International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1936

2 N.L.R.B. 310 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the' Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY and LocAL
UNION No. 57, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-41.-Decided November 12, 1936
Automobile Industry-Employee Representation Plan: form and opera-
tion-Company -Dominated Union: domination of administration ; financial
and other support ; sponsorship and participation in affairs ; discrimination
in favor of , in-credit for wage increase and other beneficial terms or con-
ditions of employment , endorsement , pension and other benefits and privi-
leges, recognition as representative of employees ; qualification as collective
bargaining agency ; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining.
Mr. G. L. Patterson for the Board.
Mr. Ernest S. Ballard and Mr. Edward W. Ford, of Chicago, Ill.,
for respondent. Mr. William S. Elliott, Mr. Forest D. Siefkin, and
Butler, Pope, Ballard & Elting, all of Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Mr. Stanley S. Surrey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
In December, 1935, Local Union No. 57, International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, hereinafter called the
Union, filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region against the International Harvester Company, Fort Wayne,
Indiana, charging that Company with violation of Section 8, sub-
divisions (1), (2) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, hereinafter referred to as the Act. By order of the
Board, dated January 20, 1936, the proceeding was transferred
to and continued before the Board in accordance with Article II,
Section 35 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1. On March 26, 1936, the Board issued a complaint
against the International Harvester Company, hereinafter referred
to as the respondent, alleging that the respondent had committed
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (2), and Section 2, subdivisions (6)
and (7) of the Act, in that the respondent had dominated and in-
terfered with the administration of a labor organization known as
the "Harvester Industrial Council" and had contributed financial
and other support to it, the acts of domination, interference and
310
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 311
support being separably stated. The complaint and accompanying
notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
The respondent filed a "Special Appearance, Objections to Juris=
diction of Board and Motion to Dismiss", in which it claimed that
,the Act was unconstitutional for stated reasons, and further, that
the Board had no jurisdiction over the respondent. Without waiving
any rights under the special appearance, the respondent also filed
an answer to the complaint in which it denied the allegations that
it had committed unfair labor practices, although admitting some of
the specific acts alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to the notice of hearing accompanying the complaint,
a hearing was held by the Board at Washington, D. C., from May
5, 1936, through May 16, 1936, and testimony taken. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and,
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all
parties. During the course of the hearing the respondent made
various motions to dismiss the complaint, such motions being based
on constitutional invalidity, lack of jurisdiction, failure of proof
and claimed procedural defects. All of such motions are hereby
denied. After the hearing the respondent filed briefs with the
Board and orally argued the case before the Board on October 16,
1936.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the pleadings, the
stenographic transcript of the hearing and the documentary and
other evidence received at the hearing and thereafter, pursuant to
an order of the Board, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT
The International Harvester Company is a New Jersey corpora-
tion with its principal executive offices in Chicago, Illinois. In its
application for registration filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission it describes its business as follows : "The International
Harvester Company and its subsidiaries are engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of agricultural implements, motor trucks, tractors,
stationary engines and kindred lines, and repairs for all such articles"
(Bd. Ex. 3, p. 3). In the manufacture and distribution of such
products, the respondent has developed a huge, closely-integrated
organization extending to nearly every portion of the world. The
respondent in 1935, through subsidiary and affiliated companies,
operated 13 manufacturing plants in the United States, two in
Canada and four in Europe. The United States plants are : McCor-
312 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mick Works, Chicago, Illinois-agricultural implements; Milwaukee
Works, Milwaukee, Wisconsin-tractors, engines, dairy machines;
"Tractor Works, Chicago Illinois-tractors; Farmall Works, Rock'
Island, Illinois-tractors; Fort Wayne Works, Fort Wayne, Indi-
ana-motor trucks; Springfield Works, Springfield, Ohio-motor
trucks; West Pullman Works, Chicago, Illinois-magnetos, carbure-
tors, bearings, gears, milk coolers; Auburn Works, Auburn, New
York-agricultural implements; Canton Works, Canton, Illinois-
agricultural implements; Chattanooga Works, Chattanooga, Ten-
nessee-agricultural implements; East Moline Works, East Moline,
Illinois-agricultural implements; Richmond Works, Richmond,
Indiana-seeding machines, corn and cotton planters; Rock Falls
Works, Rock Falls, Illinois-agricultural implements. The Cana-
dian plants are: Chatham Works, Chatham, Ontario-motor trucks,
wagons, sleighs ; Hamilton Works, Hamilton, Ontario-agricultural
implements. The European plants, located in France (two plants),
Germany and Sweden, - manufacture agricultural implements.'
