Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 891 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY
Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost and General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 249 a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Employees Committee of Duquesne University,
Party in Interest . Case 6-CA-5506
August 14, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On March 7, 1972, Trial Examiner Abraham H.
Mailer issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent and the Employees
Committee filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and
Respondent filed a reply memorandum.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions2 only to the extent
consistent herewith.
The complaint alleges,3 and the Trial Examiner
finds, that Respondent assisted, supported, dominat-
ed, and interfered with the administration of the
Employees Committee (herein referred to as the
Committee), in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act. Remedially, the Trial Examiner recom-
mends, inter alga, that Respondent disestablish the
Committee, withdraw and withhold recognition, and
cease contributing financial or other support to the
Committee.
For the reasons expressed herein, we agree that
Respondent unlawfully assisted and supported the
Committee. However, we do not agree that Respon-
dent dominated the Committee, or that disestablish-
ment is an appropriate remedy in this case.
Support and Assistance
In finding that Respondent unlawfully supported
the Committee, the Trial Examiner concludes that
the Committee is completely dependent upon the
University's assistance and that the degree of
financial support furnished here has been found by
i Respondent 's motion to file a reply memorandum is hereby granted
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial
Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent did not violate Sec 8 (a)(1) of the
Act by granting an increased pay raise to all nonexempt employees on July
1, 1971.
3 The Trial Examiner permitted the General Counsel to amend the
complaint at the hearing to include an allegation that since on or about
November 14, 1970, Respondent also violated Sec 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act
by negotiating terms and conditions of employment with the Committee at
198 NLRB No. 117
891
the Board to be another method of control. The Trial
Examiner relies on the facts that the Committee
collects no dues and has no treasury, the committee
meets on University premises, Committee members
are not docked for time spent at meetings, ballots for
Committee elections were printed at the University's
expense and distributed through the University's
mail, elections were conducted on the University's
time, and the Committee's weekly newsletter is
printed at the University's expense and distributed
through the University' s mail.
If the record were devoid of any evidence of
assistance but that relied on by the Trial Examiner as
set out above, we would be reluctant to find that
evidence sufficient to warrant an unlawful assistance
finding due to the special circumstances of this case;
i.e., where an employer, here a university, so freely
makes available its facilities, time, and services to
any desirous organization, including, to some extent,
other labor organizations. As the Board and courts
repeatedly have held, the types of benefits conferred
by Respondent on the Committee do not constitute
per se violations of Section 8(a)(2).4 Indeed, where a
union lawfully has been established as the employ-
ees' bargaining representative, and has been accord-
ed lawful recognition by an employer who, following
recognition, deals with that representative at arm's
length, we have sometimes characterized benefits of
the type found herein merely as friendly cooperation
growing out of an amicable labor-management
relationship. For the following reasons we find that
situation does not exist in this case.
We note that the relationship between Respondent
and the Committee has not been totally free of other
unwarranted interference by Respondent. While in
certain respects the Committee did, in fact, bargain
about many proposals with the Staff Relations
Committee (SRC), or with Respondent's personnel
director, King, in an arm's length manner, there are
other instances of less than arm's length dealing,
demonstrating a continuing kind of assistance which,
when combined with the tangible assistance referred
to above, sufficiently establishes a violation of
Section 8(a)(2). Examples of this conduct are to be
found in (1) King's giving his "advice and counsel"
to the Committee, (2) the SRC functioning in part as
an "advisory body" to the Committee, (3) evidence
tending to show that Respondent's vice president,
a time when the Committee did not represent an uncoerced majority of
employees , and following the filing of a representation petition by a rival
union In view of our disposition of this case , we find it unnecessary to
,reach the issue of whether or not Respondent's conduct falls within the
proscription of the Board's decision in Midwest Piping and Supply Co, Inc,
163 NLRB 1060
4 Sunnen Products, Inc, 189 NLRB No 132, Ladish Co, 180 NLRB 582,
1Hesston Corp, 175 NLRB 96, Coypus Engineering Corp v N L. R B, 240
F.2d 564 (C.A 1 ).Chicago Rawhide Mfg Co v. N L R B, 221 F 2d 165 (C.A 7)
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Erifft, attempted to act as an "advisor" to the
Committee after dissolution of the SRC, and (4)
King's assistance to the Committee in helping it
select a particular attorney to represent it in the
related representation proceedings. As indicated, we
find the combination of these unusual indicia of
intent, together with the liberal availability of
University facilities without cost, enough to establish
that kind of interference with true freedom of choice
and that kind of improper assistance which are
condemned in Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
When viewed against the background circum-
stances surrounding the Committee's establishment
and the absence of any convincing evidence that the
Committee did, in fact, represent an uncoerced
majority of nonexempt employees,5 we must con-
clude that the relationship which exists between
Respondent and the Committee transgresses the
boundaries permissible under the Act. In the face of
such a relationship, we find that Respondent further
violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by
providing those items of financial and other assist-
ance and support relied on by the Trial Examiner.
Domination
The Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent
dominated the Committee rests on two major
conclusions.
First, he states that no actual domination need be
found, but rather the ability to dominate is sufficient
to support such a finding where the structure of the
organization accords Respondent the implicit power
to control the composition of the Committee by
exercising its managerial power to transfer, promote,
or discharge the employee representative.6 According
to the Trial Examiner, because members of the
Committee are elected by areas of the University, the
University clearly has the power to alter the
Committee's membership by transferring, promoting,
or discharging those representatives.
