Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 930 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORPORATION and AMAL-
GAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL 66
Case No. C-235.-Decided March 14, 1938
Rare Metal Products Manufacturing Company-Interference, Restraint, or
Coercion: antiunion statements ; use of labor spv ; isolation of Union president ;
attempt to induce employees to renounce Union and, institute employee repre-
sentation plan-Collective Bargaining: flat refusal to deal with "outside" union
as representative of employees-Strike: brought on by employer's unfair labor
practices-Discrimination: alleged refusal to reinstate strikers ; charges of,
dismissed, due to failure of strikers' committee to make request for reinstate-
ment-Company-Dominated Union: result of employer's prior efforts to insti-
tute "inside" union in plant ; sponsorship, domination, and interference with
formation and administration of ; support of ; mimeographing and typing serv-
ices furnished by employer ; use of company building for meetings and ballot-
ing ; contrast between hostility to Union and open favoritism toward company-
dominated organization ; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-
Reinstatement Ordered: strikers, upon application ; employer's contention that
participation in sit-down strike should preclude reinstatement, found without
merit under circumstances-Discharge Ordered: employees hired during and
after strike if necessary to make room for employees reinstated-Back Pail:
awarded to strikers whose applications for reinstatement are refused by
employer.
Mr. William R. Walsh, for the Board.
Levinson, Becker, Peebles & Swiren, by Mr. Max Swiren and Mr.
Harold M. Keele, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Sidney H. Block, of
Waukegan, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Lester Collins, of Waukegan, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Lewis M. Gill, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
0
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Meyer Adelman,
organizer for Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin'
Workers of North America, Local 66, herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Leonard
C. Bajork, Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago,
930
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 931
Illinois), issued its complaint dated May 25, 1937, against Fansteel
Metallurgical Corporation, North Chicago, Illinois, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning df Section
8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union. On June 2, 1937, the
respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying the unfair
labor practices charged, alleging that all of its manufacturing op-
erations are intrastate in character, and praying that the complaint
be dismissed.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Waukegan, Illinois,
from June 7 to June 25, 1937, before Tilford E. Dudley, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent,
and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was af-
forded all parties.
During the hearing, the respondent moved for dismissal of the
complaint in so far as it was inconsistent with an order and decree
of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, relating to a sit-down
strike in the respondent's plant in which certain individuals named in
the complaint participated. The Trial Examiner denied the motion
on the ground that the issues and parties were not the same and the
court's findings not binding upon the Board. This ruling is hereby
affirmed. At the conclusion of the Board's case, the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint as a whole and also made numerous motions
to dismiss particular parts thereof and to strike certain testimony.
Some of these motions, including the motion to dismiss the entire com-
plaint, were denied at the hearing; the Trial Examiner reserved rul-
ings on others until the issuance of his Intermediate Report. A large
number of other motions and of objections to the admission of evi-
dence were made during the course of the hearing, both by counsel for
the respondent and by counsel for the Board. The Trial Examiner
reserved rulings on some of such motions and objections for disposi-
tion in his Intermediate Report.
On September 2, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act, and recommended that the
respondent cease and desist its unfair labor practices, reinstate, with
back pay, all but ten of the individuals named in the complaint as
having been discrimirtated against, bargain collectively with the
Union, withdraw recognition from a company-dominated labor
932 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization, and take certain other appropriate action to remedy
the situation brought about by the unfair labor practices. There-
after, the respondent filed voluminous exceptions to findings and
recommendations of the Intermediate Report. The Union also filed
exceptions to certain parts of the Intermediate Report. The Board
has fully considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and,
in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, -and
order set forth below, finds no merit in them. The Board has also
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and on ob-
jections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New York corporation with offices at New
York City and at North Chicago, Illinois, where its only plant is
located. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various prod-
ucts from tantalum, columbium, tungsten, molybdenum, and other
rare metals. Its finished products include contact points for ignition
systems, tantalum parts for chemical and rayon industries, battery
chargers and rectifiers, and special alloy wires for vacuum tubes
and radio tubes. Approximately 70 per cent of the raw materials
used in the manufacturing processes of the respondent originate in
States other than the State of Illinois and in foreign countries. Ap-
proximately 70 per cent of its finished products are sold and shipped
into States other than the State of Illinois and into foreign countries.
The value of its manufactured products during the calendar year of
1936 was about $1,050,000. The respondent has few competitors in
its field, and is in fact the only manufacturer of some of the products
it makes.
II. THE UNION
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North
America, Lodge 66, is a labor organization affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization, and admits to its membership
hourly paid employees of the respondent. It excludes from mem-
bership clerical employees, laboratory men, engineers, and super-
visory employees.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of the unfair labor practices
Until early in July 1936 there was no labor, organization in the re-
spondent's plant. Dissatisfaction arose at that time over the intro-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 933
duction into the plant of certain "efficiency experts" who proposed a
system of wages based upon certain minima of production . Envision-
ing a serious danger to their scale of earnings , the employees began
seriously discussing organization . A group of employees undertook
to establish an industrial union in the plant, and an organization
drive was conducted under the guidance of Meyer Adelman, an or-
ganizer for the Steel Workers Organizing Committee of the Amalga-
mated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America.
A charter , designating the Union as Lodge 66 of the Amalgamated
and dated July 24, 1936, was presented to the Union on August 14,
1936. A skeleton organization had been set up prior to the receipt of
the charter ; temporary officers had been elected , and a substantial
beginning toward organizing the employees of the respondent had
been made.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On the morning of September 10, 1936, John Kondrath, an em-
ployee of the respondent and president of the Union, requested A. J.
