G. Sommers & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 992 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of G. SOMMERS & Co. and WAREHOUSE EMPLOYES
UNION No. 20297, OF ST. PAUL
Case No. C-285.-Decided March 15, 1938
General Merchandising, Wholesale and Retail-Interference ,' Restraint, or
Coercion: antiunion bulletin circulated among employees ; expressed opposition
to labor organization-Company-Dominated Union: domination and interfer-
ence with formation of ; soliciting membership by supervisory employees dur-
ing working hours; discrimination in favor of; disestablished as agency for,
collective bargaining-Discrimination : charges of , 5lismissed.
Mr. Thurlow Smoot, for the Board.
O'Brien, Horn c6 Stringer, by Mr. E. S. Stringer, of St. Paul,-
Minn., for the respondent.
Mr. William C. Green, of St.-Paul, Minn., for the Association.
Miss Anne E. Freeling, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION-,
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Warehouse Employes Union No. 20297;,
of St. Paul,l herein' called W. E. U., the National Labor Relations,
Board, herein called the Board, ,by Robert J. Wiener, Acting Re-
gional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota),
on July 14, 1937, issued its complaint against G. Sommers & Co.,-
St. Paul, Minnesota, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging-in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 '(1), (2),,
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations,
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act, in that the respondent had-
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; had dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor
organization known as Warehouse Employees Association Local No.
1,2 and contributed financial and other support thereto; and had dis-
IIncorrectly designated ' as warehouse Employees Union Local No. 20297 in the
complaint.
2 During the hearing, paragraphs 14, 15, and 17 of the complaint were amended by
changing the name warehouse Employees Association Local No. 1 to wholesale Employes'
Association of St. Paul No. 1.
992
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 993
criminated against Edward Drier,, Frank Peiffer, Theodore J.
Eckart, James Tart, and Albert F. Heinrich, and thereby discour-
aged membership in the Union. The complaint and an accompanying
notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent
and upon W. E. U.
The respondent filed an answer dated July 19, 1937, in which, in
substance, it admitted the allegations in the complaint concerning
its incorporation and business, but denied that it had engaged in
or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor, practices, and asked that
the complaint be dismissed.
Pursuant to an amended notice, a hearing was held in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, on July 28, 29, and 30, 1937, before James C. Batten, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the outset of the
hearing, a petition to intervene in this proceeding was filed by Whole-
sale Employes' Association of St. Paul No. 1, herein called the Asso-
ciation. The Trial Examiner granted this motion, with certain re-
strictions upon the extent of the intervenor's participation in the
proceeding, to which the intervenor agreed.
The Board, the respondent, and the Association were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evi-
dence bearing upon the- issues was afforded the respondent. The
Association participated within the scope of the agreed restrictions.
At the close of the hearing, the attorney for the Board moved to
conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at the hearing. This
motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. The respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint on- constitutional and jurisdictional grounds.
This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. The respondent also
moved for dismissal for failure to prove the unfair labor practices.
The Association joined in the motion of the respondent in so far as
the complaint alleged that the Association was a company-dominated
union.' The Trial Examiner reserved his decision on these motions.
On November 6, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report denying the motions of the respondent and the Association to
dismiss the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dis-
missed as to Edward Drier, Frank Peiffer, James Tart, and A. F.
Heinrich, but not as to T. J. Eckart. The Trial Examiner found
that the respondent had committed unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Exceptions to the Intermediate
Report were. thereafter filed by the respondent and the Association.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on mo-
tions and on objections to the admission and exclusion of.evidence,
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. These rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Board has also reviewed the exceptions
994 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Intermediate Report, and finds them without merit except as,
hereinafter indicated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:,
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, G. Sommers & Company, is a Minnesota corpora-
tion, having its principal office and place of business in St. Paul,
Minnesota, where it is engaged in the purchase for resale to whole-
sale and retail dealers of general merchandise, including textile goods,
stationery, toys, notions, hardware, enamel ware, galvanized ware,
glass ware, crockery, jewelry, sporting goods, candy, floor coverings,
draperies, and luggage. The respondent maintains three warehouses
for the storage of merchandise and two operating buildings. It em-
ploys approximately 440 people.
