Hammond Organ Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 997 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 997
3. By virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act the said labor organization has been since
June 5. 1963, and now is, the exclusive representative of all employees in the said
appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment:
4. By refusing , since June 5, 1963, to bargain collectively in good faith with the
said labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the said
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating as to tenure of employment and working hours against
employees to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the above-named
labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Hammond Organ Company and Upholsterers International
Union , AFL-CIO and Hammond Round Table . Case No. 13-
CA-6089. November 23, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 11, 1964, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Ham-
149 NLRB No. 94.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mond Organ Company, its officers, agents successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on December 18, 1963, by Upholsterers International Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called Upholsterers, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13 (Chicago, Illinois), issued
his complaint, dated February 26, 1964, against Hammond Organ Company, herein
called Respondent or Company. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint sets forth the specific respects in which it is alleged that the Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. In its answer,
duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business opera-
tions but denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin
at Chicago, Illinois, on April 20 and 21, 1964. All parties appeared at the hearing
and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce
relevant evidence, to argue orally before the close of the hearing, and to file briefs.
The parties waived oral argument. Subsequent to the hearing briefs were submitted
by the General Counsel and the Respondent. These have been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent herein, a Delaware corporation with various plants and places of
business in Cook County, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture of pianos and electric
organs. In the course and conduct of its operations, it annually manufactures, sells,
and ships pianos and electric organs valued in excess of $100,000 from its Illinois
plants directly to States of the United States other than the State of Illinois. Upon
the foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that
Hammond Organ Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE CHARGING PARTY INVOLVED
The Upholsterers is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Respondent has four plants located in the Chicago area These facilities were
referred to throughout the hearing as the Diversey, Melrose Park, Bloomingdale, and
Western plants. Roger B. Burr, director of industrial relations for the Company,
testified that the Diversey factory has about 900 employees, Melrose Park about 200,,
Bloomingdale about 175, and Western about 150. In December 1962, Burr was
instrumental in establishing at each of the plants the Hammond Round Table, herein
called HRT. Since that time the latter has been in operation at each of the Respond-
ent's plants. The General Counsel alleges that the HRT is a labor organization and
that by its maintenance and support the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act. The latter contends that the HRT is not a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act and that the Employer has committed no unfair labor
practices. At the outset, therefore, the status of the HRT must be resolved.
B. Establishment and operation of the Hammond Round Table
The Respondent established HRT in December 1962. At that time, an article
which appeared in the "Hammond Notes," a company publication distributed each
month to all the Respondent's employees, read as follows:
"What is Hammond Round Table?" Briefly, it will be a group of Hammond
people, one from each geographical area within each of our . . . plants, who
HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 999
will meet regularly to exchange ideas on topics important to everyone in this '
company. The representatives will help select subjects that are of interest to"
fellow employees.
A few of the many possible areas of discussion are:
1) Wage program-How.do we evaluate a job?
2) Performance-How do we evaluate performance?
3) Benefit program
4) General areas of company progress
5) Company practices
In short, the purpose of HRT is to provide you with a regular means for
telling us about your problems, your complaints, or about your ideas and sug-
gestions-and for asking any question which you feel is important to you as an
employee of the company. HRT is also intended to be a means for sharing
information with you, on a monthly basis about all phases of the company's
affairs, including its problems, policies and plans.
In addition to discussion with your representatives, at times other than during
production hours,. you may also read the minutes of your HRT meeting, which
will be posted on bulletin boards within five days after the event.
Within the past two weeks, elections for area representatives were held at
each plant, the employee receiving the highest number of votes in an area becom-
ing the representative and the runner-up becoming the alternate.
[There follows a list of the HRT representatives and alternates chosen within
each Hammond plant during the foregoing elections.]
In order to avoid a complete turnover of experienced representatives after,,
each yearly HRT election, half of the representatives and alternates listed above
will serve six months, the other half one year....
In six months, another election will be held, this one to choose replacements
for the half-year people . . . All representatives in future elections will serve
one year.
First meeting was held on December 17-first round at all plants completed
by December 21.