Anselm, the respondent's plant superintendent, to meet with a com-
mittee of the Union. Anselm specified that only employees of five
years' standing should be on the committee. This condition, it hap-
pened, was satisfied at the time. While much grosser examples of
antiunion conduct followed, we may point out here that the imposi-
tion of such a condition on the personnel of the Union committee was
totally unwarranted. The right of employees, guaranteed by the
Act, to representatives of their own choosing necessarily negatives any
privilege on the part of the employer to place limitations upon the
representatives whom the employees are permitted to designate.
At any rate, a committee of six employees, including Kondrath,
met with Anselm that afternoon. A contract 1 was presented for his
consideration. It embodied certain provisions for improvements
in working conditions, for a closed shop and check-off, for recognition
of and bargaining with the Union. Anselm read it over, and ob-
jected to the closed-shop and check-off provisions. However, he by
no means limited his remarks to such legitimate subjects of objection
and negotiation. He announced that it was the policy of the respond-
ent to refuse recognition to any union with "outside influences."
Producing several copies of a booklet'- setting forth details of an
employee representation plan, he handed them out to the committee
and asked them to consider such a plan in lieu of the form of organ-
ization they had chosen. He did not raise the question of whether the
Union represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate
1 Board Exhibit No. 12.
2 Board Exhibit No. 13.
934 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit; he made it clear that the respondent 's policy was to refuse
recognition to "outside " unions.
Several employees who were present at this conference testified to
the above facts, and no controverting testimony was' presented by
the respondent , although Anselm was present at the hearing and in
fact testified at some length on other phases of the case. In its
exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner, how-
ever , the respondent urges a finding that by "union recognition"
Anselm was referring merely to the closed shop . This peculiar con-
struction of his remarks was not suggested at the hearing, and we
would be disregarding the evidence if we adopted it. As a matter of
fact, another proposed contract ,' with the closed -shop provision elimi-
nated, was presented by the committee subsequently , to no avail.
However, the evidence clearly shows that regardless of terms, Anselm
announced an unqualified opposition to outside unions.
If any doubt remained in the minds of the employees as to Anselm's
views on the point, it was removed on the occasion of the committee's
next visit to his office on September 21, 1936. This time the Union
had duly voted to include Adelman , the "outside" organizer, on the
committee. Pursuant to an appointment which they understood to
have been made for them by a representative of the Board , the com-
mittee proceeded to Anselm's office and were shown inside. Anselm
was out for the moment but soon returned . Adelman was introduced
to him by Ed Ruck, one of the employees on the committee. The
conference was short -lived. The testimony of several of the com-
mittee members who were present is practically identical as to
Anselm's remarks when Adelman was introduced . The testimony
of John Kondrath in that regard is as follows :
Mr. Anselm said , "I have nothing to do with this gentleman
here. He is not on my pay roll ." And he says , "Therefore, I
don't want to have any discussion with him . He better go out
and present his card and wait out in the lobby, and then maybe
I will leave him in."
Well, Meyer Adelman told Mr. Anselm he had no calling
cards, but that he thought that the committee that had brought
him in there was better than any calling cards he could have.
Mr. Anselm got kind of upset and told him to leave, and get
out. He says , "Get out of here. We don 't want you", or words
to that effect.
So then Mr . Meyer Adelman went out , and Mr. Anselm was
very excited and angry , and wanted to know who brought him in.
$ Board Exhibit No. 17.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 935
After Adelman's departure, Anselm denied that any appointment
had been made, and the committee withdrew.
The antiunion conduct of the respondent by no means was limited
to the occurrences described above. The expressions of hostility to
the Union were supplemented by a prompt and aggressive attempt
on the part of the respondent to foist upon its employees a company-
dominated union.
We have already noted that at the September 10 conference Anselm
sought to interest the committee in an employee representation plan.
The afternoon of the same day Anselm had conversations with
Thomas Fagan, Ted Daluga, and Clarence Dreyer, three employees
in the cutting department, relative to the contract proposed by the
Union. Fagan and Dreyer testified that Anselm tried to induce them
to drop the Union and to sign a petition for a company union.
Anselm denied this and testified that he merely was trying to ascer-
tain whether they understood the full import of the provisions of
the contract. As to the petition referred to by Fagan and Dreyer,
he testified that it was not circulated that day, but admitted that he
caused such a petition, relating to an employee representation plan,
to be circulated three or four days later. According to his own testi-
mony, this petition "called for an expression from the employees, if
they favored that plan." He testified further that his object in cir-
culating the petition was to "find out what the boys down in the shop
were thinking about."
The circulation of the petition was vigorously conducted, during
working hours. Anselm himself and a number of foremen partici-
pated. Uncontradicted evidence shows that Hall, It "straw boss,"
told Zelenick, an employee, that "we are trying to form a company
union . . . you might as well sign up ... The company will never
recognize the outside union anyway," and that Schardt, a foreman,
remarked to Steve Luczo, another employee whose signature Hall
was soliciting, "Steve, you are better off if you sign for the company
union." Other employees were also solicited while they were at
work.
Shortly after the second conference on September 21 each em-
ployee received an interoffice envelope containing two documents.
One was entitled "A Plan of Employee Representation Which Has
Been Pronounced Successful in a Large Number of Plants," and
contained details of a typical company union set-up, with provi-
sion for committees containing an equal number of employee and
management representatives and for arbitration of grievances if
adjustment proved impossible.4 No dues were involved. The other
4 Board Exhibit No 15.
80535-38-60
936 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
document was a statement of the respondent's labor policies, con-
taining various assurances of the respondent's willingness to treat its
employees well.,' Included in it were the following illuminating
passages : '
To-day, there is no question of its (respondent's) ability to
provide employment and opportunity unless its progress is
broken by internal troubles.
The management will not sign the closed shop agreement nor
any agreement which has for its objective the virtual control of
the relations of the company and its various employees.