While the Board has held that the implicit power of
an employer to transfer, promote, or discharge
employee representatives, even where the employer
has not attempted to do so, constitutes evidence of
s While we are precluded by Sec 10(b) of the Act from basing any unfair
labor practice finding upon conduct occurring prior to November 13, 1970,
we are not precluded from considering circumstances prior to that date
which shed light on the true character of matters since that date . Machinists
Local 1424 (Bryan Manufacturing Company), 362 U S 411 In this regard, we
cannot ignore the manner in which the employees were led to believe from
the outset that the Committee had the administration 's "approval" and
"legal sanction " Likewise, we cannot ignore the fact that at no time did
Respondent demand , nor did the Committee attempt to obtain, any
designations authorizing the Committee to represent nonexempt employees,
nor did the employees manifest by any objective means their desire to be
represented by the Committee at any time prior to the filing of the
representation petitions by the Teamsters
6 Citing Tuscarora Plastics Co, 167 NLRB 1059, and Hydraulic
domination, such a finding has been limited to
situations where the organization has been formulat-
ed and structured by the employer. In those cases,7
particularly those relied on by the Trial Examiner, it
was the employer who determined the method of
selecting the representatives. In Tuscarora, supra, the
employer instructed the employees to pick two
representatives from each shift. In Hydraulic Accesso-
ries, supra, the employer's superintendent notified the
employees that they were to nominate candidates
from their work units and, indeed, encouraged two
employees to seek election.
However, where, as here, the structure of the
Committee and the method of selecting representa-
tives rests solely with the employees,8 and there is
nothing in the record to indicate any means by which
the selection is subject to employer approval or
control, we find no basis for concluding that
Respondent violated the Act merely because it
retains the power, which every employer has, to
transfer employees from one area of its operations to
another.9 Every employer in an industrial plant, for
example, theoretically has the power to affect
employee representatives by transferring union
stewards, who are normally selected on a departmen-
tal basis, to other departments. But any attempt by
an employer to use such right to transfer for the
deliberate purpose of altering the structure of
employee representation, or diluting its effectiveness
by an improper exercise of this power, would, of
course, violate the Act. There is no factual basis for
assuming in this case that Respondent would take
such unlawful action, and we will make no such
presumption.
Next, the Trial Examiner finds domination by
virtue of Respondent's setting up procedures which,
in his view, impeded and frustrated the Committee in
its attempt to secure benefits for its members,
thereby impairing the Committee's effectiveness.
Specifically, the Trial Examiner relies on the creation
of the SRC by which the University could control
and modify the Committee's demands, and by King's
control over Committee proposals after dissolution
of the SRC.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find no
Accessories Company, 165 NLRB 864
7 See, eg ., Clapper's Manufacturing Co, 186 NLRB 324 (the employer
suggested the form and structure of the committee), Fire Alert Co, 182
NLRB 910 (the employer instructed the employees to elect three
representatives and then assigned each employee to a particular representa-
tive to present grievances), and Modern Plastics Corp, 155 NLRB 1126 (the
election and voting procedures were part of the collective -bargaining
contract and subject to change only with the agreement of the employer).
8 In this regard , we note that while Personnel Director King suggested
the election of one representative from each of six job classifications, the
Committee, in fact, selected eight representatives based on geographic
location rather than type of work
9 Ladish Company, Texas Division, supra, Chicago Rawhide Manufactur-
ing Co v. N L R B , supra, and Coppus Engineering Corp v N LR B, supra
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY 893
evidence that the SRC was created for the purpose of
impeding or frustrating the Committee. In any event,
the creation of the SRC occurred prior to the 10(b)
period. Likewise, we find nothing occurring within
the 10(b) period which would warrant a conclusion
that the SRC, in fact, impeded or frustrated the
Committee in its efforts to represent the nonexempt
employees. To the contrary, the record is replete with
the accomplishments of the Committee in securing
approval of proposals. During the SRC's existence
the Committee functioned successfully both within
and outside the structure of the SRC, presenting
proposals to any university committee or administra-
tion official the Committee deemed appropriate.
And, significantly, no recommendation or proposal
was forwarded to the administrative council unless it
was acceptable to the Committee. Moreover, it was
the Committee's opposition to the SRC that led to its
eventual dissolution.
Nor was King any greater impediment to the
committee than was the SRC. In most instances
where the Committee presented proposals to King,
they were discussed and acted upon in the same
manner as were proposals from two affiliated labor
organizations representing University employees.
When agreement was reached, the proposals were
forwarded through Vice President Erfft to the
administrative council for final approval. Neither
King nor the SRC sought to control the proposals
made by the Committee, nor did they attempt to
direct the internal operation of the Committee in any
way. And while King and Erfft may have, from time
to time, advised the Committee of an appropriate
method of proceeding, at best we regard such advice
and counsel as nothing more than unlawful assist-
ance, supra.