The respondent purchases more than 95 per cent of its merchandise
outside the State of Minnesota, and sells approximately 70 per cent
of its goods to customers located outside the State of Minnesota.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Warehouse Employes Union No. 20297, of St. Paul, is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership "warehouse and inside workers" employed by the
respondent.
Wholesale Employes' Association of St. Paul No. 1 is a labor or-
ganization limiting its membership to all employees of the respond-
ent, exclusive of supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination and interference with the Association and discrimina-
tion against W. E. U.
On April 26, 1937, W. E. U. held a mass meeting for all warehouse
workers in St. Paul, which was announced to the respondent's em-
ployees by passing out handbills S as they entered the warehouses on
their way to work. On April 30 W. E. U. held a "secret" meeting for
the respondent's warehouse employees. By that date a substantial
number of the respondent's warehouse employees, particularly those
employed in the packing room, had become members of W. E. U.
On April 27, the day after the public meeting of W. E. U., P. G.
Orr, the respondent's general manager, called on a Mr. McMahon
of the Citizens Alliance of St. Paul, an association of employers, for
8 Respondent Exhibit No. 3.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 995
'information and advice about the Act. 'McMahon gave Orr a
bulletin * which the Alliance had prepared for general circulation
in answer to requests it received for such information . The bulletin,
which was in the form of questions and answers , stated that em-
ployees are not required to join a union ; that an employer is not
required to reach an agreement of any nature with a union ; that an
employee . may deal directly with his employer ; and that employees
may form an organization confined to a single plant or employer.
Orr had these bulletins mimeographed and distributed to the em-
ployees on or about Saturday, May 1 , 1937. John E. McNally, fore-
man of the packing room, stood by the time clock at closing time,
and handed the bulletins to every employee in his department.
The respondent 's indication of its attitude toward labor organiza-
tions, as expressed in the bulletin, bore immediate fruit. On
Monday morning, May 3, an employee committee sprang into being
for the purpose of organizing the respondent's employees . The mem-
bers of this committee were Alfred Ingvalsen , Peter Michaud, Frank
C. Selke, and John J. Sager, all four of whom were employed in the
packing room, under the supervision of McNally . Ingvalsen was in
charge of the local order division , which comes under the packing
room. He had a bill clerk under him, and was apparently employed
in a semisupervisory capacity . All four of these men had been em-
ployed by the respondent for more than 25 years, during which time
none of them had evinced any interest in labor organizations. How-
ever, when they did undertake to form a labor organization among
the respondent's employees, they proceeded hurriedly. Their first
step was to call on Orr on the morning of May 3 to inform him "they
were going to organize ", because, as the members of the committee
testified , "we knew we had to tell him". Orr immediately granted
them permission . The committee next proceeded to inform McNally
of their intentions. Since his department was very busy, McNally
was somewhat reluctant to give time off to four of his keymeii.
However, after consulting Orr about this difficulty, McNally in-
formed the four men that it was all right to proceed.
The committee then drew up a petition to the effect that those
signing wished to join an organization to be formed among the re-
spondent's employees. They asked McNally to help them with the
wording of the petition. He looked over the petition, which they had
prepared, and told them he thought it was all right as they had it.