In the best interests of everyone concerned, management re-
serves its right to reward individual merit and efficient work,
and to protect and preserve the rights of its individual workers.
Likewise, management reserves the right to discontinue the serv-
ices of any whose work, abilities or general conduct is not in
keeping with the best- interests of the business and its employees
as a whole. - ,
In view of Anselm's preceding clarification of the respondent's
attitude toward "outside" unions, and together with the drive to set
up a company union, the meaning of the documents was obvious.
The carefully guarded statements in the announcement of the re-
spondent's-policy were clear enough so that employees could readily
comprehend the policy of the respondent toward the Union. The
accompanying company-union plan served to drive the message home
to any who failed to "catch on" from a reading of the statement
of policy.
This attempt to set up a company union proved abortive. Despite
the presence of a large number of signatures on the petition, enthu-
siasm for a company union appeared to be centered principally
in the respondent, and the campaign was dropped. Anselm testified
that Aitchison, the president, told him to allow the matter to rest
with the employees. This was after the signatures had been obtained.
The attack shifted to other fronts. On November 11, 1936,
Kondrath, the president of the Union, was called into Anselm's office,
which is set apart from the rest of the plant. Kondrath had been
working in the tool room. Anselm told him that he had anew job
for him. A room,near Anselm's office had been fitted up with a lathe
and a drill press, and Kondrath was to work there. Kondrath testi-
fied that Anselm told him "you are to work over here from eight
o'clock until four o'clock, and during the noon hour you can go and
eat your dinner any place you want to, except visiting inside of the
plant." Upon obtaining Kondrath's promise to stay away from the
other workers, Anselm took him to his new quarters and told him
6 Board Exhibit No 14.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 937
that if there was no work to be clone at a given time, he was to sit
down. Magazines were brought to him to enable him to while away
the time. One Schultz, Anselm's secretary, served as a flunkey to go
to the shops and get Kondrath tools when needed. Kondrath was
paid for the lunch period. It is not clear from the evidence what
Kondrath's duties were in his isolated location; the respondent's
answer alleges that the purpose of the transfer was to have Kon-
drath "assist in the development and improvement of machines and
machine parts." On the evidence, however, it is abundantly clear
that the real purpose was to keep him away from the other workers.
This ingenious insulation of the employees from the presence of
the Union president was abandoned in January, when Kondrath was
returned to his old post in the tool room.
One further matter deserves scrutiny before we discuss the events
of February 17, 1937. On August 17, 1936, the respondent applied
for membership in the National Metal Trades Association, herein
called the N. M. T. A. Its application was accepted in the latter part
of March 1937. The N. M. T. A. is an association of employers dedi-
cated to the principle of the open shop, and in its Declaration of
Principles, which was introduced into evidence, it proclaims that
its members will not "deal with striking employees as a body."
Aitchison testified that he was ignorant of N. M. T. A. principles
relating to labor organizations, except that he agreed with its views
on the closed shop. He testified that the respondent joined the
N. M. T. A. for the sole purpose of furthering business efficiency by
means of its facilities for exchange of views between its members
on common problems of manufacturing technique.
One phase of the N. M. T. A.'s activities was not unknown to the
respondent, and that was its function of supplying espionage agents.
The respondent employed one Alfred Johnstone through the N. M.
T. A. the day after applying for membership therein. The
complaint alleges that he was hired as a labor spy and used as
such; the respondent's answer denies this and alleges that he was
hired "for the purpose of working in the repondent's plant and
observing and reporting upon all matters coming to his attention
respecting plant production, efficiency of plant supervision, efficiency
of tool and machine equipment, the morale of employees, shop work-
ing conditions, and all other factors reflected in the prevailing rate
of production." The testimony relating to this phase of the case
warrants particularly close attention, for it is common knowledge
that the use of the labor spy is a device peculiarly calculated to' lead
to strife. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of
National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Company, 301
U. S. 49 (1937), recognized the propriety of condemning such activ-
ity as an unfair labor practice, and upheld an order of the Board
938 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
requiring the employer in that case to cease and desist from, among
other things, employing persons for the purpose of espionage within
the union there involved.
Aitchison testified that Johnstone was represented to be an expert
in plant production problems, in efficient plant supervision, and in
tool and machine work, and that he was hired as such. He admitted
that Johnstone was instructed to make confidential reports to him,
and that Johnstone's true function was not disclosed to his fellow em-
ployees. Aitchison alleged, however, that the object of this secret
arrangement was not in any way to spy upon the union activities of
the men, but rather was to get the ideas of an experienced and ca-
pable machinist on possible improvements in efficiency of the plant,
including changes in personnel and equipment. Johnstone's reports
were delivered weekly to Aitchison at the latter's home, and were
burned as soon as read. Aitchison said that they dealt primarily
with suggested transfers of supervisory personnel and with sundry
minor improvements in working conditions. He admitted that four
of the reports contained information on the activities of the Union,
but said that only the names of the officers and speakers at Union
meetings were revealed, and that he knew the names of the officers
anyway. As a matter of fact, Johnstone's reports were made to the
N. M. T. A., and then transmitted to Aitchison, during the month
of October. Thereafter, due to the fact that the N. M. T. A. was
subpenaed to appear before the Senate Subcommittee investigating
violations of civil liberties, the reports were made directly to Aitchi-
son. This appears from the testimony of one Abbott, an official of the
N. M. T. A. We may reasonably wonder why the N. M. T. A. took
pains to avoid having Johnstone's reports get into the hands of a
committee investigating violations of civil liberties, if the reports
were as innocuous as Aitchison would have us believe. Johnstone was
discharged about December 1, 1936, allegedly because of certain
domestic difficulties.