Therefore, on the record herein, we find no basis
for concluding that Respondent dominated the
Committee, either through its inherent power to
transfer representatives or through the establishment
of procedures to impede and frustrate the Committee
in its operation.io
Remedy
Having found that Respondent did not dominate
the Committee, we shall not require Respondent to
disestablish the Committee. However, in view of our
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the Act by unlawfully assisting and supporting
the Committee, we shall order Respondent to
io The Trial Examiner regarded as further evidence of domination the
fact that King suggested that the Committee retain a particular attorney to
represent it in a related representation case , and the Committee followed his
suggestion In view of our refusal to find any other evidence of domination,
we regard such a suggestion as merely another instance of unlawful
assistance, supra
withdraw and withhold recognition from the Com-
mittee until such time as the Committee is certified
by the Board as the bargaining representative of
nonexempt employees in an appropriate unit or
units.ii In addition, we shall order Respondent to
withhold all unlawful financial and other support or
assistance from the Committee and shall also require
Respondent or any of its representatives to refrain
from acting in any advisory capacity to the Commit-
tee.
By our remedy herein, we intend to preclude
Respondent from assisting and supporting the
Committee in any manner until such time as the
nonexempt employees are given an opportunity in a
Board-conducted election freely to select a bargain-
ing representative.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing the Employees Committee as the
representative of its nonexempt employees unless
and until such time as the Employees Committee has
been duly certified by the Board as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of nonexempt
employees in an appropriate unit or units.
(b) Unlawfully contributing any financial or other
support or assistance, or acting in any advisory
capacity, to the Employees Committee.
(c) In any other like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
unilateral aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activity.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from the
Employees Committee as the representative of its
nonexempt employees for the purpose of dealing
with it in respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
ii Mears Coal Company, 175 NLRB 837, Northern Metal Products Co,
171 NLRB 98, Wean Manufacturing Company, 147 NLRB 112. cf Mon
River Towing, Inc, 173 NLRB 1452 We also note the Employees
Committee's willingness , as expressed in its brief, to forego dealing with
Respondent pending an election
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions of employment, unless and until the Employees
Committee has been duly certified by the Board as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
nonexempt employees in an appropriate unit or
units.
(b) Post at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, campus
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
WE WILL withdraw and wittihoTd all recogni-
tion from the Employees Committee as the
representative of any of our employees for the
purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment,
unless and until the Employees Committee has
been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining
representative of our employees, in an appropri-
ate unit or units.
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY
OF THE HOLY GHOST
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone
412-644-2977.
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully furnish financial or
other support or act in any advisory capacity to
the Employees Committee of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other like or related
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities.
WE WILL NOT recognize the Employees Com-
mittee as the representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with us
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, unless and until the
Employees Committee has been duly certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees, in an appropriate unit or units,
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ABRAHAM H. MALLER, Trial Examiner: On May 13,
1971, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
249 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called Local 249, filed a charge against Duquesne
University of the Holly Ghost, herein variously called the
Respondent or the University. Upon said charge, the
Regional Director for Region 6 of the National Labor
Relations Board , herein called the Board, issued on behalf
of the General Counsel a complaint against the Respon-
dent, alleging that Respondent dominated and interfered
with the administration of the Employees Committee, a
labor organization, and rendered unlawful assistance and
support to the Employees Committee , in violation of
Section 8 (a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 U.S .C. Sec . 151, et seq. ), herein called the
Act, and interfered with , restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In its
duly filed answer , the Respondent denied any violations of
the Act . Affirmatively , Respondent's answer alleged that
the Respondent recognizes and supports many employee,
student, and faculty committees on the campus, one of
these being the Employees Committee, but it has never
attempted to dominate any of them ; that comnttees
function in all areas of the Respondent 's major divisions of
endeavor and the recommendations are given serious
consideration in the formulation of Respondent 's policy
I
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY 895
and solutions to specific problems; that all of these
committees frequently and usually meet on Respondent's
time and on Respondent's property, and their reports,
notices, and minutes are usually and customarily produced
and distributed at Respondent's expense.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at
,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 7 and 8, and on
'November 2, 1971. At the opening of the hearing, counsel
for the General Counsel, pursuant to previous notice,
moved to amend the complaint by adding an allegation
that in or about June 1971, the Respondent promised and
(granted an 8-percent wage increase to all nonexempt
,'employees.' The motion to amend was granted. During the
course of the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel
;moved to further amend the complaint to allege that on or
about November 14, 1970, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent negotiated terms and conditions of employ-
ment with the Employees Committee as the representative
of all nonexempt employees at a time when the Employees
Committee did not represent an uncoerced majority of said
employees and following the filing of a representation
,petition on behalf of Local 249. The motion was granted.
All parties were represented at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant
evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs with
me. Briefs were filed on December 3, 1971, by the
Respondent and by the Party in Interest and, on December
6, 1971, by counsel for the General Counsel. Upon
consideration of the entire record2 and the briefs, and
upon my observation of each of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with its facili-
ties located at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the
operation of a private nonprofit university. During the 12-
month period immediately preceding the issuance of the
complaint herein, Respondent had gross revenues in excess
of $1 million, exclusive of contributions not available for
use for operating expenses. During the same period of
time, Respondent received goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Com-
:monwealth of Pennsylvania for use at its Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, facilities. Respondent's answer admits, and I
find and conclude, that the Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Board to assert jurisdiction
here.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 249
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is now, and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
i The term "nonexempt employees " as used during the hearing and in
this Decision is used to describe employees who are not exempt from the
Fair Labor Standards Act
2 The General Counsel has filed a motion to correct the transcript m
certain particulars and, in addition, points out that Resp Exh 2 was
incorrectly included in the file of Respondent's exhibits, as the exhibit was
Employees Committee is now, and has been at all times
material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE ISSUES
1. Whether the Respondent dominated and/or assisted
the Employees Committee in violation of Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act.