It is hoped that Hammond Roundtable will provide each employee with a
fund of valuable knowledge about his company.
In a letter dated December 7, 1962, and mailed to all of the employees, Mr. Burr
reviewed the purposes and objectives of HRT as set forth in the above article. In
the same letter he detailed the manner in which the employees would vote in the
election for representatives. Elections were held at all plants in December 1962, in
June 1963, and again in December 1963.
According to Mr. Burr: Elections are conducted in the same manner at all the
Respondent's plants with employee-representatives being elected from geographical
areas within each plant. The areas are set up by Burr and may constitute more or
less than one department. The ballots are prepared by the Company and distributed
to the employees in each area by either the timekeeper or the foreman. Elections
are held during working hours. The ballots are counted by individuals whom the
foremen designate for that purpose and the foremen are present during the tabulation
to insure that the count is fair and accurate. Election winners are notified by letter
from the Company, by posting on the plant bulletin board and through announce-
ments in the "Hammond Notes."
Burr further testified that: He schedules the date of all HRT meetings at each
plant. From December 1962 until January 1964, monthly meetings were held at
each of the plants. Since the latter date, however, Burr has planned a schedule of
only eight meetings per year. At each meeting Burr has been accompanied by his
secretary or one of the plant stenographers who has taken notes of the proceedings.
From these the secretary has made a transcription which, after editing by Burr, and
in some instances by other management representatives, has been posted on the plant
bulletin board. Originally these notes were posted only in English. For some time,
however, and at the request of various HRT representatives, in order to accommodate
the foreign-speaking employees, these notes have also been posted in Spanish and
Polish translation. A large number of these published reports on HRT meetings
was offered in evidence by the General Counsel. These cover certain meetings which
were held from February 13, 1963, to March 25, 1964. They do not, however,
represent reports to the employees on all the meetings which were held at-the different''
plants, even during this period. On the other hand, from the testimony of Burr and
other witnesses it`is apparent that these published notes, br'reports, fairly reflect what
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was discussed and what transpired at the various meetings which they cover, -and,
as such, are representative of the operations of HRT at the different plants during
the period in question.
At the hearing, Burr stated that the HRT plan "expedited or reminded us through
information which the employees gave us that certain areas required some type of
looking into." He also testified that the HRT representative was not authorized to
assist an employee in discussing a complaint or grievance with a foreman. On the
other hand, he further testified that if an HRT representative "came to us with a
complaint ... we asked him to have the employee who had this complaint see his
foreman.... However, on an occasion if a complaint, an employee's complaint had
not been taken care of, we did ask them to bring it back to HRT and I would see that
it was processed." Harry Chicoine and Steven Wallace, two of the witnesses called
by the Respondent, were HRT representatives. Chicoine testified that fellow
employees in his department elected him "to represent [them] in anything that had
to be brought up." As an illustration of the manner in which he carried out his
duties, Chicoine testified that, on an occasion in March 1964, and at the request of
several employees in his department, he complained at an HRT meeting that the
silverware in the cafeteria was dirty and that some of the food was unsatisfactory.
This witness testified that Burr promised to investigate the matter and that thereafter
the problem in the cafeteria was corrected. Wallace testified that, during the summer
of 1963, in his capacity as an HRT representative, his fellow employees asked that he
complain that the speakers in the plant PA system were too loud and that when he
presented their protest to Burr at an HRT meeting the latter promised to investigate.
Wallace further testified that, during his tenure as an HRT representative, subjects
discussed at meetings included complaints about the plant timeclocks, odors in the
greasing room, ventilation in the plant, dirty washrooms, bad coffee in the cafeteria,
and, finally, complaints regarding Saturday work which resulted in the Company
providing for alternate Saturdays off during the summer of 1963. Significantly, with
respect to the published reports or minutes of HRT meetings which were received in
evidence, Wallace testified that during the year that he was an HRT representative
he never found them to be inaccurate.
The reports on HRT meetings which were received in evidence provide a detailed
and voluminous account of the subjects discussed at 16 meetings held during the
period from February 13, 1963, to March 25, 1964. No attempt will be made to set
forth all of the topics covered. For the purposes of this case it is sufficient to note
only a few of the subjects which the HRT representatives discussed with Burr and
other management representatives at these conferences. We will now turn to the
evidence in these documents.