Aitchison was immediately followed on the witness stand by Abbott,
office manager of the N. M. T. A. in Chicago. Abbott's testimony
conflicted directly with Aitchison's on one point. Aitchison had
testified that Johnstone was paid, in addition to the regular wages
for machinist work, enough to make his total compensation $200 per
month, and that all this was paid directly by the respondent to John-
stone, and not through the N. M. T. A. Abbott testified that the
N. M. T. A. billed the respondent for $225 monthly, less the amount
Johnstone earned as regular wages, and that the N. M. T. A. then
paid Johnstone the difference between his wages and $200 a month.
The N. M. T. A. kept $25 a month. The respondent offered there-
after no explanation of this discrepancy.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 939
It is interesting to note that employees who worked at machines
in Johnstone's vicinity in the plant testified that he was a poor work-
man. In fact, even his foreman testified that Johnstone was "very
poor," that he "could not do the work," and that he "was not me-
chanic enough." However, Johnstone did show aptitude at one func-
tion. He lost no time in joining the Union, attending meetings, in-
quiring as to the numerical strength of the Union, and suggesting to
his fellow members that they strike. Kondrath testified that John-
stone was eager to attend all Union functions, that "he wouldn't miss
a meeting on a bet." Here we find the plausible explanation of his
presence. The familiar pattern of the labor spy emerges. His pre-
vious experience adds to the picture in this respect. According to
Abbott's testimony, Johnstone had been haunting the N. M. T. A.
offices in Chicago for about a year and a half previous to August
1936, seeking employment. The assignment to the respondent's plant
was his first job for the N. M. T. A. His only known experience,
aside from his claim to be a machinist and tool maker, was prior
employment at Corporations Auxiliary Company and at the Sher-
man Service, both organizations having a history of labor espionage
activities.
Upon all the evidence, we can reach only one conclusion. We can-
-not believe that Aitchison was so poor at selecting personnel that he
unwittingly employed Johnstone as an expert in the various lines
indicated in the respondent's answer to the complaint. We conclude
that he was hired as a labor spy and that one of his principal func-
tions, to say the least, was to engage in espionage within the Union.
C. Conclusions as to unfair labor practices prior to February 17, 1937
From the various events set forth above it appears that the re-
spondent engaged in a consistent program, developed along varied
lines, of both open and underhanded attack upon the efforts of its
employees to exercise their right to self-organization. We find that
by the antiunion statements and actions of Anselin on September
10 and September 21, by the campaign to introduce into the plant
a company union, by the isolation of the Union president from con-
tact with his fellow employees, and by the employment and use of
Alfred Johnstone as a labor spy, the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The refusal to bargain collectively on February 17, 1937
The complaint alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act in refusing
940 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to bargain collectively with the Union on September 10 and Septem-
ber 21, 1936, on February 17, 1937, and at all times thereafter.
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged that the production and maintenance work-
ers, exclusive of supervisory, clerical, and laboratory employees, con-
stitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The Union admits to mem-
bership all hourly paid employees of the respondent, excluding lab-
oratory and engineering employees, supervisory employees and
clerical employees. The respondent claimed that employees in the
maintenance department, consisting of electricians, carpenters, and
steam fitters, should not be included in the bargaining unit with the,
remainder of the hourly paid employees. However, we find no
reason for this proposed exclusion under the circumstances. Most of
these employees were members of the Union, and some were ex-
tremely active members. No craft organization at any time purported
to represent them in dealing with the respondent. We will include-
them in the unit.
We find that the hourly paid employees of the respondent, exclud-
ing laboratory and engineering employees, supervisory employees,
and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that such unit insures to the employees of
the respondent the full benefit of their rights to self-organization and
to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the
Act. .
2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the appropriate
unit
A count of the respondent's time cards made at the hearing, with
deductions for those not properly belonging in the unit, revealed
that on September 10 and September 21 there were at least 185 or 186•
employees in the appropriate unit. Witnesses for the Union did not
claim, and the evidence does not reveal that it had more than 91
members on either of those dates. While this lack of a majority
precludes a finding of unfair labor practices under Section 8 (5) of
the Act on those dates, it does not, of course, preclude findings of
interference and coercion by the respondent on those occasions di-
rected against "outside" unionization.
On February 17, 1937, the result is different. It was stipulated
that there were on that date 229 employees in the unit we have found
to be appropriate. This figure was based on the respondent's rec-
ords. On behalf of the Union, there were introduced into evidence
membership cards which were made available to the respondent's
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 941
counsel for examination. The respondent checked the cards against
its pay. roll. The cards were withdrawn later in the hearing and
lists of the signatories were admitted into evidence in substitution
therefor. After deducting from the list several employees shown to
have left the respondent's employ prior to February 17, 1937, it ap-
pears that on February 17, 155 employees in the appropriate unit
had, by signing membership cards, designated and selected the Union
as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining. No
evidence was introduced to show that any of these individuals had
withdrawn from the Union on or before that date.
We accordingly find that on February 17, 1937, the Union had
been designated as their bargaining representatiie by a clear ma-
jority of the respondent's employees in the unit above-described as
appropriate. Pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was,
therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment.
3. The refusal to bargain
On the morning of February 17, a duly authorized bargaining
committee from the Union once more met Anselm in his office. The
committee informed him that as representatives of the employees
in the plant, they desired recognition of the Union and collective
bargaining. Anselm reaffirmed the respondent's policy of non-recog-
nition of "outside" unions. At the request of the committee, he con-
ferred with Aitchison and reported back, saying "Nothing doing.
It stands as it is, everything." He suggested, however, that the com-
mittee return at 2 p. in. the same day. The committee returned at
the appointed hour, and Anselm told them : "It is still the same.