Twine mills are located at Chicago, Illinois ; New Orleans, Louisi-
ana; Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,. and in France, Germany and
Sweden. Over 152 branch" houses and transfer houses,'- sales and
service stations are maintained in the' United States, there being
at least one in each of 42 states and the District of Columbia. There
are 21 distributing points in Canada, four in Mexico, five in Central
America, 17 in South America, one in Cuba, and over 100 in other
'portions of the world. The respondent owns extensive properties
and mills from which' it receives many of the "basic raw materials
used in its manufacturing operations : iron ore mines at Hibbing,
Chisholm, Nashwauk and Keewatin; Minnesota; coal mines in Ben-
ham and Harlan County,. Kentucky ; _ furnaces, steel mills and coke
plants in Chicago, Illinois; a sisal plantation in Cuba.
The distribution of the respondent's products- is handled by a
number of wholly-owned subsidiaries of the respondent : the Inter-
national Harvester Company of America distributes the products in
the United States and, together with the respondent, owns stock in
a number of local retail companies selling International Harvester
products; the ' International Harvester Export Company sells the
respondent's products to foreign jobbers and to its foreign subsidia-
ries; 'the International Harvester Company Argentina sells the re-
spondent's products in the Argentine Republic ; there are 19 foreign
i The term "agricultural implements" covers a wide range of products-harvesting ma-
'chines, seeding machines, tillage implements, plows, threshers , cream separators , rakes,
tedders, corn shellers , harrows, hay loaders, corn pickets, cane mills, fertilizer dis-
tributors , listers,, beet pullers, cultivators , corn, cotton and beet planters , soil pulverizers,
hay`piesses , grain binders , mowers, ensilage cutters , feed grinders , hammer mills. All
of the above agricultural implements are not manufactured in each plant described above
as manufacturing "agricultural implements."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 313
subsidiaries selling the respondent's products in all parts of the
world. The respondent owns two railroad companies, Illinois North-
ern Railway and Chicago, West Pullman & Southern Railroad Com-
pany, which are common carrier industrial railroads serving the
respondent's plants in Chicago and other industries along their lines.
The products of the respondent are distributed and sold under
registered trade marl1s.
The sales of the respondent in 1935 reflected its huge size. In the
United States they were as follows : tractors (including repair
parts)-$51,078,000; farm implements (including repair parts)-
$50,277,000; motor trucks (including repair parts)-$48,291,000;
steel, binder, twine, etc.-$19,082,000; a total of $168,728,000. The
total sales of products sold in foreign countries were $48,885,000.
Moreover, the respondent is extending its business; sales in 1935 were
b7 per cent more than in 1934; capital expenditures in 1935 were
$8,662,000 as compared with $4,338,000 in 1934; the number of em-
ployees increased from 32,900 in 1934 to 45,700 in 1935, an increase
of'39 per-cent.
We are principally concerned in this case with that portion of the
respondent's operations involving the manufacture and sale of motor
trucks and motor truck parts and accessories. As indicated above,
sales of such items in the United States totalled $48,291,000 in 1935.
In that year the respondent, spent $725,976 to advertise such products
in periodicals, and for the first five months of 1936 it spent $293,838.
While the manufacture of motor trucks--and - repair parts occurs
principally in three of its plants-Fort Wayne Works,' Fort Wayne,
Indiana; Springfield Works, Springfield, Ohio; and Chatham
Works, Chatham, Ontario-other plants are involved in the process.
Control over production, allocation of orders and requirements, dis-
tribution of raw materials, parts and accessories, and purchases of
materials and parts are centralized in the respondent's Chicago
office. An example will indicate the extent- of this control and the
manner of operation. On March 4, 1936, the Chicago office issued
"Motor Truck Works Decision No. 1333", relating to Truck No.
