International Filter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 489 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter Of • INTERNATIONAL FILTER COMPANY , ;A CORPORATION
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT No. 8
Cases Nos. C-56 and R-21.-Decided April 8, 1936
Machinery Industry-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: community
of interest ; craft ; eligibility for membership in only organization making bona
fide effort at collective bargaining ; occupational differences-Representatives:
proof of choice : membership in union ; resolution-Certification of Representa-
tives: after investigation but without election-Collective Bargaining: refusal to
meet with representatives; employer's duty as affected by absence of grievances
or problems on part of employees-Intel ference, Restraint or Coercion,: question-
iing employees regarding union affiliation.
Mr. Harold A. Crane field for the Board.
Mr. Otto A. Jaburek, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Fred. G. Krivonos, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
The International Association of Machinists , District No. 8, herein-
after termed the union , having duly filed a charge with the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region , the National Labor Relations
Board, by its agent , the said -Regional Director, issued and duly
served its complaint dated January 31, 1936, against the International
Filter Company , a corporation , Chicago , Illinois , respondent herein,
alleging that the respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivisions ( 1) and ( 5) and Section 2, subdivisions ( 6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter
termed the Act.
In brief , the complaint alleges that therespondent , a Delaware cor-
poration, licensed in Illinois , with its principal office and place of
business in Chicago , Illinois, hereinafter termed the Chicago plant,
is engaged in the manufacture , assembly , sale and distribution of
water softeners and filtration plants and allied machinery in inter-
state commerce ; that the machinists , machinists ' helpers, tool and die
makers, punch and drill press operators , screw machine tenders, and
other machine shop production workers employed by the respondent
at the Chicago plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
489
490 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of collective bargaining ; that, before October 1, 1935, a majority of
these employees designated the union to represent them for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the respondent; that by virtue of
Section 9 (a) of the Act, the union has been and is the exclusive
representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining ; that on or about October 5, October 8, and
October 11, the union, by its business agents, sought to bargain col-
lectively with the respondent on behalf of such employees; and that
on such dates and at all times thereafter the respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the union as the e clusive representative of
all such employees; thereby engaging in tl e unfair labor practices
alleged.
The respondent's answer, in substance, alleges that the National
Labor Relations Act is void in toto on the grounds that it is violative
of Article I, Section 8, Article III, Sections 1 and 2 and the Fifth,
Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States; alleges that the respondent is without knowledge as to the
appropriate bargaining unit or as to the designation of the union
by a majority of its employees in the unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining as alleged in the complaint; but denies that the de-
termination of these questions is material. The answer also denies
that the union requested the respondent to bargain collectively and
denies that it refused to bargain collectively as alleged. The answer
further denies that the respondent's operations constitute interstate
commerce, or that the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
affect commerce. The answer concludes with allegations on informa-
tion and belief that the union is engaged in an organization cam-
paign to "induce and compel" employees of the respondent to join
the union and to compel the respondent to enter into closed shop
agreements; that the complaint herein is in furtherance of such pur-
pose; that disputes between the respondent and its employees have
been amicably adjusted and that none of the respondent's employees
has any justifiable grievances against it.
The union also filed a petition for an investigation and certification
of representatives by the Board under the provisions of Section 9 (c)
of the Act, alleging, inter alia, that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of the employees in the
bargaining unit described (the same unit alleged in the complaint).
Pursuant to said Section 9 (c) and Article III, Section 3 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, the
Board ordered the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region to
conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate hearing
in the matter.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 491
Pursuant to notice thereof duly served on the respondent, Robert
M. Gates, duly designated Trial Examiner, conducted a hearing com-
mencing February 20, 1936 at the United States Court House, Chi-
cago, Illinois, upon the complaint (Case No. C-56) in conjunction,
under the provisions of Section 9 (c) of the Act, with the hearing on
the question of representation set forth in the petition (Case No.
R-21). The respondent appeared by counsel and participated in the
hearing. The Board was represented by counsel. Full opportunity
to be heard, to cross-examine witnesses and to produce evidence was
afforded to all parties.