We can't recognize an outside union. If you fellows want to call it
as a shop committee, why, we will give you collective bargaining,
but under the leadership of outsiders, and the Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Iron,. Steel and Tin Workers, we will not." The com-
mittee withdrew after further discussion proved futile.
The respondent did not controvert the testimony relating to this
refusal to bargain. It is significant that Anselm, far from attempt-
ing to question the committee as to whether they represented a ma-
jority of the employees, indicated a complete willingness to bargain
with them if they would renounce their chosen union and assume
the status of a shop committee. Coming after the series of blows
at the Union described above, this refusal to bargain constituted an
unequivocal and final defiance of the Act, and indicated clearly to the
employees that the respondent had no intention of complying with
the law.
942 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that on February 17, 1937, the respondent refused to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the representative of its em-
ployees in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours df employment, and
other conditions of employment. We also find that by such refusal
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its,employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization and to collective bar-
gaining through representatives of their own choosing, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
E. The strike
Retiring from Anselm's office after the collapse of the attempt to
bargain on February 17, the Union committee immediately recon-
vened in one of the plant buildings. It had been voted full authority
by the Union to take such action as seemed appropriate if the re-
spondent could not be induced to recognize the Union and engage in
collective bargaining. It was testified that the members of the Union
were becoming restive and demanding that the committee take vigor-
ous action. The committee decided to take over and hold two of the
respondent's "key" buildings. These buildings were thereupon oc-
cupied by about 95 employees. Work stopped, the foremen and
women employees left at the request of the Union leaders, and those
employees who did not desire to participate were permitted to leave.
There was no violence. The remainder of the ph,nt also ceased op-
erations. This happened at about 2: 30 in the afternoon. A number
of the members of the Union who worked on the night shift and did
not arrive for work until about 3 o'clock did not join their fellow
members inside the buildings.
At about 6 o'clock that same evening, Anselm, accompanied by two
police officials and Max Swiren, counsel for the respondent, went to
each of the buildings and demanded that the men leave. They re-
fused, and Swiren thereupon announced in loud tones that all the
men in the plant were discharged for the seizure and retention of the
buildings.
The men occupied the buildings until February 26, 1937. Their
fellow members brought them food, blankets, stoves, cigarettes, and
other supplies, the materials being passed into the plant through
windows after deputies stationed at the plant had inspected the
bundles. The men in the plant kept the machines oiled as best they
could. The only injuries to the plant and the equipment occurred
on the occasions of two attempts to oust the employees. The re-
spondent had, the day after the occupation began, secured an injunc-
tional order against the men from the Circuit Court of Lake County,
Illinois. This was read and posted at the plant. The men refused
to leave the buildings, and a writ of attachment was obtained and
served upon the men by the sheriff on February 19, 1937. Upon the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 943
men's refusal to submit to arrest, the sheriff and his deputies attacked
the buildings with tear gas bombs, a battering ram, and baseball bats.
The employees threw back nuts, bolts, spools, and other articles.
Many windows were broken, some by the tear gas bombs thrown by
the deputies, some by the men in the plant in an attempt to secure
fresh air and to combat the gas fumes. Some of the missiles thrown
by the men were intended for the purpose of breaking the windows;
others were undeniably aimed at the attacking deputies. While the
equipment was damaged by this barrage, as well as by the deputies'
bombs, there is no evidence that any malicious sabotage of the equip-
ment took place.
The attack on the 19th was unsuccessful. Efforts at mediation on
the part of the United States Department of Labor and the Governor
of Illinois proved unavailing. On February 26 the sheriff and an
increased force of deputies conducted another drive on the buildings.
After a pitched battle similar to the one on the 19th, the men were
ousted and placed under arrest. Most of,them were eventually fined
and given substantial jail sentences by the Circuit Court of Lake
County for violating the injunction.
F. The resumption of operations
As soon as the strikers were ejected from the buildings, the re-
spondent began preparing to resume operations. The buildings were
cleaned up, broken windows were replaced, some rusted machines
were rehabilitated, and production gradually began. Aitchison gave
Anselm carte blanche to restaff the plant with new employees in
addition to such of the old employees as he desired to retain. Anselm
told his various foremen to seek out those of the employees they
wanted back, and to have both old employees and new applicants
report to Anselm for interviews. Foremen approached a large num-
ber of old employees with individual offers of reemployment, includ-
ing many Union members who had participated in the occupation of
the buildings or helped to furnish supplies to those inside. Back
pay for the period of the shut-down was offered and given to most
if not all of those returning to work. A large number of new
workers were hired.
Meanwhile the Union was not inactive. On March 3 a duly
authorized Union committee presented to tl}e respondent a written
request ° for a meeting to consider recognition of the Union and
collective bargaining. On the same day, Aitchison sent to the Union
committee a written reply,' refusing to meet for the purposes speci-
fied. A number of reasons were given, including allegations that
the Union was not a proper bargaining agency since the respondent
" Board Exhibit No. 25A.
' Board Exhibit No. 26.
944
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was not in the iron, steel, or tin business, that many of the members
of the Union had become such through duress, and that those who
had participated in the sit-down strike were ex-employees. On
March 5 the Union committee returned and presented another written
request," pointing out that the Union was "desirous of bringing about
peace and a settlement of the strike now in progress," requesting
recognition of the Union, and asking "that a conference be held
between the company and the Union for the purpose of adjudicating
the dispute." Aitchison replied. in writings once more on March 8,
again refusing the Union's request for a meeting.
The respondent continued its individual offers of reinstatement
to such of the employees as it wanted to take back. Some of the
strikers capitulated and returned to work, receiving back pay for
the period during which the plant had been closed. They did not
resign from the Union, although a few testified that they considered
that by going back to work they were abandoning it. Others refused
to return -without Union recognition and mass reinstatement of the
strikers. A skeleton crew of about 30 or 40 began operations in some.
sections of the plant on March 1. By March 12 the restaffing of the
plant was substantially complete and operations were approximately
normal. The strikers were still out at the time of the hearing, when
the plant was operating with a larger force than at the time the strike
began.
