I." During the course of the
first day of the 4-day hearing the General Counsel requested counsel for ERA to
produce the original of this notice, but the original was never produced and no claim
was ever advanced that it was destroyed or unavailable. Edward Erikson being ill
at the time of the hearing, the parties stipulated that he would testify in accordance
with his affidavit. His affidavit says: "Johnnie, the shipping clerk, prepared the
notice that was posted on the bulletin board on March 25, 1957, telling the em-
ployees to pay their dues and initiation by April 1." [Emphasis supplied.] "John-
nie" was John Lesniak, vice president of ERA.
In the absence of the original notice a document purporting to be a copy of the
original was received 'in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4. According to
DETROIT PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 1203
the credited testimony of Cecilia Randazzo, she was with another employee,
Madeline May, during a rest period when they went up to the bulletin board and she
saw Madeline May writing General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4, which Madeline May
copied from the original notice on the bulletin board. Randazzo testified "she was
copying it , and she told me to look out so that nobody would see her copying." At
the time the witness was standing right 'by Madeline May. Randazzo was unable
to testify with certainty that the words on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4 were
the exact words as they appeared on the original notice on the bulletin board. The
record establishes that Madeline May 's intent was to make a copy of the original
notice, under which circumstances it is highly probable that she would make an
exact copy word for word. Although she was active in the plant on behalf of
United, nothing in the record suggests that she was unqualified to or disinclined to
make an exact copy. Under the circumstances , and in the light of the other testi-
mony concerning the original notice on the bulletin board, I believe and find that
General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 4 is an exact copy of the notice which was on the
bulletin board . General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 4 reads as follows,
MARCH 25-57
Each employee employed by Detroit Plastic Products Co. 30 days or over
must pay their initiation fee of 200 [ sic] and their April dues to Edward
Erikson treasurer of the Employee 's Representative Association by Monday
April 1st.
Monthly dues-1.00
EDWARD ERIKSON, Treasurer.
Initiation-2.00.
To be noted is that this notice states that each employee-not only members of
ERA-must pay their initiation fee and 1 month 's dues by a certain date. This
mandatory language was on the bulletin board the next workday after ERA had
made a decision to start collecting dues-and -probably also initiation fees-and the
next workday after Kelley had threatened employees ' job security as found just
above. This mandatory language appeared some 11 days after Myrtle Clark had
threatened employees ' job security , as found above . Following so soon after these
other threats by ERA, it would have been clear to employees that the mandatory
language of the March 25 notice meant that if they did not pay their dues on time,
it was at the risk of losing their jobs . Under all the circumstances , by posting this
notice ERA further restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7, ERA thereby violating Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent Company 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in the unfair labor practices set
forth above , I recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent Company having dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of Employees Respondent Association , I recommend that Respond-
ent Company withdraw all recognition from Employees Respondent Association as
the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes , wages , rates of pay , hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment and completely disestablish Employees Respondent
Association as such representative . "This will not prevent the employees , after the
unfair labor practices have been remedied and the conditions for a free choice
established , from adopting representation from their own ranks or any other kind
of representation , if such is their genuine desire , unfettered by employer domination,
interference , assistance , or support ." 18 Nothing in these recommendations shall be
construed as requiring the Company to abandon or vary those wage, hour , seniority,
or other lawful substantive features of the relationship between the Company and
its employees which may have been established pursuant to any agreement between
the Company and Employees Repi esentative Association.
1s Ben Corson Manufacturing Co , 112 NLRB 323, 340
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ERA being a dominated organization, all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys
paid into it by employees have been paid under coercion and duress. Particularly
was this true after Respondents entered into the contract containing union-security
provisions. I find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to permit the
Respondent ERA to retain such payment of initiation fees, union dues , assessments,
and other moneys which have been unlawfully exacted from employees of Respond-
ent Company as the price of their employment. Therefore, as part of the remedy
I shall order the Respondents, jointly and severally, to refund to the employees of
Respondent Company all of the initiation fees, dues, assessments, and other moneys
paid by the employees to or for ERA. I believe that these remedial provisions are
appropriate and necessary in order to expunge the coercive effect of the Respondents'
unfair labor practices?9
The violations of the Act found herein to have been committed by Respondent
Company are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices committed by
the Company, as found by the Board in 121 NLRB 448. The danger of Respond-
ent Company's commission of unfair labor practices in the future is to be antici-
pated from its conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be
thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to
make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a re-
currence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall
recommend that the Respondent Company be ordered to cease and desist from
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Detroit Plastic Products Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO,
and Employees Representative Association are both labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of Em-
ployees Representative Association , and by contributing support to it, Respondent
Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. By entering into , maintaining , and enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement
which contains unlawful union -security provisions , Respondent Company has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (2 ), and (3 ), and Respondent ERA has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2 ) of the Act.
5. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent ERA has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
l9 Lakeland Bus Lines, Incorporated, 122 NLRB 281, and cases cited in footnote 5
thereof.
Baltimore Luggage Company and International Leather Goods,
Plastics and Novelty Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
5-CA-1377 and 5-CA-1496. March 22, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 4, 1959, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
126 NLRB No. 140.