At the hearing, the respondent's motion to intervene on the ques-
tion of representation (Case No. R-21) was granted and its answer
to the petition was received. Various other motions and objections
made by the respondent in the course of the hearing and the Trial
Examiner's rulings thereon are considered below.
Acting pursuant to Article II, Section 35 and Article III, Section
11 (c) of the said Rules and Regulations, the Board ordered the pro-
ceedings to be transferred and continued before it.
Upon the entire record in the proceedings, including the steno-
graphic report of the hearing and all evidence, oral and documentary,
offered and received at the hearing, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
I. The respondent, International Filter Company, is and has been
since August 3, 1923, a corporation organized and existing by virtue
of the laws of the State of Delaware. The respondent is duly
licensed to do business in the State of Illinois (Exhibit B-9), and
has an office and its principal place of business in the City of
Chicago, Illinois.
II. (a) The respondent is engaged in the business of manufac-
turing, assembling, selling and distributing water softening and fil-
tration plants and allied machinery.
(b) The water softeners and filtration plants manufactured, sold
and distributed by the respondent are for private, commercial and
municipal use, and consist of two general types of machinery : pres-
sure filters and softeners ; and larger and more complicated gravity
filters. About 50 to 60 percent of the respondent's sales consist of
the large gravity filters for use by municipalities (cities and towns).
The respondent also manufactures the gravity filters for industrial
use. These proportions may vary with conditions.
(c) The pressure filters and softeners consist of a steel tank and
piping, valves, control gauges, and, in the case of filters, an alum
492 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chamber for chemical. The tank is not made by the respondent, but
is either shipped directly to the respondent's customer by the tank
maker or is kept in stock in certain sizes and shipped to order. The
other parts are manufactured by the respondent and are kept on
hand, either in stock, or as an assembled machine, depending on the
size.
(d) The large gravity filter is, usually, part of a plant built of
concrete. This equipment is very large in size and contains com-
plicated control mechanism, such as rate-of-flow controllers, loss-of-
head gauges to determine pressure losses, rate-of-flow gauges, chemi-
cal feeding machines, agitating mechanism to mix chemicals with
the water, meters for measuring the flow in and out of the plant,
hydraulic switches, and the like, made and assembled at the Chicago
plant.
(e) The raw materials used by the respondent in making these
machines includes castings, pipe, rod, bar stock, sheet, brass, rubber,
bakelite, some aluminum "and the thousand and one items that go
into it". The pipe is cut into various lengths at the Chicago plant
as required, and drilled with holes, adapted for strainers; the cast-
ings are fully machined; the gauges and controllers are made at the
Chicago plant by processing a number of raw materials and assem-
bling the parts; other raw materials are processed and made into
parts for the machinery produced by the respondent. These parts
are manufactured and kept in stock.
(f) Raw materials purchased by the respondent are generally
kept on hand one to two months before being processed. Processed
parts are generally kept in stock two to six months before being as-
sembled for shipment. Some parts are processed in lots with a view
to orders or contracts on hand. Much of the stock of parts kept on
hand is for the large water softening and filtration plants manu-
factured by the respondent.
(g) Most of the water softening and filtration plants made by the
respondent are built to specifications provided by the purchaser.
There is a great deal of variation of detail in construction of the
plants ordered ; and the fittings and equipment for the construction
of plants ordered vary as to the size and capacity of various
parts.' Some of the equipment used in filling orders is of standard
size, although special for each particular job; but portions and parts
have to be made particularly for each job according to specifications.
(h) A substantial proportion, approximately 15 percent, of the
"thousand and one items" of raw materials used by the respondent
in its operations, is caused by the respondent to be purchased and
transported in interstate commerce from states other than the State
of Illinois to its plant in Chicago, Illinois. A considerable propor-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 493
tion, approximately 80% of the products sold by the respondent, is
caused by the respondent to be sold and transported in interstate
commerce to states other than the State of Illinois from its plant
in Chicago, Illinois.'