C-15. The decision stated that it affected theFort Wayne, Spring-
field, Farmall and Chatham Works, and that a new design chassis to
be known as Model C-15 will be furnished when specified in sales
orders. It then described in detail, the description covering three
pages, the various units of the chassis, such as engine, axles, clutch,
transmission, generator, carburetor, tires, etc., and the special equip-
ment available. The plants affected then commenced manufacture of
that model.
Generally, assembly of a particular model is centralized in one
plant, the various models being divided among the plants at which
314 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motor trucks are manufactured. Thus, Models C-40, C-50 and C-60
are assembled at the Fort Wayne Works; Models C-1, C-15, C-20
and C-30 at the Springfield Works. But while the assembly of a
model takes place principally in one plant, many other plants of the
respondent are involved in the production of the model. In addi-
tion, a great number of outside manufacturers play a part in that
operation. We may use the Model C-1 truck, assembled at the
Springfield Works, as an example. This is the respondent's popular-
sized model. The engine for this truck is manufactured at the Rock
Island plant; the front and rear axles are manufactured and as-
sembled at the Fort Wayne Works from steel produced at the re-
spondent's mill in Chicago; the transmission is manufactured at the
Fort Wayne ti7orks; the housing for the gear box is made at the
McCormick Works; the sheet metal forms for the fenders, running
boards, etc., are stamped at the Springfield Works from steel sheet
made elsewhere; the frame is made by A. O. Smith Co. of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, arriving at the Springfield Works in a "knocked down"
form and there riveted together; the radiator core is manufactured
in Racine, Wisconsin, and assembled with the shell and grill at the
Springfield Works; the carburetor is made by Toledo and Detroit
manufacturers; the generator is a Delco-Remy product made in An-
derson, Indiana ; the bearings are made by the Cleveland Graphite
& Bronze Co., Cleveland, Ohio; and so on.
While the respondent in its various plants produces a great many
of the parts necessary .in the manufacture of motor trucks at the
Fort Wayne Works and elsewhere, especially the basic items, it relies
upon other concerns for a large number of parts, mainly of a spe-
cialized nature. The full list is too long for enumeration but a
partial summary will suffice : cast iron wheels from the Clark Equip-
ment Company, Buchanan, Michigan; tires from various concerns
in Akron, Ohio; engines from Waukesha, Wisconsin (produced ac-
cording to blue prints and with tools owned by respondent) ; bear-
ings from Cleveland Graphite & Bronze Company, Cleveland, Ohio;
fuel pumps from D. C. Fuel Company, Michigan, and Stewart-
Warner Corporation, Chicago, Illinois; steering wheels from the
Ross Gear concern, Lafayette, Indiana ; speedometers from the
Stewart-Warner Corporation, Chicago, Illinois; three-men sleeper
cabs from Bennett Body Company, Dayton, Ohio ; brakes from the
Bendix concern, South Bend, Indiana; windshields from Troy Sun-
shade concern, Troy, Ohio; batteries from Prest O Cite Company,
Indianapolis, Indiana; brass fittings from Imperial Brass Company,
Chicago, Illinois; "six wheel drive" from Hendrickson Motor Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois (a chassis is sent from the Fort Wayne
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 315
Works to that concern and the drive unit there attached ) ; clutch
facings from United States Raybestos Company, Manheim, Penn-
sylvania.
Of the respondent 's motor truck plants, the Fort Wayne Works
is the one directly involved in this case . Three principal operations'
are conducted at this plant-the assembly of certain motor truck
models produced by the respondent , the manufacture of parts for
use in other plants of the respondent , and the conduct of the cen-
tral operations involved in the distribution of repair parts for all
of the motor trucks produced by the respondent. Among the motor
trucks assembled at this plant are the Models C-40, C-50 and C-60
trucks, all larger than the popular C-1 Model, Models A-7 and A-S,
which are heavy duty trucks, and Models C-35 and C-70, sleeper
cabs. As is the case of the C-1 Model assembled at Springfield, a
great number of the parts used in the above Models come from other
plants and manufacturers . This process of assembly and coordina-
tion is the same and need not be repeated here. Many of the trucks
assembled at the Fort Wayne Works have accessories and parts spe-
cially used to meet specifications of the customer . Thus, the color
and type of paint are often specified , a speedometer graduated in
kilometers may be demanded for trucks to be used in certain foreign
countries , the gas tank may be desired in a different part of the truck
than where it is normally placed, a radiator with a larger capacity
may be ordered , etc. As indicated above, a wide variety of parts are
manufactured at Fort Wayne for use in other plants of the
respondent. For example , in addition to those mentioned in connec-
tion with the C-1 Model , engines are made for tractors assembled
at other plants , dies for the FAB engine manufactured at, the Har
vey, Illinois plant, engines , axles and transmissions for the Chatham
plant.