2. Whether the Respondent by negotiating terms and
conditions of employment with the Employees Committee
as the representative of all nonexempt employees at a time
when the Employees Committee did not represent an
uncoerced majority of said employees and following the
filing of representation petitions on behalf of Local 249,
raising a question concerning representation among certain
employees represented by the Employees Committee,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
3. Whether the increase in the annual wage raise given
to all nonexempt employees was violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Origin of the Employees Committee3
Except in some minor particulars , the facts of this case
are not in dispute . In the summer of 1970, Respondent
withdrew the plan by which it granted a remission of
tuition for employees. At that time, Mrs. Rebecca Henry
circulated a petition among her fellow employees on
working time for the purpose of presenting a request to
Father McAnulty, president of Duquesne University, that
the remission of tuition be reinstated. Also during that
summer, the University revoked the parking privileges of
the nonexempt employees and Kathleen Couderc circulat-
ed a petition among the employees for presentation to
Father McAnulty, requesting that parking privileges for
employees be reinstated.
When Henry presented her petition to Father McAnulty,
he explained that he could not take any action on
individual cases. He told her that he had already received
Couderc's petition with regard to parking, and suggested
that the best course for the employees to handle the
apparent discontent among them was to get together so
that they could speak with a united voice. When Couderc
called Father McAnulty to ask if any action would be
taken on her petition, he explained to her that he could not
deal with the employees one at a time, but that they would
have to organize and "elect a voice" and suggested that she
contact Henry.
Couderc and Henry decided to go ahead and organize
the employees. They informed Father McAnulty of their
intention and he suggested that they contact Shelton F.
King, director of personnel services of the University, in
order to get the names of all the employees who would be
involved in such an organization. Couderc and Henry did;
so and obtained from King a list of all the nonexempt;
not received in evidence No opposition to said motion has been filed Upon
consideration of the motion , it is hereby ordered that the transcript be
corrected as requested It is further ordered that Resp Exh 2 be treated as a
rejected exhibit
i The matters set forth under this heading occurred outside of the 10(b)
period and do not form the basis for any finding of violation of the Act
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the Respondent, broken down into work
areas. King suggested that they elect one person from each
area. Couderc and Henry changed the areas and rear-
ranged the list. Couderc and Henry then decided to call a
general meeting of all nonexempt employees not already
represented by Local 29,4 after first securing the approval
of Father McAnulty. King secured a room for this meeting.
They then typed ballots for election of representatives and
an accompanying letter, all of which were printed by King
on university stationery and distributed by the University's
interoffice mail. The correspondence accompanying the
ballots which were sent to the nonexempt employees read
as follows:
With the approval of Father McAnulty and the
Administrative Council and the assistance of Mr.
Shelton King, will be a meeting of all employees not
represented by Local 29 on Monday, September 28,
12:00 noon, in the Duquesne Room of the Student
Union for the purpose of electing a "voice." This
meeting is for the benefit of all, and we urge your
attendance. Arrangements should be made within each
office to free as many employees as possible.
Mr. King will give a few brief remarks after which
a closed session will follow. Please bring the enclosed
nomination form with you as we will explain election
procedures at this time. Please remember that this is a
meeting for employees by employees and can only
succeed with your help and cooperation.
The foregoing letter was signed by Henry and Couderc.
The meeting which followed was open to all nonexempt
employees, approximately 200-225 in number. At the
meeting, King spoke briefly.5 King thanked the 150 to 200
employees present for attending, said that he was pleased
with the fact that they were getting together, and stated
that their organization had legal sanction. He thereupon
left the meeting.- Henry explained to those present that the
purpose of the meeting was to organize a union. She
further explained that the Employees Committee would
present overall problems and desires of the employees to
the administration and to act "as a union steward" on
problems which might affect only one or a few of the
employees. Couderc and Henry were elected cochairwom-
en. Although the meeting was held during the employees'
lunch hour, they were not docked for the overrun time
which the meeting consumed. On November 5, 1970, the
nonexempt employees held another meeting at which the
candidates for membership on the Employees Committee
spoke. Following this meeting, the employees returned
their ballots through the interoffice mail.
B. Characteristics of the Employees Committee
The Employees Committee consists of eight elected
representatives from different areas of the University, and
two cochairwomen. It has no constitution or bylaws and
4 The University has a collective-bargaining relationship with Local 29
of the Service Employees Union, which represents the custodial and
building maintenance employees of the University
5 There is a dispute as to how King happened to be at the meeting
Henry testified that King's presence had been requested in order to allay
any fears on the part of any nonexempt employees that their attendance
would result in reprisals by the University According to Couderc, King
requested the opportunity to be present at the meeting It is unnecessary to
collects no dues. In short , the Employees Committee has
no treasurys The Committee publishes a newsletter called
"The Bee ," which is printed weekly by the University.
Cards authorizing the Employees Committee to represent
the signer in collective bargaining were xeroxed on
university stationery . All of its expenses are charged to
King's budget . Weekly meetings of the Employees Com-
mittee are held on University time in a room provided by
the University , and members of the Committee are not
docked for time spent in these meetings . The first meeting
of the Employees Committee after its organization was
held on November 13, 1970, within the 10(b) period.
The Employees Committee has never bargained with the
University for a collective -bargaining agreement , limiting
itself to specific proposals such as remission of tuition for
employees , sick leave , a dress code , proposals which were
submitted through the Staff Relations Committee (dis-
cussed below), and acting on individual grievances.