February 13, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr discussed job evalu-
ation, told the representatives present that a prior complaint about spraying in the
finishing department had been referred to the maintenance department and would
be corrected, and discussed the complaint of one representative about the Respond-
ent's promotion policy.
March 13, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr stated that in response
to a complaint voiced at an earlier meeting as to the allegedly low pay rate of several
employees, he had reviewed the matter and could find nothing wrong with the pay
rates allocated to the employees involved. Burr also discussed the merit rating plan
which supervisors used in appraising each employee. The Respondent's severance
pay, or profit-sharing, plan was reviewed and several proposals were advanced by
HRT representatives as to changes which they desired. Burr welcomed these pro-
posals with the comment "let us know of your suggestions. This is one purpose of
HRT." I
April 10, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr opened the meeting by
stating that the purpose of HRT was advisory and informational, that, in trying to
institute improvements, all work-related problems should first be brought to the
foreman and then, if the problem still remained, it should be brought up at an HRT
meeting. Stanley M. Sorenson, president of the Respondent, was in attendance at
this meeting and spoke to the HRT representatives about their role and the purpose
of HRT which he described as having been "management inspired" and intended as
an avenue of communications in which the employees might more fully understand
the attitude of the Company and at the same time develop a better management
appreciation of the employee problems and their ideas for improvements within
the Company.
1,The quotations in this, and the succeeding paragraphs, are from the reports which
Burr issued on the meetings.
HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 1001
May 8, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr discussed impending
changes in the Company's severance pay plan and solicited opinions from the repre-
sentatives present as to the desirability of a program that would provide special
recognition for employees with many years of service. One representative questioned
Burr as to why an employee was not paid for time spent on jury duty and was told
that the Company considered jury duty a civic responsibility of the individual and
not of his employer.
June 12, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Burr told the representatives
that the Company was awaiting formal approval from the Internal Revenue Service
of all proposed revisions to the severance pay plan and that in the meantime he
wanted to thank them for their participation in the discussions on the changes
because "the suggestions by H.R.T. representatives played an important part in the
implementation of a formal seniority program and the proposed changes in the
Severance Pay Plan " At the same meeting, representatives asked numerous ques-
tions as to the Respondent's system of job postings, including the results of two
particular job postings in the plant One representative asked several questions about
his own job classification. Some time was spent discussing the program of working
every other Saturday for the summer months and the schedule in connection there-
with which the Company had published. Finally, Burr announced that seniority lists
would be posted within the next 10 days.
July 8, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant: Burr opened the meeting with
a welcome to newly elected representatives and told those present that the represen-
tatives whose terms had expired the month before had contributed "a great deal in
making known the importance employees place on seniority and the need for a
review of our Severance Pay Plan.. . Thereafter, a representative complained
that the present system of posting a job opening only in the plant where it occurred
limited an employee's opportunities for advancement Burr, however, answered that
this problem could not be solved by corporatewide job posting and that the manage-
ment was opposed to such a system. Another representative complained that there
was no uniform disciplinary policy as to tardiness and Burr promised to review the
matter immediately. At the suggestion of another representative Burr stated that
he would review the medical services rendered to a certain employee.
August 12, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant: Burr listed the following
tangible improvements at the plant for which he credited HRT: (1) cleaning and
painting of the cloakroom; (2) rearrangement of certain benches; (3) repair of ramp;
(4) installation of vent fan in women's washroom; (5) purchase of fans as required;
(6) fence around parking lot; (7) improvement of parking lot; (8) change of inven-
tory dates to minimize loss of pay; (9) opening of cafeteria prior to scheduled starting
time; and ( 10) alternate Saturday schedule. During the meeting a representative
suggested that a sidewalk be constructed along one side of the warehouse. Burr
promised that he would discuss the proposal with Works Manager Vincent Washburn.
Another representative complained that an open gate at the parking lot afforded no
security for the employees' cars. Burr stated that the Company planned to install a
gate with an electrically operated lock to solve that problem.