(i) The declaration filed by the respondent in the matter of the
registry of its trade mark in the United States Patent Office, De-
partment of Commerce, Washington, D. C., subscribed and sworn to
by P. N. Engel, the respondent's president, on March 14th, 1935,
declares "that said trade mark is used by said corporation in com-
merce among the several states of the United States." (Exhibit
B-11.) The respondent's trade mark appears on its advertising
circulars in current use describing its products. (Exhibits B-27;
B-30.)
(j) The operations of the respondent constitute a continuous flow
of trade, traffic and commerce among the States.
B. THE UNION
III. The International Association of Machinists, organized in
1888 and affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor
organization composed of machinists, machinists' helpers, tool and
die makers, punch and drill press operators, screw machine tenders,
and other machine shop production workers, who are eligible to mem-
bership therein. District No. 8 is composed of 16 union locals, lo-
cated in Chicago. These locals are composed, mainly, of union mem-
bers residing in a particular section; but a few of the locals are
confined to special branches of the craft, like tool makers. Each
local is composed of employees of a number of employers. The em-
ployees of the respondent who are members of the union thus are
members of six different locals of District No. 8, because of their
residence in various parts of the Chicago area. It is a regular prac-
tice for the business representatives of District No. 8 to represent
1 The following testimony in the record is Illustrative of the respondent's receipt of
materials from points outside the State of Illinois and shipments to such points : Ed-
ward J Peyton, office manager for the National Carloading Co., freight forwarders,
testified that his office records showed 9 shipments , of freight to the respondent 's plant
from points of origin outside of the State of Illinois for the period from October 1, 1935
to January 31, 1936. He also testified that his office records showed the following
shipments of its products by the respondent for the same period :
Month To points outside of Illinois To Illinois points
October, 1935 _____________________ 30 shipments , 46,544 lbs ___________________ 2 shipments . 3,415 lbs
November , 1935__ _________________ 22 shipments , 2S,882lbs___________________ None
December . 1935_ __________________ 26 shipments , 77,320 lbs__________________ None
January, 1936 _____________________ 32 shipments , 29,320lbs-- ------ __________ None
The record also contains a stipulation that records of the Chicago and Eastern Railway
Company disclose the receipt of six separate consignments of freight during the period
from February 6 to 17, 1936, consigned to points outside of Illinois , and aggregating
4,000 pounds in weight.
494 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shop groups or employees of a particular employer, and who may
belong to several different union locals, for the purposes of collective
bargaining with their employer. William H. Jones and Julius J.
Uhlmann are the business representatives of District No. 8, which
positions they occupied during the months of September and October,
1935.
C. THE BARGAINING UNIT
IV. (a) The respondent employs 70 workers in its Chicago plant,
other than those engaged in a supervisory capacity or clerical or
office work. Of these, 46 are employed as machinists on various
machines and machine operations, bench machinists, tool and die
makers, punch and drill press operators, screw machine tenders, and
other machine shop production workers. These workers are, for
the most part, skilled mechanics, craftsmen who have served ap-
prenticeship, and are eligible to membership in the International
Association of Machinists. The remaining 24 workers in the re-
spondent's plant comprise 12 in the shipping department, who also
do general labor; 2 in the tool crib, in charge of keeping and handing
out tools; 2 helpers who paint machines; 3 in the stock room; 3 pat-
tern makers ; and 2 in the laboratory. None of these 24 workers is
eligible to membership in the union. The situation of the 46 ma-
chinists and allied craftsmen eligible to union membership in respect
to collective bargaining is different from that of the other workers.
These 46 workers are allied by common problems of skill and com-
munity of interest; they alone of the respondent's employees are
eligible to membership in the union. They constitute a homogeneous
and distinct group among the respondent's employees.