C. The Staff Relations Committee
Following the approval of the establishment of the
Employees Committee, Personnel Director King recom-
mended to his superior , Kenneth R. Erfft, vice president
and treasurer of the University , that a Staff Relations
Committee , herein and in the record referred to as the
SRC, be established , comprised of representatives of
faculty and administrators and of the various working
areas on the campus, to establish priorities in various areas
of employer-employee relations and to formulate some
improvements or changes in policies , and recommend
these to the Administrative Council , herein and in the
record referred to as the Ad Council , the governing body
of the University . ? By letter dated September 14, 1970,
Vice President Erfft asked six administrators to serve on
the SRC and named King as chairman . Erfft also outlined
the SRC's functions and assignments as follows:
B. Function of the Committee
1. To review and evaluate personnel policies and
related problems in the area of staff employment
2. To develop solutions to these problems
3. To recommend these solutions to the Adminis-
trative Council
C. Committee Assignment
1. To develop and establish an improved program
of position classification
2. To review existing classifications to determine
that all administrative and professional positions are,
appropriately classified
3. To review and approve or disapprove all
requests for promotions and classification change
4. To establish a formal grievance procedure which
will include review by the Committee as one of its steps
5. To review existing personnel policies and proce-
dures and recommend changes where desirable
resolve this conflict
6 The Employees Committee participated in the instant proceeding as a
Party in Interest and was represented by independent counsel When asked
how the Employees Committee planned to pay counsel , Mary Jane Sherrill,
currently a cochairwoman, answered that the Employees Committee was
engaged in a fund drive for that purpose
r The Ad Council is composed of the president of the University and the
vice presidents of all major areas of the University.
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY 897
6. To review all budget recommendations concern-
ing the involved employees and approve or disapprove
them
7. To establish an ongoing program of upward and
downward communication
8. To develop and recommend a wage and salary
progression scale appropriate to the plan of position
classification developed
9. To determine that University personnel policies
and procedures are uniformly followed in all depart-
ments and divisions of the University
10. To develop a program for affirmative action in
equal opportunity employment and monitor its prog-
ress.
The SRC met weekly, later biweekly. Couderc and
Henry, as cochairwomen of the Employees Committee, sat
on the SRC at the invitation of King, but did so under
protest.8
As admitted by Personnel Director King, the Employees
Committee was the only group whose proposals were
required to be submitted to the SRC. When the Employees
Committee desired to present a proposal to the Ad
Council, it prepared an agenda regarding these proposals
and submitted it to the SRC. Each member of the SRC had
one vote, and a majority was required to approve a policy
decision or policy position. King acted as chairman and
frequently gave his "advice and counsel" on matters under
discussion and on occasion assigned a member of the SRC
to rewrite the Employees Committee proposals; From that
point, according to King:
.. . the normal procedure was that I would put the
recommendation in a form of a memorandum to Dr.
Erfft, and it would normally be read and approved by
the SRC in its final form. Then it would go to Dr. Erfft
for his passing it on to them, and presenting it to the
Administrative Council.
After approval by the Ad Council, the recommendation
was returned to the SRC, and King added what he
considered to be "checks and balances" in the implementa-
tion of the proposal. In the case of one proposal, viz,
relating to sick leave, the Employees Committee was upset
with King's changes.
Although King envisaged the SRC as the proper channel
of communication between the Employees Committee and
the Ad Council over conditions of employment of
nonexempt employees, it is clear from the record that the
Employees Committee did not always utilize this channel
of communication. Thus, the Employees Committee took
up the question of employee swimming privileges with the
Swimming Pool Committee, parking problems with the
Security and Parking Committee, and cafeteria service with
the manager of the cafetena. It also took up individual
grievances with King and Erfft directly.
The Employees Committee was unhappy with the
necessity of going through the SRC, feeling that there
should be a more direct channel of communication
between the Employees Committee and the Ad Council.
8 The cochairwomen also protested to the president of the University
that with the creation of the SRC "we find that we must now present our
problems to a committee, who in turn will review these problems and bring
them before the administration, IF they feel they merit administrative
attention ," and that the nonexempt employees are led "to believe this would
Because of the opposition of the Employees Committee to
the SRC, the latter was dissolved by Vice President Erfft.
At a meeting of the nonexempt employees called by him on
April 1, 1971, Vice President Erfft announced the dissolu-
tion of the SRC. He stated that the purpose of the SRC had
been misunderstood; that it had been created to act as an
advisory body to the Employees Committee; that he,
himself, would act as advisor to the Employees Committee
and would take its proposals to the Ad Council. Personnel
Director King testified that at present he knows of nothing
that would preclude the Employees Committee from
making their recommendations directly to Ad Council, but
stated that the Employees Committee is working with him,
discussing recommendations with him , and "when we can
agree on something, then these are passed on to Ad
Council for approval."
D. The Grievance Committee
The Employees Committee first discussed the need for a
grievance committee and procedures in January and
February 1971. At the April 1 meeting mentioned above,
Vice President Erfft, in addition to announcing the
abolition of the SRC, recommended to the employees that
they organize committees , suggesting in particular a
grievance committee . Vice President Erfft also discussed
labor organizations. Without naming any specific labor
organization, he said that if the employees decided to
affiliate with a labor organization outside of the Universi-
ty, and there was a strike downtown in the city of
Pittsburgh, the nonexempt employees would be called
upon to walk the picket line at any time.