August 14, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant- Burr discussed the plant
trainee program with the representatives. He also promised that at their next
conference he would make a report to them on the progress of the wage and salary
committee in its review of job classifications, rate structures, and related matters.
Thereafter a representative questioned Burr as to why some men received large
increases whereas others did not receive any increase at all when the current wage
and salary program went into effect. Later, another representative asked Burr if a
suggestion program could be established by the Company which would allow
employees to receive credit for suggestions submitted Burr explained that several
proposals had been considered but that no workable plan had been found. Burr
also answered a question about the status of the new severance pay plan with the
explanation that the company proposal was in the process of being resubmitted to the
Internal Revenue Service for approval. One representative brought up the matter of
an employee in his department who did not feel that he was being paid enough,
although this matter had already been discussed with the employee's foreman Burr
suggested that the employee be advised to talk with his foreman again and if he still
remained unsatisfied the representative could bring the matter up at the next HRT
meeting. Several representatives stated that there was a lack of confidence in the
foreman at the plant. Burr promised that he would review this situation with Works
Manager Washburn.
September 5, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant- Burr introduced John
Adolph , wage and salary administrator for the Company , to the representatives.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, Adolph explained in detail the methods which the wage committee had
been using over a period of several months to analyze the Company's entire wage
program and the numerous changes which were under consideration. HRT represen-
tatives present asked many questions about the latter and voiced concern as to the
manner in which the specific changes would affect the wage of individual employees.
Several representatives raised questions as to the fire hazard connected with unauthor-
ized smoking in the finishing area and the fact that there was only one fire extinguisher
in that department. Burr promised to discuss the matter with Works Manager
Washburn.
September 11, 1963, HRT meeting at Bloomingdale plant: Adolph, the wage and
salary administrator, accompanied Burr to this meeting and reviewed againt the work
of the wage committee and the proposed changes in the wage and salary structure
which were being contemplated. Here, as at the Melrose Park plant conference held
the preceding week, several representatives expressed concern as to the manner in
which the prospective changes would affect the wages of individual employees. One
representative stated that in his department a certain employee felt that he should
have attained the maximum rate. Burr suggested that the employee talk with his
foreman and indicated that this particular situation would be reviewed at the next
HRT meeting. Another representative asked whether double time would be paid the
maintenance employees for Saturdays and holidays Burr answered that a decision
on this question would be made only when such work became necessary. Before
the close of the meeting Burr answered other questions as to the application of the
plant seniority rules and the effective date of the new severance pay plan.
October 3, 1963, HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant: Representatives present
asked Burr questions with regard to the effective date of the revisions to the severance
pay plan, the lack of fire extinguishers in certain areas of the plant, and the adequacy
of the plant social fund. One representative complained that a certain employee with
many years' seniority had recently failed to secure a promotion after he had signed
a job posting. Burr promised a review of this case and in the published report on
this meeting he set forth an explanation as to why the employee in question had not
been promoted. In this same published report Burr also answered a complaint which
had been brought up at the HRT meeting about another employee who felt that,
notwithstanding substantial seniority, she was getting less pay than anyone else in her
department.
November 7, 1963, meeting at Melrose Park plant: Burr spent some time explain-
ing to the representatives the revisions in the company wage program. Several ques-
tions were asked as to how the wage committee could evaluate a job without discussing
the job with an employee. Burr was also asked several questions about the application
of the Company's seniority policy. One representative raised an issue with respect
to a situation in his department in which three men were performing the same job,
and whereas two of them recently received pay increases, the wage rate of the third
remained the same. Burr stated that this matter should be taken up with the fore-
man for an explanation and then brought up for review at the next HRT meeting.
Another representative called attention to a safety hazard connected with a proposed
move of the timeclocks to a ramp area near the parking lot. Burr promised that he
would review the problem raised with Works Manager Washburn. A representative
asked Burr whether the Company would consider pay for jury service. Burr replied
that upon completion of the wage revision program all of the Respondent's industrial
relations policies would be reviewed.