G. Conclusions as to the respondent's campaign to break the strike
The complaint alleged that by the announcement of discharge on
February 17, and by the failure to reinstate the strikers upon the
reopening of the plant, the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of the strikers, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union and engaging in unfair' labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. In his Intermediate
Report the Trial Examiner found that by failing to reinstate the
strikers the respondent had, with a few exceptions, so discriminated
against them.
We do not construe Swiren's announcement, coming as it did after
the strike had begun, as a discriminatory discharge of the men in
the plant. We are convinced by the record before us that this an-
nouncement was not so regarded by the strikers. The evidence does
not show that they were deterred from applying for their jobs by
reason of these assertions of Swiren. On the contrary, it was well
known throughout the strikers' ranks that the respondent was taking
back many of those who had occupied the plant. As a matter of
Board Exhibit No. 26A.
Board Exhibit No. 28.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 945
fact the respondent did reinstate 35 of the sit -down strikers , or over
one-third of the total. Emissaries-of the respondent were actively
seeking out individual strikers and imploring them to return to
work. At the same time, the evidence clearly shows that the posi-
tion of practically all of those strikers who did not go back, and
who are named in the complaint , was that they were determined
to stay out until the Union reached a settlement with the respondent.
And we are unable to reach the conclusion that the Union committee,
on March 3 or March 5 , made a collective request for reinstatement
of all the strikers . Rather, the committee on those dates requested
collective bargaining and negotiations looking toward the settlement
of the strike . The strikers were still holding out for the objectives
for which they had originally struck.
It might be argued that since the Union was demanding as a con-
dition to reinstatement only something to which they were entitled
under the Act-recognition and collective bargaining -the respondent
in illegally refusing this demand should be considered as discrimina-
torily refusing to reinstate the strikers . We do not take this view.
So long as the employees were unwilling to return to work under
the conditions existing at the time the strike was called ,1° however
just the grounds on which their position was based , it cannot be said
that the respondent was refusing to reinstate them.
While the record gives rise to a reasonable speculation that the
respondent would have refused to take back the strikers in a body,
such a speculation , in the absence of a clear -cut request for reinstate-
ment, cannot support a finding that the respondent refused to restore
them to their jobs. We will dismiss the complaint in so far as it
alleges that the respondent committed unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging and refusing
to reinstate the strikers.
What we have said above does not in any sense involve approval
of the conduct of the respondent in connection with its strikebreaking
campaign. By refusing to negotiate with the Union committee dur-
ing the strike , it repeated its unlawful refusal to bargain collectively,
and underscored its policy of hostility to the Union. The respondent
cannot be heard to assert that the Union on March 3 and 5 no longer
was the representative of the majority of the employees. The
evidence does not show that any of the Union members had resigned
by that time , and any defections from the Union 's representative
authority implied in the return to work of some of the members is
clearly ascribable to the unlawful conduct of the respondent in con-
10 Cf Matto, of Ame„con Afamefactur ,ng Company; Company antion of The American
Manufacturing Company; The Collective Bargaining Committee of The Brooklyn Plant
of The American Manufactu t o g Company and Textile 1Po,ker8 Organizing Committee,
C. 1 0., 5 N . L. R. B. 443.
946 , NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinning to rebuff all efforts of the Union to meet and settle the strike
through negotiation. Any such defections may accordingly be dis-
regarded.ll By the foregoing actions, as well as by going over the
heads of the Union leaders and appealing to individual strikers to
return to work, 'the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act.
We may note in this connection that the respondent contends that
it was under no duty to deal with the strikers due to the unlawful
character of the sit-down strike. Under all the circumstances, we
find no merit in this contention. We will discuss it more fully under
the section headed "The Remedy," in considering the question of
whether the strikers' conduct was sufficiently indefensible to warrant
us in not ordering them reinstated.
H. Domination and interference with the Rare Metal Workers
9f America, Local #1
We have noted above that the respondent had resumed almost coin-
plete operations by about March 12. Early in April a small group
of employees went to Anselm's office and informed him that they
contemplated the formation of an inside union in the plant. He told
them that "under the labor act" they were entitled to organize. This
temporary committee included Henry Berquist, who had been em-
ployed before the strike but who had not joined the Union, and Ted
Sylvin and A. R. Johnson, both new men who were taken on after
the sit-down. Sylvin was informally designated by the group as
temporary leader of the movement.
A meeting was planned for April 15, at which a vote was to be
taken on whether the employees desired an "independent" union in
the plant. The respondent granted the use of one of its buildings for
the meeting and readily permitted the use of its bulletin boards for
announcements relating thereto. It may be noted in this connection
that in August 1936, when the Union requested permission to use the
respondent's bulletin boards for notices of meetings, the request was
denied. But, for the meeting to consider an "independent" union,
the respondent even supplied the typed announcements and mimeo-
graphed about 300 ballots, free of charge.
The meeting was held as scheduled, about 200 employees attended,
and the balloting resulted in a vote of about 185 to 15 in favor of the
formation of an "independent" organization.' The ballots were
placed in a box which was sealed and put in one of the respondent's
vaults.
UMatter of Bradford Dyeing Association ( U S. A ) (a Corporation } and Textile Work-
ets' Organizing Committee of the C I. 0, 4 N L R B. 604.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 947
The temporary committee decided to incorporate the new organiza-
tion. Application for a certificate of incorporation from the State
of Illinois was made on April 17 and the certificate 12 was granted on
the 19th. The name chosen for the organization was "Rare Metal
Workers of America, Local #1." A petition was circulated among
the employees, the signatories becoming charter members. Over 220
signatures were obtained within two or three days.