Besides the assembly of completed motor trucks and the manufac-
ture of parts for trucks and tractors assembled in other Harvester
plants, the Fort Wayne Works acts as the central distribution point
for repair parts for all motor trucks manufactured by the respond-
ent. Shipments of repair parts are made regularly ; by rail, truck
and express , to the respondent 's branch houses and distributing
points located in all parts of the United States and in many foreign
countries . Shipments are also made to individual customers on order
by the customer. Those parts manufactured by the respondent itself
are produced either at the Fort Wayne Works' or at other plants
of the respondent and shipped to the Fort Wayne Works: They are
held at the Fort Wayne Works in storage until shipment to the
branch houses. Many of the parts so distributed are manufactured
316 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by other concerns, shipped to the Fort Wayne Works and then
reshipped to the branch houses. About two-fifths of the repair parts
distributed are received from other plants and manufacturers and
not processed in any way in the Fort Wayne Works. In many in-
stances such parts are reshipped in the same package. For example,
spark plugs are manufactured by the Champion Spark Plug Co.,
Toledo, Ohio; Edison-Splitdorf Corporation, West Orange, New
Jersey and A. C. Spark Plug Company, Flint, Michigan (the prod-
ucts of the first two being packed in boxes bearing the words "manu-
factured expressly for International Harvester Co."), shipped to
the Fort Wayne Works and in the same cartons sent to the branch
houses. Catalogues issued by the respondent often contain both the
respondent's number and the manufacturer's number of the various
parts to facilitate ordering of the parts. For example, the "Ball
and Roller Bearings Price List" contains the manufacturers' num-
bers of the Tinken, Hyatt, Bower, SRB, SKF, Wire, Gurney and
New Departure bearings as well as the respondent's numbers for
those bearings.
The activities of the Fort Wayne Works are thus primarily the
receipt of incoming materials, the assembly of such materials into
finished trucks and, parts and the storage of those parts not requir-
ing processing, and the shipment of the finished articles and other
materials to all parts of the world. Little manufacturing in the
usual sense of the term takes place at this plant. The operations
are in the main assembly operations. The, numerous parts obtained
from other Harvester plants and from independent manufacturers
are received, assembled into completed trucks and parts and shipped
in accordance with a detailed schedule, so arranged that the entire
procedure is one continuous process. From the above description
of the general operations of the Fort Wayne Works it is readily seen
that large shipments of motor trucks and parts are made daily to
and from the plant.' From November 1, 1934, to October 31, 1935,
12,902 complete motor trucks weighing 60,950,000 pounds were as-
sembled at the Fort Wayne Works and distributed in the United
States. Over 17,000 2 of these trucks were shipped to the respond-
ent's branch houses in the United States ; some were called for at
Fort Wayne by the purchasers and driven away. About 500,000
pounds a week of motor truck repair and service parts are shipped
from the Fort Wayne Works to International Harvester branch
houses located in all portions of the United States and throughout
the world. Twenty-five million, nine hundred and thirteen thousand,
eight hundred and twenty-three (25,913,823) pounds of parts and
2 This figure includes some Model C-35 trucks assembled at the Springfield works
early in the 1935 season.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 317
accessories manufactured at the Fort Wayne Works were shipped
to the Springfield plant in the 1935 season , October 1, 1934, to Sep-
tember 30, 1935; 2,150,730 to the Chatham plant and 3,730,479 to
other plants of the respondent (East Moline, Farmall, McCormick,
Milwaukee, Richmond, Tractor and West Pullman), the shipments
being made by truck and rail . These shipments by value amounted
to $4,542,014.98. During the same period 17,681,645 pounds of parts
and accessories were shipped from-the Springfield plant to the Fort
Wayne Works, 10,211,000 from the Farinall plant, 8,602,000 from
the McCormick plant, 4,175,600 from the-Milwaukee plant, 3,644,513,
from the West Pullman plant, and 1,935,273 from the Auburn, Rich-
mond and Tractor plants (the shipments from all but the Spring-
field plant were of castings). Thirty-two million, two hundred and
sixty-nine thousand, nine hundred and sixty-three (32,269,963)
pounds of steel were shipped to the Fort Wayne Works from the-
Wisconsin Steel Co., South Chicago, Illinois; Republic Steel Com-
pany , Massillon , Ohio; Pittsburgh Crucible Steel Co., Midland,
Pennsylvania, -and American Rolling Mill Co., Middleton, Ohio;
12,000,000 pounds of lumber were shipped from the Goodyear Yel-
low Pine Co. Motor truck parts made by other manufacturers and
used at the Fort Wayne Works amounted to $10,200,000.