December 4, 1963, HRT meeting, Melrose Park plant- Burr reviewed several
problems raised at the November meeting with respect to the timeclock area and
described the steps which had been taken to eliminate the basis for those complaints.
A representative brought up a question concerning the inadequacy of the group
health insurance as it applied to a particular employee Burr stated that he would
have the industrial relations department contact the representative immediately.
Another representative asked questions with respect to a job classification, and Burr
promised that Wage and Salary Administrator Adolph would review the situation
as to the specific employee discussed. Later, a representative raised a question as
to a job evaluation matter and Burr suggested that the representative should discuss
the problem with the employee's foreman.
January 29, 1964, HRT meeting, Diversey Avenue plant: Representatives brought
to Burr's attention complaints regarding drafts from open windows on the second
floor of the annex building, the fact that the telephone booth on the third floor of
the plant was frequently blocked by boxes, and that the frequency with which the
fire bells rang made it impossible for the employees to know whether there was
actually a fire when they heard the bells. At the outset of the meeting Burr listed
the following disposition of matters which had been raised at a preceding meeting:
HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 1003
(1) Lights were in the process of being rearranged in the screw machine section;
(2) an additional light had been installed in the men's washroom; (3) improvements
were being made in the annex blower system ; ( 4) the recommendation for the pur-
chase of additional magnetic separators had been referred to the manufacturing engi-
neering department , ( 5) the temperature in the first floor annex had been reduced;
and (6 ) the manager of the cafeteria had taken steps to rectify complaints regarding
certain food served in the cafeteria.
March 11, 1964 , HRT meeting at Melrose Park plant : Burr reviewed some of the
topics which had been brought up at the last meeting and the action which had been
taken on them: ( 1) Firefighting units had been organized and equipment demon-
strations were being conducted ; ( 2) cats were being removed from the building;
(3) the ladies ' washrooms were being cleaned after working hours ; (4) the organ
dollies were being repaired . One representative questioned Burr as to the company
policy on not paying employees for time lost while inventories are being taken.
Another representative complained as to the scheduling of her vacation . Near the
close of the meeting Burr asked the representatives what the general feeling seemed
to be regarding a summer schedule of work . Those representatives present told him
that most of the employees wanted to work the same schedule as had been in effect
the preceding summer.
March 25, 1964 , HRT meeting at Diversey Avenue plant - Burr solicited sugges-
tions as to a work schedule for Saturdays during the summer and the representatives
offered several proposals. Later, a representative suggested that a permanent seniority
list be posted at all times . Burr stated that this was not feasible but that an employee
could get his seniority date through his foreman. Several complaints were expressed
regarding drafts in the plant. Burr promised that he would turn them over to Works
Manager Washburn . One of the representatives asked for pay for jury service. Burr
stated that this proposal would be reviewed during an evaluation of all industrial
relations policies. Another representative voiced a complaint - that cutbacks in one
section of the plant had caused men to be transferred from higher to lower rated jobs.
Burr did not attempt to answer this complaint at the time but in the published report
of the meeting he stated that the actual facts as to the situation involved, which he out-
lined, did not disclose any irregularity.
As the result of an RC petition filed by the Charging Party, the Regional Office
of the Board scheduled a representation election at the Melrose Park plant for Decem-
ber 13, 1963.
In a letter dated December 3, 1963, and addressed to all employees of the Melrose
Park plant , John A. Volkober, executive vice president , outlined the benefits which
they had received during the course of the preceding year and questioned whether
any union , such as the one which was then soliciting their support , could offer any-
thing more During the course of this letter . Volkober referred to the HRT program
and stated that, as a result of its establishment-
... many matters which we might otherwise have overlooked have received our
prompt and serious attention . Here are a few examples:
the thievery from employees ' cars from Melrose Park has been practically elimi-
nated by fencing in the parking lot.
conditions in the cloak rooms have been improved.
"early bird" cafeteria service has been introduced.
the parking lot has been resurfaced.
an every other Saturday summer work schedule was adopted.