In June 1971, Virginia McCaffery and Nancy Bocchino,
then cochairwomen of the Employees Committee, present-
ed a proposal to Erfft and King with an outline of a
grievance committee and procedure that they wanted to
have established. The Ad Council approved the establish-
ment of a grievance committee, following which the
Employees Committee established a plan of electing
members to the Grievance Committee by buildings,
prepared ballots using university paper, and distributed
said ballots through the University's interoffice mail. The
Grievance Committee which exists as an arm of the
Employees Committee then proceeded to negotiate griev-
ance procedure with King. After the procedure had been
agreed upon by the Employees Committee and King, it
was transmitted as a joint recommendation to Erfft who
was to pass it on the Ad Council.
E. The Advent of Local 249
On April 4, 1971, Local 249 initiated an organizational
campaign in the University and distributed flyers.9
Because of the sympathy which certain members of the
Employees Committee had for Local 249's organizational
efforts, a petition was circulated among the nonexempt
employees that these sympathizers should be removed
simply be another middleman or roadblock in our attempt to be recognized
as an independent university organization "
9 At first, Local 249 addressed its efforts to all nonexempt employees.
Subsequently, for reasons not disclosed in the record, it sought certification
of the two proposed smaller units set forth below.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from office. As a result, Couderc and another member
resigned from the Employees Committee, and arrange-
ments were made for a "vote of confidence" to determine
whether Noreen Wabel and Pat Campbell should remain
on the Employees Committee. Ballots were distributed
through the University's mailing system together with a
notice that an election would be held on April 27. The
notice stated that the tabulation committee would consist
of an employee, a faculty member, and a university
administrator. The faculty member was appointed by the
president of the Faculty Senate, while Vice President Erfft
appointed the administrator. 10 The vote was in favor of
removing the alleged sympathizers from the Employees
Committee.
On April 26, 1971, Local 249 filed two representation
petitions (Cases 6-RC-5806 and 6-RC-5807) seeking to
represent employees in the following units, respectively:
All selling and non-selling employees, including sales
clerks, stockroom employees and bookkeepers, at the
Duquesne University Book Store; excluding all other
employees and guards, professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
All employees, including repairmen, pressmen,
production clerical employees and mail clerks in the
Employer's printing shop; excluding all other employ-
ees, office clerical employees and guards , professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The petitions were consolidated by the Regional Director
for Region 6 on May 5, 1971, and a hearing was held on
May 13, 17, and 18, 1971. The Employees Committee
intervened in those proceedings . The petitions are current-
ly held in abeyance pending the outcome of the instant
proceeding.
Following the filing of the petitions by Local 249, King
suggested to the Employees Committee that they would
need a lawyer and suggested that they contact Mr. William
P. Getty of the law firm of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott.
Although others at the University suggested other attor-
neys to the Employees Committee, the Committee retained
Mr. Getty as its counsel.
F. Solicitation of Cards
On May 12, 1971, the Employees Committee began
soliciting authorization cards from the nonexempt employ-
ees. The cards read as follows:
The undersigned hereby authorizes the Employees
Committee of Duquesne University to act as her [his]
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment.
There is a line for signature. Employees Jo Ann Sarek and
Mary Jane Sherrill went to several buildings of the
University to solicit signatures for the cards. Sherrill had
received permission to change her lunch hour for this
purpose after informing her superior that the purpose of
the change was to secure cards for the Employees
Committee. When Sarek and Sherrill went into the library,
they were met by Library Supervisor Ruth Carrol,
admittedly a supervisor. Carrol inquired as to their
purpose, and they showed her a card and said they would
like to get them signed by the nonexempt employees.
Carrol asked who - else had signed and was shown the
names of the other signers . Carrol told them that she did
not want them going through the library holding meetings
in different corners of the library, but would have her
assistant go through the library and tell the nonexempt
employees that if they wanted to sign cards they should
come up to the main desk. This was done, while Carrol
remained about 5 to 10 feet away . Some employees signed
cards; others did not. Wabel, one of those present , inquired
as to the purpose of having the cards signed. At this point,
Carrol told the employees there that she did not want to
have a meeting in the library and that if the girls were
going to sign cards , they should sign them and get back to
their desks . This ended the episode . Sherrill then returned
to her office and ate her lunch there , having been absent
from her job more than the length of the lunch hour. She
was not docked for being late.
G. The Pay Raise
The University customarily grants annual increases in
pay effective July 1 of each year for the administrative and
clerical personnel , and effective September 1 for the
faculty. Except for 1967 or 1968, when the clerical
employees received an equity adjustment , the pay raise for
the clerical employees had been $15 per month. On July 1,
1971, the University granted all administrative and clerical
employees an increase of 8 percent. The faculty was also
given an 8-percent increase effective September 1, which
was held up by the freeze. The 8- percent increase was in
most instances greater than the raise given in previous
years. In some instances , it amounted to almost double
that which had been previously granted.
H. Concluding Findings
1. Respondent 's affirmative defense
As previously noted , the Respondent pleaded an affirma-
tive defense : that it recognizes and supports many
employee, student, and faculty committees on the campus,
but has never attempted to dominate any of them; that
unlike industry and commerce, committee participation is
an integral part of academic administration , and commit-
tees function in all areas of the Respondent 's major
divisions of endeavor , and their recommendations are
given serious consideration in the formulation of Respon-
dent's policy and solutions to specific problems. Among
the committees referred to are: a Safety , Security and
Parking Committee ; a Search Committee ; a Science
Committee; a 24-Hour Open House Committee; a Faculty
Senate ; a local chapter of American Association of
University Professors; an Athletic Committee; a Budget
Committee; the Administrative Policy Committee; the
Council of Deans; the College Council of the Colleges of
Arts and Sciences ; committees of the College of Nursing,
the College of Law, the College of Pharmacy, and the
10 The appointment of the neutral members of the tabulation committee
was made at the request of the Employees Committee.