Another meeting was held, also in one of the respondent's build-
ings. Typed notices and use of the bulletin boards were again sup-
plied by the respondent. Officers were nominated at this meeting,
and an election scheduled. The slate of nominees and notices of the
elections were posted on the respondent's bulletin boards. Ballots
were mimeographed by the respondent. The election was held in the
plant, ballot boxes being placed under the time clocks in two of the
buildings. After the balloting was completed, the ballots were placed
in the respondent's safe. The new officers were installed, and some
dues collected.
At the time of the hearing, the R. M. W. A. had had two meetings
outside the respondent's property. Bylaws 13 had been adopted, the
provisions of which are most illuminating. Section 21 provides that
"any member of this organization may bargain as an individual with
the employer as to rates of pay and wages or working conditions or
any other matter pertaining to his or her employment," and further
provides for submission of any grievances on these matters to the
Executive Board of the organization, whose action shall be final.
The organization is, by the same article, forbidden to affiliate except
upon a 75-per cent vote of its membership, and a like percentage of
assent is required before a strike may be called.
On May 26 or 27 a committee from the R. M. W. A. met with
Anselm, seeking recognition. Swiren, the respondent's counsel, was
furnished the membership cards of the organization, and had photo-
static copies made. He reported to Anselm at that meeting that
"undoubtedly they had a majority, and under the law they deserved
recognition, and we would recognize them." Recognition was granted.
At the time of the hearing, which began shortly thereafter, the new
organization had not engaged in any further negotiations with the
respondent.
In considering the question of the legitimacy of the R. M. W. A.,
we must direct our attention first to the company-union campaign
conducted by the respondent before the strike. We have already
described the scope of that campaign. Through the statements made
by Anselm to the Union committee, through the copies of a model
company-union plan sent to each employee in an interoffice envelope,
12 Board Exhibit No. 31.
u Board Exhibit No. 42.
948 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and through the circulation of a petition with which to obtain sup-
port for an "employee representation plan," the respondent's desire
for an inside union in the plant was emphatically brought home to
the employees. Despite this diligent attempt to undermine the Union,
the company-union drive collapsed.
After the reopening of the plant, with the bulk of the Union
membership still out on strike, the respondent's prior efforts finally
bore fruit. There appeared an inside organization obviously of a
pattern calculated to meet with the respondent's full approval. The
respondent, not resting on its previous announcements and actions
in favor of an inside organization, made certain that its warm feeling
toward this new movement was made evident. Favors were readily
granted to the R. M. W. A., in significant contrast to the hostility
with which it had previously responded to the appearance of the
Union. The Union's committee had met with unyielding resistance
on the part of Anselm, who had abruptly ordered from his office
the "outside" representative selected by the Union to serve on its
committee ; the R. M. W. A. was welcomed and readily granted recog-
nition. The Union had been denied the use of the respondent's bul-
letin boards for announcements of meetings; this favor was at once
bestowed upon the R. M. W. A. An attempt had been made to poison
the Union ranks by the injection therein of a labor spy; far from
using espionage against the R. M. W. A., the respondent granted
it the use of a company building and furnished it free typing and
mimeographing services. The prior drive to induce the employees
to abandon the Union in favor of an employee representation plan
quite naturally had no counterpart when the R. M. W. A., an organ-
ization modelled to comply with the respondent's desires, appeared on
the scene. In general, the contrast between the respondent's well-
publicized animosity toward the Union and its open affection for
the R. M. W. A. was so clear and striking that it must necessarily
have prevented freedom of choice by the employees.
Upon all the evidence, we find it impossible to conclude that the
R. M. W. A. has been freely selected by the employees, unfettered by
company interference. We must conclude that the R. M. W. A. is the
result of the respondent's antiunion campaign, and that it has re-
ceived support from the respondent.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the R. M. W. A., and has con-
tributed support to it, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
.
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 949
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent engaged in various unfair labor
practices we must, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act,
restore as fully as possible the situation that existed prior to the
respondent's unlawful conduct.
One obvious requisite is that the strikers be restored to their jobs
upon application by them, unless the surrounding circumstances are
such that we should not exercise our power, equitable in nature, to
order such restoration. It is contended that the conduct of the
strikers in engaging in the sit-down strike and in refusing to vacate
the buildings in response to the injunction, relieves the respondent
of any obligation toward the participants, including those who
brought supplies to the men in the plant. In making this conten-
tion, however, the respondent does not come before the Board with
clean hands. On the contrary, as we have found above, the respond-
ent is guilty of gross violations of law, violations which in fact were
the moving cause for the conduct of the employees.
There can be no doubt that the direct and immediate cause of the
strike was the illegal activity of the respondent. Nor can there be
any question as to the gravity of the respondent's unlawful course
of action. While the Act imposes no criminal penalties for unfair
labor practices, it expresses an important national policy. If judi-
cial authority be needed for condemning the refusal to bargain, the
highest is available. In the case of National Labor Relations Board v.
Jones c Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1, 42 (1937), the
Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Chief Justice
Hughes, stated : 1'
Refusal to confer and negotiate has been one of the most prolific causes of
strife This is such an outstanding fact in the history of labor disturbances
that it is a proper subject of judicial notice and requires no citation of
instances.