The charge in this case was filed December 18, and was served on the Respondent
on December 20, 1963. In its brief the Respondent attacks the admission in evidence
of the reports on HRT meetings which occurred more than 6 months prior to the
filing of the charge herein, on the ground that all such evidence is barred by Section
10(b) of the Act. It is, of course, manifest that no unfair labor practice findings
may be made as to events prior to June 20 , 1963. On the other hand , evidence of
what occurred before that date may be received as background , or considered as
"illuminative of the true character of later events within the limitations period."
N.L.R.B. v. Fitzgerald Mills Corporation, 313 F. 2d 260, 264 (C A. 2). This usage
of the reports on the HRT meetings is particularly appropriate in the present instance
because Burr testified that from its establishment in December 1962 and up to the
time of the hearing there had been no change in the operations ' or dealings of HRT
other than the fact that in January 1964 the number of meetings per year was cut
from 12 to 8.
There is no dispute as to the origin , sponsorship , support, and assistance of HRT
by the Respondent . It was established under the supervision of Burr late in 1962,
and thereafter all its activities have been conducted on company time and property.
1004 DECISIONS OR NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Burr has scheduled all meetings and has had complete charge of the agenda at each
conference between management and employee representatives . Finally, for all of its
functions the Respondent has provided the meeting rooms, supplied secretarial and
other clerical services needed , and paid the employee-representatives their average
rate of pay for attendance to HRT duties.
C. Contentions of the parties and concluding findings
The General Counsel and the Union allege that the Hammond Round Table is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act and that the Respondent estab-
lished , supported , and dominated it in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and ( 1). The
support and assistance which the Company gave to HRT was freely conceded by
Burr, but the Respondent vigorously denies that HRT is a labor organization.
The contention of the General Counsel and the Union that the HRT is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act is plainly well founded . Section 2(5)
of the Act defines a "labor organization " as "any organization of any kind, or any
. employee representation committee or plan , in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part , of dealing with employers concern-
ing grievances . . . wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work."
This definition is so extremely broad that it has been found to encompass almost
any kind of employee group, committee , or plan that is established to represent
plant personnel . Here, the definition clearly embraces the Hammond Round Table.
The recitation of subjects discussed at the meetings of the HRT, set forth above,
discloses that, in practice , almost every element of the employee -employer rela-
tionship was discussed at HRT meetings . The all-inclusive character of the subjects
covered at the regular conferences between the HRT employee -representatives and
the Respondent's management covered practically every aspect of "wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work."
At the hearing , and in its brief, the Respondent asserts that the employee-represen-
tatives had no grievance-handling function . Notwithstanding what may have been
their instructions , it is clear that the representatives felt that the HRT was intended
as the forum to which they could bring either their own individual complaints and/or
grievances , or present those of their fellow employees in the departments from which
the representatives were selected . This is evident not only from the testimony of
Chicoine and Wallace , set out above, but also in the bulletins on the meetings which
Burr published . In the latter there appear numerous references to complaints pre-
sented by representatives on behalf of their coworkers which Burr thereafter referred
to the department head involved and at a later meeting of the HRT announced the
results he had obtr fined in conferences concerning these grievances with the man-
agement officials. Thus, at the meetings on August 12, 1963, and January 29, 1964,
described above, Burr told the HRT representatives of the tangible benefits which
HRT efforts had secured for them . In the news letter of December 3, 1963, Vice
President Volkober told the Melrose Park employees that HRT had been responsi-
ble for: ( 1) an every other Saturday summer work schedule, ( 2) resurfacing of the
parking lot, (3) "early bird " service in the plant cafeteria , ( 4) improved conditions
in the cloakrooms , and (5 ) the installation of a fence around the employee parking
lot. The record establishes that in the course of the discussions with HRT repre-
sentatives , the Respondent's management, Burr in particular , listened to numerous
employee grievances of both a group and an individual character , and thereafter
sought to resolve or process them.
The Respondent contends that, in any event, the activities of HRT , as found
above, did not constitute "dealing" or collective bargaining , within the meaning of
the Act . This same argument , advanced in a not dissimilar case was rejected some
time ago by the Supreme Court . N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company , 360 U .S. 203,
210-218. Whether the course of conduct followed by HRT and the Company con-
stituted collective bargaining in the accepted sense of the term is immaterial. The
activities of the Hammond Round Table and the Respondent 's management , set out
above , clearly establish that the HRT was "dealing with" the Company as to mat-
ters within the scope of Section 2(5) of the Act. Cabot Carbon, supra , N L.R.B. v.