(b) In the absence of evidence in the record of any request or
expressed desire by the 24 workers not eligible to membership in the
union for representation by the union or anyone else for the purpose
of collective bargaining, and for the reasons outlined above, and in
the other circumstances of this case, and in order to insure to em-
ployees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self -organi-
zation and collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the
policies of the Act, the machinists, machinists' helpers, tool and die
makers, punch and drill press operators, screw machine tenders, and
other machine shop production workers employed by the respondent
in its Chicago plant, hereinafter termed the machinist employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
D. THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION
V. (a) In July and August, 1935, in the course of an organizing
campaign in Chicago, the union passed out circulars and handbills at
the door of the respondent's Chicago plant, explaining the nature,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 495
purpose and benefits of the union and urging those eligible to join.
(Exhibits R-2 and 3.)
(b) Early in September, 1935, several of the respondent's machinist
employees, who had talked over the matter of joining the union among
themselves, called at the office of District No. 8 and stated that the
respondent's employees were desirous of being organized . Subse-
quently, on or about September 19, 1935, more than 30 of the re-
spondent's employees,' held an organization meeting for the purpose
of joining the union. Jones and Uhlmann were present. The nature
and purposes of the union were discussed. Every employee of the
respondent present filled out an application card for membership in
the union. On or about September 23, 1935, a second meeting was
held by employees of the respondent. Again more than 30 were
present, the same group, plus one or two more, and Jones and Uhl-
mann. Some who had not paid their initiation fee at the first meet-
ing, did so. Again the nature and purposes of the union were
discussed. Jones and Uhlmann, by unanimous consent of the re-
spondent's machinist employees present, were designated to enter into
negotiations with Engel, the respondent's president, for the purpose
of collective bargaining with the view of reaching a collective work-
ing agreement.
(c) By October 1, 1935, Jones and Uhlmann had received applica-
tion cards and initiation fees from 36 of the respondent's machinist
employees.3 These were distributed among the locals nearest the
employees' homes. One of the respondent's employees had been a
member of the union for 7 years. By October 3rd, 35 were initiated
into the union at the various locals.' Of these, 27 of the machinist
2 The testimony of witnesses present at the meeting states the number present from
30 to 34.
'Exhibit B-34 is Uhlmann 's typewritten list of 36 applications received , made at the
time he sent the applications to the various locals, and indicating the number of the
local to which each application was sent
4 The respondent 's employees became members of locals 199 , 337, 390 , 366, 134 and 113.
The financial secretaries of the first three locals testified , with reference to the local records,
as to the receipt of their applications , their initiation , membership and good standing.
Uhlmann, whose duties require him to oversee the books of the various locals in Dicrtict
No. 8, testified as to the membership in locals 366, 134 and 113. Thus, the machinist
employees of the respondent are members of these various locals as follows :
Local No
New mem -
bers by Old mem-
In good
standing Delinquentat time of
Oct 1, 1935 hers at time ofhearing hearing
199----------------------------------------------- 8 ---------- 5 3
337--------------------------------------------------- 10 1 9 2
390------------------------------------------------ 10
_ 6 4
366---------------------------------------------------- 3 ----------- 3 ------------
134-------------------------------------------------- 3 - -
- 1 ------------ 1 -----------
Total ----------------------------------------- 35 1 27 9
Uhlmann's list (Exhibit B-34) includes 9 applications sent to local 199 The testimony of the financial
secretary of the local , however, lists only 8 employees of the respondent as applicants and members This
accounts for the discrepancy between the 36 new members listed by Uhlmann and the total of 35 shown in
the above table, and testified to as having been initiated.
496 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the respondent were members of the union in good _
standing at the time of the hearing in this proceeding.
VI. Of the 46 machinist employees of the respondent in the bar-
gaining unit, set forth in finding IV above, 36 or 37, a great majority,
had, by October 1, 1935, designated the union and its business agents
as their representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, thus
constituting District No. 8, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the exclusive representative of all of the respondent's employees in
the bargaining unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
VII. (a) On October 4 or 5, 1935, Jones and Uhlmann called in per.
son at the office of the respondent in Chicago. They gave their cards
to the girl at the switchboard and asked to see Engel, the respondent's
president. The business card of Jones (Exhibit B-33) clearly indi-
cates that he is the business representative of the union, and gives
the telephone numbers of the union's headquarters in Chicago. After
a few moments, the girl told them that Engel was busy. They sat
down and waited awhile. In about a half hour, the girl informed
them that Engel would be busy all day and could not see them. They
left with the girl a verbal request that Engel telephone them when
he could see them.