After McNally approved of their petition, they devoted the rest of
the morning to procuring signatures to it. By noon they had ob-
tained about 50 or 60 signatures , but they had also begun to realize
that there was much about forming a labor organization which they
4 Board Exhibit No. 4.
996 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not know. Michaud told the other members of the committee
that his son worked at Swift's, where a Mr. William' C. Green, an
attorney, was organizing an independent union. The committee
called on Green at noon. Green, having organized a number of simi-
lar employee associations, was prepared to render prompt assistance
to them. It was arranged that the committee would pay Green for
this one interview, and that the Association, when and if formed,
would pay the remainder of his fee. Green did not like the form of
their petition, so drew up a new one for them. He also told them to
cross out the signatures of McNally and other foremen, who, he
explained, were not eligible for membership. However, these signa-
tures had already served to induce a number of the employees to
sign. The committee spent Monday afternoon, and practically all
their time during the next few days,' obtaining signatures to the
petition.
At Green's suggestion, they requested several younger men to help
them in their organizing activities. Their assistants included people
employed in supervisory capacities and several salesmen, who, though
they are not supervisors, are considered in the respondent's business
to have superior positions and are treated accordingly by their fel-
low employees. There was a recreation room in one of the respond-
ent's buildings, which the employees were ordinarily permitted to
use only at noon, but which some of the Association's organizers,
nevertheless, made their headquarters, unquestionably with the
knowledge and sanction of the respondent. Recalcitrant employees
were summoned there from their work and subjected to high-pressure
salesmanship tactics. Those who were already wearing W. E. U.
buttons were told that they could sign up anyhow and conceal their
Association buttons. Those who had families to support were told
that they ought to sign up to avoid labor troubles, for the sake of
their families. Further arguments were to the effect that the outside
union was a "racket" and a "bunch of 'reds" and that the respondent
would go out of business rather than deal with it.
Those employees who commented on the fact that they were not
allowed to use the recreation room during working hours were as-
sured that it was permissible on this occasion.
McNally and Allan Kline, one of the salesmen, in their zeal to sign
up everyone, even called on employees who were at home on vacation
and asked them to- join the Association. McNally also handed out
application blanks to all the men under him, at Ingvalsen's request.
There was testimony that Orr had instructed the foremen not to
participate in the organization activities of the employees., When
McNally was asked why he had handed out application blanks despite
Orr's instructions, his only reply was that he thought it was all right
as long as he did not urge the employees to sign.
r. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 997
People who applied for jobs during the Association's organizing
campaign were questioned by Orr and other supervisory employees
concerning their views "about outside interference in a man's busi-
ness", and were told about the advantages of joining the Associa-
tion. Those who were given jobs were asked to sign applications
for membership in the Association.
When-the committee called on Green on Monday noon, May 3,
he suggested that they come again the following evening with a
larger group. Accordingly about 15 employees called on him on
Tuesday evening. At that time he suggested a general mass meet-
ing, which' was held on Wednesday evening. Handbills announcing
the meeting were distributed to employees at the door of the plant
as they went home. About 200 employees attended. Green ad-
'dressed them and as he testified, "explained the provisions of the
Wagner Act, the right to form an independent union". On Thurs-
day Green conferred with Ingvalsen, and told him that he had a
set of bylaws and articles of association which he had used before
-and which could be adapted for use by the Association. Green
questioned Ingvalsen about the classification of the respondent's em-
ployees. Ingvalsen enumerated more than twenty divisions. Green
narrowed the number down to seven. The classification, as finally
'determined by Green, was as follows :
1. Stenographers, typists and comptometer operators.
2. Office clerical.
3. Salesmen.
4. Clerks in stock and sample.
5. Order fillers and department checkers.
6. Employees in packing, shipping, receiving and storage.
7. Mechanical and maintenance employees.
On Friday evening, May 7, a mass organization meeting was
held which, due to Green's experience with such matters, was a
model of smooth-running efficiency. The articles of association and
bylaws he had prepared were adopted without alteration. Officers
and trustees were elected, one trustee for each of the seven divi-
sions. Since four out of the seven trustees represented stenographers,
clerks, and salesmen, control of the Association was vested in those
classes of employees whose interests are more closely allied with the
management and are different from those of the warehouse em-
ployees, and who, in this case, had never, before the formation of
the Association, displayed any interest in a labor organization.