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY 899
College of Education; the Committee on Tenure; the
Library Committee; the Swimming Pool Committee; the
Space Committee and a Faculty Handbook Committee.
All of these committees frequently and usually meet on
Respondent's time and on Respondent's property, and
their reports, notices, and minutes are usually and
customarily produced and distributed at Respondent's
expense. Employees of Respondent, whether faculty,
administration, or staff (nonexempt) are not docked for
time spent in attendance at committee meetings during
working hours.
The foregoing does not constitute a defense to the
complaint. Respondent admits that the Employees Com-
mittee is a labor organization.ii The mere fact that it is
denominated as a committee does not change its status as a
labor organization or permit the Respondent to treat it in
any manner other than as a labor organization. Nor may it
assist the Employees Committee because it assists commit-
tees which are not labor organizations. And even if among
the committees enumerated above there might be a labor
organization (such as possibly the local chapter of the
American Association of University Professors),12 this
would not entitle the Respondent to assist the Employees
Committee. Dennison Mfg. Co., 168 NLRB 1012, 1018,
enfd. 419 F.2d 1080 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1023.
2. Support and domination
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, in pertinent part, makes it an
unfair labor practice for an employer "to dominate or
interfere with the . . . administration of any labor
organization or contribute financial or other support to it."
Turning first to the question of support, a review of the
cases indicates that not every act of assistance is prohibit-
ed. Thus, it has been held that minor assistance to an
affiliated union does not violate the Act. H. & H. Plastics
Mfg. Co., 158 NLRB 1395, 1396-1397, enfd. 389 F.2d 678
(C.A. 1); Sunnen Products, Inc., 189 NLRB No. 132;
Hesston Corp., Inc., 175 NLRB 96. Also to be considered is
the degree of dependence of the labor organization on the
support which the employer gives to it. St. Joseph Lead
Company, 171 NLRB 541.
In the instant case, the Employees Committee is
completely dependent on the support which it receives
from the University. It collects no dues and has no
treasury. It meets on university premises, and Employee
Committee members are not docked for time spent in
attendance at meetings.13 Ballots for the various elections
were printed at university expense and were distributed
through the University's interoffice mail. Voting was
conducted on university time. The Employees Committee's
weekly newspaper, "The Bee," by which it communicates
with the nonexempt employees, is printed at university
expense and distributed through the University's interoff-
ice mail. In short, the Employees Committee is completely
See, also, N L R B v Cabot Carbon Co, 360 U S 203, 218
is I do not, of course, by the foregoing statement find or imply that the
American Association of University Professors is a labor organization The
matter is not before me
i3 In contrast, Local 29 does not meet on university premises, except
when that union held a steward's election As King testified "We've
allowed them to use the university facilities, the Duquesne Room, and I
dependent upon the University' s assistance . Indeed, in
such a situation, the Board has held that the financial
support which the employer provides is another method of
control. Tuscarora Plastics Co, 167 NLRB 1059, 1060. As
has been pointed out, "[t]he difference between 'domina-
tion' and mere `support' is one of degree." Koehler's
Wholesale Restaurant Supply, 139 NLRB 945, 953, modi-
fied in other respects 328 F.2d 770 (C.A. 7). 1 therefore find
and conclude that the Respondent unlawfully supported
the Employees Committee, in violation of Section 8(a)(2)
of the Act. Utrad Corporation, 185 NLRB 434.
In the usual sense , the term "domination" connotes
conduct by which the labor organization involved is made
subservient to the wishes of the employer who thereby
influences the labor organization in the demands which it
makes for the employees. However, for a finding of
domination, it is not necessary that the employer actually
dominated the labor organization. It is sufficient for such a
finding that the employer has the ability to do so. Thus, it
has been held that there is domination where "[t]he
structure of this organization accorded Respondent `the
implicit power to control the composition of the Commit-
tee by exercising its managerial power to transfer, promote,
or discharge the employee representatives.' " Tuscarora
Plastics Co, supra at 1059, quoting from Hydraulic
Accessories Company, 165 NLRB 864, 868. See, also,
Holland Manufacturing Company, 129 NLRB 776, 785,
enfd. 292 F.2d 840 (C.A. 3). But compare Ladish Company,
Texas Division, 180 NLRB 582, 584. The structure of the
Employees Committee falls within this class. Thus,
members of the Employees Committee are elected by areas
of the University. Clearly, the University has the power to
alter the membership of the Employees Committee by
transferring, promoting, or discharging the employee
representatives who constitute the Employees Committee.
Domination may also be achieved by the employer's
setting up procedures by which it impedes and frustrates
the labor organization in its attempts to secure benefits for
its members and thereby impairs its effectiveness . Dennison
Mfg. Co., supra, at 1016; St. Joseph Lead Co., supra This is
what was done in the instant case by the creation of the
SRC by which the University could control and modify the
demands of the Employees Committee before they reached
Ad Council. And the record is clear that the Employees
Committee considered this to be the function of the SRC.