(b) The next day, there having been no telephone call from Engel
in response to the request, Jones telephoned the respondent's office,
gave his name, and asked to talk to Engel. He was told that Engel
was out of town. A similar phone call by Jones two days later
brought the same response. The next day Uhlmann, in Jones' pres-
ence, telephoned the respondent, and was told the same story. Later
the same day, Uhlmann telephoned again, disguising his identity.
He was told Engel was busy but would call him later if he left
his number. Uhlmann then told Jones that Engel was in town.
When Jones telephoned the respondent's office again, he was again
told Engel was out of town. He replied that he knew Engel was in
town and was switched to Engel's secretary, Miss Phillips. Although
the testimony of Jones and Miss Phillips as to the details of the
ensuing conversation conflicts sharply, it is clear that he was again
informed that Engel was out of town.
(c) Thereafter, Uhlmann sent a letter on the union's stationery,
dated October 10, 1935, to Engel (Exhibit B-36), requesting a con-
ference. The letter recites that a number of the respondent's em-
ployees had become members of the union, thus exercising their
rights under the "Labor Relations Act", and that Uhlmann had called
at the respondent's office in person and several times by telephone
in an effort to meet Engel, but without success. The respondent's
vice-president, W. H. Green, replied to Uhlmann in a letter dated
October 14, 1935, (Exhibit B-38) that "we know of no problems
which require any discussion and, therefore fail to see any need of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 497
any meeting. Please be advised that the company is engaged in
manufacturing, which is not interstate commerce, and is, therefore,
not subject to the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Bill).
Further, we are advised by counsel, whom we deem competent, that
the act is unconstitutional".
(d) Uhlmann testified that at this time he felt the situation to be
"hopeless and useless" and that the union therefore made no further
direct efforts to negotiate with the respondent.
(e) At about this time, the union requested the services of a con-
ciliator of the United States Department of Labor. John E. O'Con-
nor, a Commissioner of Conciliation, United States Department of
Labor, on instructions from Washington, called at the office of the
respondent on October 16, 1935. He was told Engel and his secre-
tary were out, and he left his card and telephone number with a
request that Engel phone him. Upon receiving no call from Engel,
he phoned the respondent's office, asked to talk to Engel, and was
connected with Engel's secretary, Miss Phillips, who, in reply to his
inquiry concerning the controversy between the respondent and its
employees, replied that she knew of no difficulties.
(f) Preston F. Pew, in charge of the respondent's -plant operations,
having heard reports of meetings of the machinist employees, inter-
viewed, between October 10 and 12, 1935, about 20 of these employees
as to their union membership. He learned that 14 or 15 were mem-
bers of the union. He made a verbal report of his inquiry to Engel.
(g) The evidence is clear that Engel, who testified he was out of
the city part of the week between October 4 and 10, 1935, and all
of the week between October 10 and 16, 1935, was informed by his
secretary and others of the efforts of Jones and Uhlmann to meet
him and knew of- the reasons for their efforts, but avoided meeting
Jones and Uhlmann and did nothing to arrange a meeting with
them as they requested. He knew from Pew that some of' his
machinist employees had joined the union, and he knew of and had
seen Uhlmann's letter of October 10th, and Green's reply of October
14th. He also knew of O'Connor's efforts to meet him.
(h) Thereafter, about November 12, 1935, L. W. Beman, Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, called upon Engel to investi-
gate charges filed by the union against the respondent under the Act.
Beman suggested that Engel meet with representatives of the em-
ployees involved. In a letter dated November 26, 1935 (Exhibit
B-25), Engel refused such a meeting on the ground that there were
no grievances on the part of such employees against the respondent
and that the only object of the union representatives in meeting with
the respondent were "to induce us to enter into an agreement with
the union, the effect of which would be to force a. number of our
employees who have no desire for union affiliation into it." Before
498 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issuing the complaint against the respondent Beman called upon
Engel again on January 3, 1936, in the course of investigating the
union 's charges , and again suggested that Engel meet representatives
of his employees.