In addition to providing that only employees of the respondent
fare eligible for membership in the Association, the bylaws also
provide that anyone ceasing to be an employee of, the respondent
shall forfeit his membership, including officers of the Association.
-998 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In this manner provision was made whereby the respondent might
oust any undesirable member of the Association by, discharging him
and insure to itself the exercise of a continuing control over the
membership of the Association.
Vincent Kemp was elected president and chairman of the board
of trustees of the Association at the Friday evening meeting. After
the general meeting ended , Kemp met with the other officers and
Green. As Kemp testified , they `decided to have a meeting the next
morning about submitting a contract or demand to the firm that
they recognize our organization as sole collective bargaining body
for G . Sommers & Company". Kemp and the trustees met early
Saturday morning, in Green's office . Green prepared, by changing
the names on one of his forms, a letter to the respondent requesting
recognition of the Association as the exclusive representative of all
the respondent's employees ,5 although there had been no discussion
with the employee representatives of grievances or demands. Know-
ing that W. E. U. was organizing the respondent 's employees , Green's
primary object was to gain prompt recognition from the respondent.
He did. Green and the board of trustees were at Orr's office that
Saturday morning before eight o'clock . When Orr arrived they
gave him the letter requesting recognition and photostatic copies of
the petitions containing the signatures of employees . Before noon
the same day , Orr wrote a letter to Kemp stating that "we have
checked the signatures of employees of this Company as submitted
by you and find them proper , and a majority of all employees on
the pay roll ; hence we accept your Organization as the exclusive
representative body of all employees of this Company for the purpose
of collective bargaining".e
The Association was granted recognition on Saturday, May 8. On
Sunday Kemp held a meeting of the board of trustees at his home.
They telephoned Green to consult him about some of their problems,
and arranged for a meeting the next morning. At the meeting on
Monday morning, May 10, a demand was prepared for an adjust-
ment of wages and hours of labor. This demand was presented to the
respondent that same morning. After a very brief discussion, a
decrease in hours for the summer months was granted, but the re-
spondent wanted more time to consider the question of an increase in
wages.
It thus appears-that between May 3 and May 10, the Association
was completely organized , elected officers , adopted articles of associa-
tion and bylaws, was recognized by the respondent, and had nego-
tiated for a reduction in hours and an increase in wages. This re-
markable speed was due to the fact'that Green and Kemp, as well as
5 Board Exhibit No 6A.
6 Board Exhibit No. 5.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 999
the members of the original organizing committee, knew that W. E. U.
was making rapid progress in organizing the warehouse employees.
When Green was asked why he did not find out what the grievances
were, and present them at the same time the demand for recognition
was presented, he answered, "Well, I knew generally that their main
grievances were the question of wages, and hours of labor, but I
thought the first thing under the circumstances-of course, I knew
the American Federation was also-Ithought the first thing to do was
to notify the Company of the organization." He was then asked,
``In other words, you actually were racing against time to get to the
company?" To this Green answered, "So far as the unions were con-
cerned, yes." It is clear that the Association was able to attain its
objective in so short a time only because of the respondent's deliberate
and active cooperation.
Kemp and the board of trustees, with Green's assistance, con-
ducted all these negotiations with the respondent without consulting
the wishes of the employees. However, on May 10 a notice was
issued by the Association informing the employees that the board of
trustees was requesting "a general equalized raise in pay. Instead
of requesting a flat percentage increase, we have asked for a general
raise on an equalized basis. After this request has been granted and
the raise in salary is not satisfactory to any group, members of this
group can then meet with their representatives and make their wishes
known." 7 In reference to the expression "after this raise has been
granted", Kemp was asked if he knew beforehand that the request
would be granted. He answered that he "took it for granted that it
would be granted . . . because the employees had all expected-they
felt they wanted a raise or had been talking all through the house
they wanted a raise, and we thought surely the firm would grant it
if it was not too exorbitant a demand regarding too much of a raise".