As noted above, they protested the formation of the SRC
in a letter to President McAnulty, and they sat on the SRC
under protest. Because of their opposition to the SRC, the
latter was eventually dissolved. However, the Respondent's
control of the Employees Committee has continued. As
Personnel Director King testified, the Employees Commit-
tee is working with him, discussing recommendations with
him, and "when we can agree on something, then these are
passed on to Ad Council for approval." 14
Further evidence of control is Personnel Director King's
think there were morning and afternoon periods when they had this for
balloting, and I don't think that we docked anybody if they happened to be
a few minutes late that particular time" However, Local 29's steward is not
docked for time spent in discussing grievances with King, nor is the steward
docked when Local 29's business agent comes to the campus to discuss
problems with him
i' The composition of the Employees Committee has changed since its
(Continued)
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suggestion to the Employees Committee that it retain
counsel when Local 249 filed its petitions , at a time when
the Employees Committee had no means of paying an
attorney, and his suggestion of the particular attorney
whom the Employees Committee selected . This demon-
strates the pervasiveness of Respondent 's control of the
Employees Committee . Cf. Huberta Coal Co., 168 NLRB
122, enfd . 408 F .2d 793 (C.A. 6).15
In view of all the foregoing , I find and conclude that the
Respondent dominated and interfered with the administra-
tion of the Employees Committee and contributed finan-
cial support to it, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act.
3. The Midwest Piping principle
The General Counsel further contends that Respondent's
continued bargaining with the Employees Committee as
the representative of all nonexempt employees, after Local
249 filed petitions seeking to represent certain of these
employees, must be viewed as violative of the Act under
the Midwest Piping principle.16 The General Counsel
further points out that the Respondent continued to deal
with the Employees Committee after the filing of the
petitions, notwithstanding the fact that the majority status
of the Employees Committee has never been substantiated.
The Respondent and the Employees Committee do not
dispute the foregoing, nor does the Respondent dispute the
fact that it never demanded formal proof of majority status
from the Employees Committee.17 They contend, however,
that the General Counsel has failed to establish a prima
facie case for the application of the Midwest Piping
principle in that the General Counsel did not submit any
evidence as to the appropriateness of the units sought to be
represented by Local 249. William Penn Broadcasting
Company, 93 NLRB 1104, 1106.
In view of my finding and conclusion that the University
unlawfully supported and dominated the Employees
Committee, the issue as to the applicability of the Midwest
Piping principle becomes academic, as the remedy to be
provided, assuming that the University violated the
Midwest Piping principle, would be no greater nor more
extensive than the remedy which is customarily prescribed
where unlawful support and domination is found.
4. The pay raise
The General Counsel contends that the increased pay
raise granted to all nonexempt employees on July 1 was
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. He points out that
the raise was given less than 2 months after Local 249 filed
inception it appears that the Employees Committee as currently constituted
is less militant in desiring to present its demands directly to Ad Council
i5 The General Counsel contends further that the Respondent unlawful-
ly assisted the Employees Committee by permitting solicitation of
authorization cards by the Employees Committee during duty hours and
has aided the solicitors' efforts in securing signatures to the cards The
reference is to the isolated instance in which Sherrill received permission
from her superior to change her lunch hour and then went with Sarek to the
library to solicit signatures to authorization cards The record discloses that
Librarian Carrol took no part in the conversations and did not suggest or
indicate in any way to the library employees that they sign authorization
cards Not only was this an isolated incident, but it is clear from the record
that Carrol did not attempt to influence the library employees to sign the
its representation petitions. Because the pay raise was
substantially greater than the normal pay raise granted
each year, the General Counsel argues that it constituted
an attempt to sway employees against representation by
Local 249.
I cannot agree . In the circumstances of this case , the fact
that the pay raise on July 1, 1971, was greater than those
given in previous years does not give rise to the inference
that it was given in an attempt to sway the nonexempt
employees. The 8-percent pay raise was given to all
employees of the University, some 2,000 in number,
including not only the clerical employees, but the adminis-
trative employees and faculty as well. I find it difficult to
believe that the University's purpose in granting an
increased wage rate to some 2,000 employees was con-
ceived for the purpose of swaying the attitudes of some
200-225 clerical employees-a case of the tail wagging the
dog. See Nalco Chemical Co., 163 NLRB 68, 71; Fleming &
Sons of Colorado, Inc., 147 NLRB 1271, 1284; Derby Coal
& Oil Co., Inc., 139 NLRB 1485, 1486.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respon-
dent are of a character striking at the root of employee
rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.is
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Both Employees Committee and Local 249 are,
authorization cards Insofar as solicitation during duty hours is concerned,
it does not appear that the Respondent had any rule prohibiting such
practice Accordingly , I do not base my finding of support and assistance on
this incident
16 Midwest Piping and Supply Co, Inc, 63 NLRB 1060,1070-71
17 Respondent argues that there was no need for such a demand , because
some 150-200 employees out of a complement of 200-225 nonexempt
employees attended the meeting at which the Employees Committee was
created However, the fact that employees attended a meeting called for all
nonexempt employees does not indicate that they, or a majority of them,
selected the Employees Committee to represent them.
I N St Joseph Lead Company, 171 NLRB 54 I, In I
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY
individually, labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Since on or about November 13, 1970, and at all
times thereafter, Respondent had dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of the Employees Committee
and has contributed financial and other support to it in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
901
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]