VIII. At a meeting of the union 's shop group composed of em-
ployees of the respondent , about the middle of October , 1935, a com-
mittee of the respondent 's employees was appointed to try to meet
Engel. The committee , however, before the meeting had adjourned,
decided to take no action , since they doubted they would be able
to arrange to talk to Engel if the business agents had failed.
E. CONCLUSIONS
IX. (a) The respondent's conduct set forth in finding VII above
constitutes a clear and unequivocal refusal to bargain with the ex-
clusive representatives of all of its machinist employees in the bar-
gaining unit described in finding IV above.
(b) The requirements of the Act as to collective bargaining are
simple and clear. It is an unfair labor practice for an employer to
refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his em-
ployees, and correlatively, it is the duty of the employer to enter,
upon request, into negotiations with the chosen representatives of
his employees, with the intention in good faith to reach an agreement
with them in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment
and other conditions of employment.
(c) The respondent, on or about the dates in October, 1935, alleged
in the complaint, and at all times thereafter artfully dodged or flatly
refused a meeting with the union' s business representatives, desig-
nated by a majority of the machinist employees to represent them for
the purposes of collective bargaining, although Engel knew who
they were and the nature of their business with him.
(d) The respondent, in its reply to Uhlmann's letter of October
10th (finding VII (c) above), in its reply to O'Connor (finding
VII (e) above), in its replies to Beman (finding VII(h) above), in
its answer to the complaint, and through the testimony of Engel
and other of its officials, has sought to evade its duty to bargain col-
lectively with its machinist employees on the ground that these
employees had or have no problems or grievances to discuss, that
recognition of the union and meeting with union representatives
requires entering into a closed shop agreement, and that the Act does
not apply to the respondent's business and is unconstitutional. The
presence or absence of "problems" or "grievances" on the part of em-
ployees has nothing to do with their right, under the Act, to self-
organization and collective bargaining through representatives of
their own choosing. The respondent's evasions and flat refusals, on
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 499
the basis of its plea of no problems and no grievances, of a meeting
with the chosen representatives of its machinist employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining, cannot avail it as an excuse or
defense of its refusal to fulfill its statutory duty so to bargain. The
respondent's position that meeting with union representatives ipso
facto draws it into a closed shop agreement is too specious to merit
serious consideration. Our experience has been that the cry of
"closed shop" is constantly being raised by employers who seek an
excuse to evade their duty to bargain collectively under the Act and
to obstruct and deny the right of employees to do so. There is not
an iota of evidence that the union representatives in this case pro-
posed a closed shop as part of an agreement. The respondent never
permitted the chosen representatives of its machinist employees an
opportunity to propose anything. The, Act requires that the em-
ployer bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees
by entering into negotiations with them in good faith with the bona
fide purpose of making an agreement concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment and other conditions of employment. An
unfounded apprehension that employees may demand a closed shop
is no, excuse for a flat refusal to bargain collectively. As for the
respondent's final position, that the-Act does not apply to the re-
spondent is unconstitutional-a position which its letter of October
14, 1935 (finding VII), (c) above), states to have been taken upon
the advice of counsel-ignorance or misconception of the law does not
excuse one from its observance.
X. The respondent's conduct set forth in finding V above con-
stitutes interference, restraint and coercion of its machinist employees
in the bargaining unit described in finding IV above in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act. Em-
ployees are guaranteed the right to self-organization and collective
bargaining by Section 7. The respondent's deliberate refusal to
bargain collectively, as set forth above, is an interference with and
restraint and coercion of them in the exercise of that right. It is
probable that the delinquency of nearly 25 percent of the respond-
ent's machinist employees in their union membership after the
respondent's refusal to bargain collectively, as set forth above, was in
a large measure due to such refusal. See finding V (c) above, note
4. See also finding VIII above.
F. THE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT IN RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE
XI. At a meeting of the shop group, late in November or early in
December, after Jones and Uhlmann had reported their inability to
meet with Engel, the group took a strike vote by secret ballot. The
results were 20 to 1 in favor of a strike. The matter was left in the
hands of Jones and Uhlmann; there was no action taken by the union.