However, he subsequently remembered that the expression was a
typographical error, and should have read "when and if the raise
is granted".
When questioned about the mechanics of the bargaining negotia-
tions, Kemp could not remember whether agreements were reached
by means of correspondence, verbally, or otherwise. He stated that
he signed so many things about that time, he could not remember
what he had signed.
The members of the organizing committee had the same difficulty
Kemp had in remembering events connected with the Association,
They could not remember, for example, how much time they had
devoted to organizing, although they were supposed not to have been
paid for such time. The organizers were supposed to be reimbursed-
Board Exhibit No 11.
8•!5;"-?8-64
1000 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. by the Association for losses of pay and for the various expenses
-they incurred. Some of the organizers testified that they had been
repaid, others that they had put in a claim but had not yet been
paid, and still others that they had -not yet even put in a claim.
"Some of them were surprisingly unconcerned about the likelihood of
being reimbursed.
The respondent's treatment of W. E. U. representatives was in
marked contrast to the treatment accorded the Association. William
Reilly, an employee of the respondent who belonged to W. E. U., on
June 21 asked Orr if two or three members of W. E. U. could on
-their own time go among the men to solicit members. Orr refused to
permit such solicitation by W. E. U. during working hours despite
Reilly's reminder that the privilege had been accorded to the Asso-
ciation. Orr refused even to permit Reilly to copy a list of the names
of employees. Moreover, Orr maintained that he could not deal with
W. E. U., since he had already recognized the Association as the
representative of all the employees, although Reilly pointed out to
him that many had been forced into the Association through fear
of losing their jobs.
An examination of all the circumstances surrounding the forma-
tion and growth of the Association leads inescapably to the conclu-
sion that it had its inception in the desires of the respondent, who
aided, fostered, and encouraged its organization. The Association
was organized during working hours, with the aid and assistance of
several supervisory employees, including the general manager. It
was foisted upon the employees, and in no wise represents their free
choice. The haste and eagerness with which the respondent em-
braced the Association as the representative of its employees confirms
our conclusion that the respondent, through the activities of its offi-
cials and supervisory employees, fostered its formation and nurtured
its growth.
We find-that the respondent, by distributing the bulletins discour-
aging affiliation with an outside labor organization, by permitting
-the Association to organize during working hours, by gra] Ming it the
privilege of using the recreation'room during working hours, by
donating the services of its supervisory employees and star sales-
men, by so promptly and unquestioningly recognizing and negotiat-
ing with the Association, and by denying to W. E. U. privileges
granted to the Association, has participated in, dominated, and inter-
fered 'with the formation and administration of the Association, and
has contributed support to it, and, by intimidation and coercion, has
compelled its employees to join the Association, and to refrain from
joining W. E. U., and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
.Section 7 of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1001
B. The alleged discrimination
Edward Drier was employed by the respondent on September 23,
1936, and laid off on December 19, 1936. He was again employed in
March 1937 for a period of nine days. His third period of employ-
ment by the respondent ran from April 9 to May 6, 1937. He was
employed on each of these three occasions as a voucher, or temporary,
employee, and was laid off each time when the special work for which
he had been hired was completed. His employment card 8 was marked
"Lay off-good man". -Drier was a member of W. E. U., and had
refused to join the Association. However, on the weight of the evi-
dence, we find that Drier was laid off because his job was completed,
and not discharged because of membership in W. E. U.
Frank Peiffer was employed by the respondent as a warehouse
laborer on May 29, 1935, and was laid off, because of lack of business,
in January 1936. - He was employed again in April 1936, and was
discharged on May 26, 1937. Peiffer had refused to join the Asso-
ciation. He became a member of W. E. U. on May 3, 1937, but was
not an active member. Peiffer's employment record is a poor one.