As of August 12, 1936, _ there were 4,150 employees at the Fort
Wayne Works. Of these, 514 were clerical, supervisory and adminis-
trative employees, 3,638 were hourly employees. Certain of these
hourly-paid employees are engaged in occupations directly con-
cerned with the receipt and shipment of materials . Thus, there
were, in August, 1936, in the Stores Department (No. 5), 71 laborers
engaged in unloading and storing incoming materials and seven
employees engaged in the recording, of such materials . In the Re-
pairs Department (No. 13) there sere 42 order fillers whose task
is to collect repair parts pursuant to specific orders and prepare them
for the employees engaged in packing outgoing shipments; 38 em-
ployees engaged, in such packing and four laborers who deliver
packed service parts to the loading platform and who occasionally
load railroad cars. In the Packing Department (No. 40) there were
22 employees engaged in disassembling complete trucks, packing the
component parts in boxes, weighing, measuring and stencilling them,
and finally loading them; 21 employees engaged in packing, checking
and loading of materials manufactured at Fort Wayne for other
plants; five employees engaged in loading trucks in railroad cars . 3
$ From December , 1935, to August, 1936 , some employees were engaged in the trans-
portation by respondent 's trucks of parts shipped between the Fort Wayne Works and
the Springfield Works At the end- of that period, the respondent ceased to use its
own trucks and employees for such transportation , 'and engaged an independent trucker
in their place . While the respondent 'was using its own trucks - they- carried about 10
per cent of the shipments of parts made between the two plants
318 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We conclude that the operations of the respondent at its Fort
Wayne Works constitute a continuous flow of trade , traffic and
commerce among the several States and with foreign countries.
II. THE UNION
In September, 1933, a Federal Labor Union was organized in the
respondent's Fort Wayne Works. This Union, a labor organization,
was chartered by the American Federation of Labor. Charles R.
Shrock was elected its President. The membership rapidly in-
creased, reaching a peak of approximately 800 in March, 1935. At
that time there were about 2,200 employees in the plant, of which 410
Were machinists and 53 drop forgers, both classes not being eligible
for membership in the Union. In October, 1935, the Union was
granted a charter as a Local of the newly formed International
Union of Automobile Workers of America. Shrock continued as
President of the successor organization. Employees engaged in the
production and assembly of automobiles and automobile parts and
accessories , excluding supervisory employees, are eligible for mem-
bership.4 The present membership in the Union is about 100.
III. THE HARVESTER INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL PLAN
A. Adoption of the Plan at the Fort Wayne Works
Commencing in 1919 the respondent prepared and introduced a
system of employee representation in its various plants. This sys-
tem, known as the "Harvester Industrial Council Plan", was offered
to the employees in the plants for their acceptance or rejection by
secret vote. A letter from the President of the respondent to its
employees introduced the Plan :
"The directors and officers of the Company have for some
time been working out a plan to establish closer relations be-
tween the employes and the management. To this end they
now offer the following Harvester Industrial Council Plan for
the consideration of the employes, hoping that it may meet with
their approval.
"The plan provides for a `Works Council' in which representa-
tives elected by the employes shall have equal voice and vote with
the management in the consideration of matters of mutual
interest.
"It guarantees to every employe the right to present any sug-
gestion, request, or complaint and to have it promptly considered
' Employees in such departments at the Fort Wayne Works as Stores , Repairs and,
]racking, described above , are included among those eligible for membership.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 319
and fairly decided. Provision is also made for impartial
arbitration.