500 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
XII. The respondent's conduct as set forth in findings VII to X
above tends to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
G. THE AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS IN THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER
XIII. The affirmative allegations in the respondent's answer (par-
agraph 12), set forth in the statement of the case above, are gratui-
tous and irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding. The subject
matter of the allegations concerning the union's intention to "com-
pel" the respondent to enter a closed shop and those raising the
question of "no problems and no grievances" are discussed in finding
IX (d) above. Moreover, the allegations concerning the union's in-
tention to "induce and compel" the respondent's employees to join
the union, to "compel" the respondent to enter closed shop agree-
ments, and that the complaint in this case is in furtherance of such
purpose, are completely unsupported by evidence.
THE PETITION (CASE No. R-21)
The Board's findings IV, V and VI above, as to the appropriate
bargaining unit and the designation of the union by a majority
of the respondent's machinist employees as their representatives for
the purposes of collective bargaining, serves as a certification. The
determination of these questions under the union's petition for cer-
tification of representatives, or the taking of a secret ballot under
Section 9 (c) of the Act is therefore unnecessary. Consequently the
petition for certification will be dismissed.
MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS
In view of the denial of the petition, above, consideration of the
various motions made by the respondent in the course of the hear-
ing in respect to the petition and the rulings thereon becomes
immaterial.
The Board affirms the Trial Examiner's ruling refusing the re-
spondent's motion that counsel for the Board elect whether to pro-
ceed on the complaint or the petition. There is no inconsistency in
proceeding on both, as explicitly provided in Section 9 (c) of the
Act. A refusal to bargain may, conceivably, be coupled with a
question concerning the representation of employees ; the provision
for a joint hearing merely expedites the proceedings where a charge
and petition relate to the same parties.
The respondent, in the course of the hearing, made various mo-
tions to dismiss and to strike the complaint because of the uncon-
stitutionality of the Act, as alleged in its answer to the complaint.
The Trial Examiner's denial of these motions is affirmed, as is his
denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
the testimony fails to sustain its allegations.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 501
We find in the record no prejudicial rulings by the Trial Exam-
iner in respect to various objections to the introduction of evidence
and motions to strike, and his rulings in this respect are affirmed.
CONc1usIONs OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board finds and concludes as a
matter of law:
1. The International Association of Machinists, District No. 8,
is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision
(5) of the Act.
2. The machinists, machinists' helpers, tool and die makers, punch
and drill press operators, screw machine tenders, and other machine
shop production workers employed by the respondent, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the International Associ-
ation of Machinists, District No. 8, having been designated and
selected, on or about October 1, 1935, by a majority of the respond-
ent's machinist employees as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining, has been at all times thereafter the exclu-
sive representative of all of the respondent's machinist employees
for such purposes.
4. The respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with the
representative of its machinist employees, has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8, subdivision (5) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining and coercing
its machinist 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, subdivision (1) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices in which the respondent has engaged
and is engaging constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth
above, and pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders:
1. That the respondent, International Filter Company, a corpora-
tion, and its officers and agents, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from in any manner refusing to bargain col-
lectively with the International Association of Machinists, District
No. 8, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, the exclusive
502 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives designated therefor by its machinist employees, in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,, or other con-
ditions of employment.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act : Upon request, bargain collec-
tively by entering into negotiations with the International Associa-
tion of Machinists, District No. 8, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, designated as their exclusive representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining by its machinist employees, as set
forth in the findings of fact above, with the object of reaching an
agreement covering rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and
other conditions of employment.
2. The petition for certification of representatives, filed by Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District No. 8 (Case No. R-21),
is hereby dismissed.