Chardon Telephone Company, 323 F. 2d 563, 564 ( C A. 6); Pacemaker Corporation
v. N.L.R .B., 260 F . 2d 880 , 883 (C .A. 7). In so doing, HRT was acting as, and
must be held to constitute , a labor organization within the meaning of the Act The
Trial Examiner so finds.
The Respondent does not deny responsibility for the establishment of the Ham-
mond Round Table. Its creation was plainly a unilateral act of management.
HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY 1005
Throughout its existence , the Company, through Burr , has scheduled all its meet-
ings, established the agenda of topics to be discussed , and otherwise controlled the
operations of HRT. It is undenied that HRT received all of its financial , secre-
tarial , and clerical assistance from the Respondent . Nor is there any dispute that
the usual indicia of an independent labor organization , such as a constitution , bylaws,
membership` tequirements , and dues, or other:means of independent financing, are
completely lacking. On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is the finding and con-
clusion of the Trial Examiner that the Hammond Round Table was established, sup-
ported, and dominated by the Respondent , that it is inherently incapable of ever
fairly representing the employees , and that by the course of conduct found above
the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(2) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R B. v. New-
port News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241, 250-251; Indiana Metal
Products Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 202 F. 2d 613, 621 (C.A. 7); Harrison Sheet Steel
Company v. N.L.R.B., 194 F. 2d 407, 409-410 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. American
Furnace Company, 158 F . 2d 376, 378 (C.A. 7); N.L.RB. v. Chardon Telephone
Company, 323 F. 2d 563, 564 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B. v. Western Reserve Telephone
Co., 323 F. 2d 564, 566 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B. v. Sharples Chemicals, Inc., 209 F. 2d
645, 652 (C.A. 6).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices set forth above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of the Respondent described in section I, have a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , the Trial
Examiner will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Because the Respondent has established, dominated and interfered with the admin-
istration of the Hammond Round Table and has contributed support thereto, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from such
conduct and that it withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the Ham-
mond Round Table as the representative of any of the Respondent 's employees for
the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of work.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union and the Hammond
Round Table are labor organizations , all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining and corecing employees in the exercise of their
rights under the Act, and by dominating and interfering with the administration of
the Hammond Round Table, and contributing support thereto , the Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondent,
Hammond Organ Company, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Hammond Round
Table, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of
its employees , and contributing support to the Hammond Round Table or to any
other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing , or in any manner dealing with, the Hammond Round Table, or
any reorganization or successor thereof , as a representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with Hammond Organ Company concerning grievances,
labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of work.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist Upholsterers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which' is necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the, Act:
(a) Withdraw all'recognition from the Hammond Round Table as a representa-
tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Hammond Organ
Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of work, and completely disestablish the Hammond Round
Table as such representative.
(b) Post at all of its plants in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 2 'Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for at least 60 days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.3
2In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
3 In the event' that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights
guaranteed them in the National Labor Relations Act:
WE HAVE notified the members of the Hammond Round Table that they may
no longer act as your representatives on grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and WE HAVE
completely disestablished the Hammond Round Table as such representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Upholsterers International Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members
of a labor organization except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement conforming to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the amended Act.
HAMMOND ORGAN COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
ROY MILLER FREIGHT LINES, INC. 1007
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illi-
nois, Telephone No. 828-7572, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions. -
Roy Miller Freight Lines, Inc. and Local Freight Drivers, Local
208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America . Case No. 21-CA-5540.
November 23, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 7, 1964, Trial Examiner David London issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Roy Miller Freight
Lines, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
1 The findings of the Trial Examiner are based on credibility resolutions which will not
be reversed unless clearly erroneous . Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544,
545, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3). No such conclusion is warranted here.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed September 9, 1963, and October 4,
1963, by Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Region 21 of the National Labor
149 NLRB No. 93.