"Should this plan be adopted by vote of the employes, the
officers pledge their best efforts to carry it out in letter and spirit.
"It is my hope and belief that the plan, if adopted, will mate-
rially strengthen our relations in the work we have in common,
and will make for the greater' contentment and well-being of
us all.
"HAROLD ' F. MCCORDIICK,
President."
The Plan was voted on by the employees in each plant and in
nearly every case adopted by majorities varying from 51 to 97 per
cent of the workers. In several plants it was at first rejected by the
workers, but after the lapse of several years accepted when reintro-
duced and voted upon for the second time. The Plan is now in effect
in all of the plants and works of the respondent in the United States
and Canada.
The Plan was presented to the Fort Wayne employees in 1927.
Manufacturing operations at the Fort Wayne Works had commenced
in 1925 and by 1927 there were about 2,000 employees on the pay roll,
most of them with at least one year of service. At that time the Plan
was in effect in all but one of the respondent's plants, the respondent
for reasons of its own not having introduced the Plan in that plant.
The Plan was introduced at Fort Wayne in the following manner :
George J. Kelday, Manager of Industrial Relations for the respond-
ent, visited the plant in May, 1927, and discussed the Plan with the
foremen, assembled for that purpose. They were told that the
respondent desired to have the Plan in effect at the plant so as to
secure closer cooperation between management and employees. - The
foremen then selected employees from the various departments and
they were given similar talks. Booklets describing the Plan, accom-
panied by a letter from the Superintendent, were then distributed by
the foremen to each of the employees. The letter, dated May 26, 1927,
read as follows (Resp. Ex. 4) :
"With this letter your foreman will hand you a booklet describ-
ing the Harvester Industrial Council Plan.
"In'line with the'policy of our Company, the officers are now
extending to us additional advantages already enjoyed by the
employes of other Works. 'Since 1919 twenty-five Works Coun-
cils, made up equally of employe and management representa-
tives, have been operating at the other plants of the Harvester
Company to the mutual satisfaction of the employes and the
management. ' ' '
320 NATIONAL - LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Before the plan can be introduced here, it is necessary to take
a vote of the employes. This will be done in a few days by a
committee of employes and every one will be- given an oppor-
tunity to say whether or not he favors the adoption of a Works
Council Plan at the Fort Wayne Works.
"If, after reading the attached booklet very carefully, there
are any points not perfectly clear, discuss them fully with your
foreman, Mr. C. J. Dillon, Employment Manager, Mr. G. J.
Kelday, Manager Industrial Relations Department, and the
writer will also be glad to answer any question you may ask.
"If the plan is adopted I am firmly convinced it will result
in uniting us closer together in mutual understanding and con-
fidence and the Fort Wayne Works will then take its rightful
place in the Harvester Group second to no other Works.
"J. J. RODGERS, Supt.,
FORT WAYNE WORKS."
This was followed by a letter, written by the First Vice-President
and posted on the bulletin boards in the plant, stating that on June
3 the employees would have an opportunity to vote on the proposal
to adopt the Plan, and containing the following, statements (Resp.
Ex. 5) .
"This Plan had aready been accepted by the employes of
twenty-five (25) of the International Harvester plants since
1919, and is offered to you in the belief that it will be of mutual
advantage to the Employes and to the Company at Fort Wayne
as it has been at the other Works .. .
"The ballot will be secret, and I hope you will all feel ab-
solutely free to express your opinions. I assure each one
of you that your attitude regarding this matter will in no way
affect your standing with the Company.
"Our hope is that the Plan will be adopted at the Fort Wayne
Works as it has been in all the Company's Works where it has
been offered, and that it will bring us together in a new and
lasting relation which will mean, increased and insured happi-
ness for all of us."