It appears that he obtained his job, and kept it as long as he did,
through the intervention of Adolph Miller, a foreman, who was a
friend of Peiffer's father. Miller had spoken to Peiffer's father sev-
eral times in an effort to induce Peiffer to mend his ways and take
his work more seriously. The results of these conversations were
beneficial, but temporary. We find that Peiffer was discharged for
cause, and not because of membership in W. E. U.
Theodore J. Eckart had been employed by the respondent in the
packing room for about 18 years. He had charge of the purchasing
of boxes and cartons'for the packing room, which was located in the
basement of the main building. For several years he had been spend-
ing part of his time supervising the work at the box factory, which
was located in a different building. Eckart was on vacation the
first two weeks of May 1937. He testified that some time before that
Orr had told him he planned to lay off Joe Lutz at the box factory,
put Art Marne in his place, and make Eckart's son Marne's assistant.
However, Eckart testified, just before he left on his vacation, McNally
asked him to "get some of the boys together to see if we couldn't get
a company union started". Eckart told him he would think it over.
While he was at home on vacation, both McNally and Kline called on
him, told him about the organization of the Association, and asked
him to become a member. He refused, having joined W. E. U. on
May 3. When he came back to work after his vacation he was trans-
ferred full time to the box factory, where the work had increased
considerably. His salary and hours remained the same, but working
Respondent Exhibit No 7.
1002 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conditions were not so pleasant, since the box factory is located in a
wooden building, which is dusty and poorly ventilated. Moreover,
he comes in contact with far fewer people now than he did on his old
job. Although Eckart's case is not free from doubt, upon the whole
record, we find that he was not discriminated against because of
membership in W. E. U.
James Tart and Albert F. Heinrich had been employed by the-
respondent for about 14 and 19 years, respectively. On June 24,
1937, 54 of the respondent's warehouse employees, including Tart and
Heinrich, walked out in sympathy with a city-wide strike called by
a truck drivers' union. At that time both Tart and Heinrich owed
the respondent money, which was to have been deducted from their
pay checks at the rate of $10 a month. The entire amounts of the
pay checks due them on June 30 were applied on their debts. On
July 2, the strike having ended, they returned to work. Although
both Tart and Heinrich were members of W. E. U., the respondent's
deductions from their June 30 pay checks cannot be construed as
discriminatory action based on their membership in W. E. U.
The allegations of the complaint with respect to Edward Drier,
Frank Peiffer, Theodore J. Eckart, James Tart, and Albert F. Hein-
rich will therefore be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
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. Warehouse Employes Union No. 20297, of St. Paul, and Whole-
sale Employes' Association of St. Paul No. 1, are labor organiza-
tions, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, and assist a labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as 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 Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1003
3. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Wholesale Employes' Association of St.
Paul No. 1, and by contributing support thereto, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by discharging Edward Drier and Frank Peif-
fer, by transferring Theodore J. Eckart, and by calling due the loans
of James Tart and Albert F. Heinrich, has not engaged in an unfair
labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, G. Sommers & Co., and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
'(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Wholesale Employes' Association of St. Paul No. 1, or
with the formation and administration, of any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, and from contributing support to said Asso-
ciation or to any other labor organization of its employees; and
(b) 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 con-
. certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board- finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Wholesale Employes' Associa-
tion of St. Paul No. 1, by whatever name now known, as the repre-
sentative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and completely disestablish said organization as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its five
buildings, and maintain for a period of at least thirty (30) con-
secutive days, notices stating (1) that the respondent will cease and
desist in the manner aforesaid; '(2) that Wholesale -Employes'
1004 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association of St. Paul No. 1 is disestablished as the representative
of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment or other conditions of employment and that
the respondent will refrain from any recognition thereof; and (3)
that the respondent's employees are free to join or assist any labor
organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with the
respondent;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth 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 allegations of the complaint
with respect to Edward Drier, Frank Peiffer, Theodore J. Eckart,
James Tart, and Albert F. Heinrich be, and they hereby are,
dismissed.