Even assuming that the striker's conduct was violative of certain
State laws carrying criminal penalties , we cannot -say that the re-
spondent is therefore guilty in any lesser degree. One who engages
in persistent and open defiance of a national law cannot be heard to
assert that the retaliatory conduct of his employees in seeking to
secure their rights is necessarily a bar to their reinstatement. We
have, in some cases , declined to order reinstatement of striking em-
ployees despite the fact that the strike was caused by the employer's
unfair labor practices. In one such case, the striker in question had
950 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been indicted for shooting and wounding a fellow employee during
the course of the strike.14 In another, six strikers had pleaded guilty
to a felony involving conspiracy to destroy property, and two had
pleaded guilty to the felony of stealing dynamite and converting it
to their own use ; all eight had been sentenced to a maximum of ten
years in jail.' It cannot be said that the conduct of the strikers in
the present case is analogous to the conduct in these instances. They
were not engaged in sabotage. Under the circumstances, we do not
feel that the respondent's contention should prevail. Furthermore,
in view of the fact that the respondent did take back a large number
of the sit-down strikers, we find it difficult to believe that the re-
spondent's objection on that score is put forward in good faith.
The outstanding fact revealed by this record is that, had it not
been for the respondent's illegal conduct, the orderly processes of
collective bargaining, which the Act is designed to encourage, would
have taken place. After giving the fullest consideration to the ques-
tion, our conclusion is that the strikers should be reinstated upon
application, and we will so order.
In this connection we may note the respondent's further conten-
tion that certain of the strikers were not called back because of in-
efficiency, and others because the departments in which they worked
had been reorganized upon the resumption of operations and their
jobs theteby abolished. We need not concern ourselves with these
allegations, in view of the fact that we are not finding that such
workers were discriminatorily discharged or denied reinstatement.
Tn fulfilling its duty to restore the status quo, the respondent will
be ordered to reinstate upon application all the strikers; after this
has been done, it may reorganize or reduce its staff in any non-
discriminatory fashion it deems necessary, subject to any modifica-
tion introduced by agreement with the Union. In reinstating the
strikersn upon application, the respondent must dismiss, if necessary,
employees hired for the first time during the strike. This is in ac-
cordance with our usual practice in cases where strikes are caused
by unfair labor practices.
We shall also order the respondent to bargain collectively with
the Union upon request. It is true that at the hearing it was testi-
fied that a majority of the workers in the plant had become members
of the R. M. W. A., and that there was some evidence that certain
of the employees had tacitly abandoned their Union membership
by deserting the strikers' ranks and returning to work. However,
we have found that the R. M. W. A. is not the free choice of the
employees, that it is company-dominated, and that the strikebreaking
14 Matter of Kentucky Firebrick Company and United Brick and Clay Workers of
America , Local ' Union No. 510, 3 N. L. R B 455
15 Matter of Standard Lime & Stone Company and Branch No . 175, Quarry Workers In-
ternational Union of North America, 5 N L . R. B 106.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 951
campaign of the respondent, through which a number of strikers were
induced to return to work individually, Was in violation of law.
We have also found that by February 17, 1937, the Union was the
representative of a clear majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit. To refrain from ordering the respondent to bargain collec-
tively with the Union under these circumstances would be to permit
the respondent to profit by its own wrongdoing. Such a frustration
of the purposes of the Act cannot be tolerated, as we have said in
previous cases involving analogous circumstances."' When an em-
ployer illegally denies to the representatives of his employees the
right of collective bargaining, effectuating the purposes of the Act
requires that he be commanded to deal with them upon request.
We shall, of course, order the respondent to withdraw all recognition
from the R. M. W. A. as the bargaining agency for its employees.
The Trial Examiner recommended that back pay starting on March
12, 1937, be awarded the workers against whom he found the respond-
ent had unlawfully discriminated. Since we have not found this
discrimination to be shown by the evidence before us, we shall not
follow this recommendation. However, the strikers will be entitled
to back pay beginning with any refusal on the part of the respondent
to reinstate them upon application in accordance with our order.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of
North America, Lodge 66, and Rare Metal Workers of America, Local
#1, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of, and contributing support to, the
R. M. W. A., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The hourly paid employees of the respondent, excluding labora-
tory and engineering employees, supervisory employees, and clerical
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Union was on February 17 and March and 5, 1937, the
exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
16 Matter of Atlas Mills , Inc and Textile House Workers Union No. 2269 , United Textile
Workers of America, 3 N. L. R B . 10; Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association (U. S. A.)
(a Co •poration ) and Textile Workers' Organizing Committee of the C. 1. 0 , 4 N,. L.
R. B. 604.
80535-38-6i
952 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-
stated unit, on February 17 and March 3 and 5, 1937, the respondent
bas engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act.
6. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the At.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
8. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spcndent, Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual-
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
(b) Dominating or interfering with the formation or administra-
tion of Rare Metal Workers of America, Local #1, or any other labor
organization of its employees, or contributing support to any such
labor organizations;
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America. Lodge 66, as
the exclusive representative of its hourly paid employees, excluding
laboratory and engineering employees, supervisory employees, and
clerical employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 66, as
the exclusive representative of its hourly paid employees, excluding
laboratory and engineering employees, supervisory employees, and
clerical employees;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 953
(b) Upon application, offer to those employees who went on strike
on February 17, 1937, and thereafter, immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights or privileges, dismissing, if necessary, all'persons hired
since February 17, 1937;
(c) Make whole all employees who went on strike on February
17, 1937, and thereafter, for any losses they may suffer by reason of
any refusal of their application for reinstatement in accordance with
the preceding paragraph, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to that which each of them would normally have earned
as wages during the period from the date of any such refusal of their
application to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less the amount,
if any, which each, respectively, earned during said period;
(d) Withdraw all recognition from Rare Metal Workers of Amer-
ica, Local #1, as a representative of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and
completely disestablish Rare Metal Workers of America, Local #1,
as such representative;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at North
Chicago, Illinois, and maintain for a period of at least thirty (30)
consecutive days, notices to its employees stating that the respondent
will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and that recognition is
withdrawn from the R. M. W. A. as ordered above;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.