The election was held on June 3, 1927, the ballot providing a
choice between "For adoption" and "Against adoption". Out of
,the total employed, 1,060 employees were eligible to vote. One thou-
sand and fifty employees voted and 96 per cent of this number, or
1,013, voted in favor of the adoption of the Plan. Employee repre-
sentatives were then elected and on June 15, 1927, the Fort Wayne
Works Council held its first meeting. It was honored by a personal
visit from Cyrus McCormick, Jr., the respondent's Vice-President.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 321
The Plan thus adopted at Fort Wayne in., 1927 was outlined in
various Articles printed in booklet form. While modifications
have been made in the years following its adoption, a brief de-
scription of the Plan as there outlined will aid in an understand-
ing of the later changes. The Plan provided for a "Works Council"
composed of representatives of the employees and representatives
of the management. The employee representatives are elected by
the employees, the - plant being divided into voting divisions, each
entitled to one representative. Nomination of. candidates and elec-
tion of representatives are by secret ballot. r All employees, except
.foreman, 'assistant foreman and salaried employees, are eligible to
vote. - Employee representatives must be•" citizens of the United
States, at least 21 years. of age, and must have been employed • at
the plant for at least one year immediately prior to nomination,,
The management representatives, not to exceed in number the; em^
ployee representatives, are appointed by the management. Provi-
sion is made for' filling vacancies in the Works Council and for the
recall of employee representatives. The Works Council holds regu-
lar monthly meetings. The Manager of the respondent's Industrial
Relations Department, or his designee, acts as Chairman of the
Works Council; the Secretary is appointed by the plant Super.
intendent. Chairman and Secretary have no vote. When a vote is
necessary the management representatives vote as a unit and the
employee representatives as a unit, the majority determining the
vote of the unit. The vote shall be secret unless otherwise ordered
by the Council. If the Council reaches an agreement on any matter,
its recommendation is referred to the plant Superintendent. for; leis
approval or disapproval. The Superintendent, if he deems the
matter of such importance as to require the attention of the general
officers, shall refer it to the respondent's President. The latter may
either approve the recommendation or utilize the same procedure
as in the case of a tie vote. In case of a tie vote not 'resolved by
further discussion, the matter may be referred to the President,
who may either propose a settlement or refer the matter to a Gen-
eral Council. If a proposed settlement is not satisfactory to the
employee representatives, the President may likewise refer 'the
matter to a General Council. If the President does not so refer the
matter, or if the vote of the General Council is a tie, the President
and a majority of the employee representatives may mutually agree to
submit the matter to arbitration. The General Council is composed
of employee representatives chosen by the employee representatives
in the various plants designated by the President as being interested
in the matter, and of appointed management representatives.
The Works Council may investigate, consider and make recom-
mendations on all questions relating to working conditions, protec-
322 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioli of health; safety,'wages, hours of labor, recreation, education
and similar -matters of, mutual interest to employer and employees.
It may appoint sub-committees, with employee representatives and
management representatives having equal voting power, whenever
such committees are deemed necessary. Provision is made for the
manner in which an employee may have a matter brought before
the Works Council. The respondent is to provide a meeting place
for the Council. Employee representatives shall receive their regu-
lar pay from the respondent while on Works Council business. The
Plan may be amended by a majority vote of the employee represent-
atives and a majority vote of the "management representatives. The
adoption or rejection of an amendment shall not be the subject of
arbitration. The Plan may be terminated, after six months' notice,
by a majority vote of the employees or by the Board of Directors of
the respondent.
B. Present functioning of _ the Plan
I
The formal outlines of the Plan were contained in the Articles
drawn up by the management and presented to the employees in
booklet form as described above. These Articles were the core of
the Plan; they set its basic structure and charted the organizational
lines. But, as was to be expected, in actual practice unwritten modifi-
cations of these Articles developed and are today as much a part of
the Plan as the Articles themselves. A description of the present
functioning of the Plan will reveal these developments.
1. Election of employee representatives
Prior to 1936 the semi-annual elections for employee representa-
tives were conducted by the Works Council. These elections were
thus jointly supervised by employee and management representatives
and both employees and management officials participated in their
conduct., In 1936 this was altered by the management's turning over
to, the then employee representatives full responsibility for all mat-
ters relating to elections.5 A Notice of Election, signed by the em-
ployee representatives, was posted containing the dates- of election,
eligibility requirements for voters and representatives, and a few of
the rules governing the election. The number of employee represent-
atives was increased from six to eleven, the plant being divided into
eleven divisions in order to reduce the number of employees repre-
sented by each employee representative. All employees, except fore-
6The manner in which this change took , place and its significance in relation to the
Plan will be considered later.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 323
men, assistant foremen and salaried employees, were entitled to vote.
Rule 2 of the Notice stated that "All employees on the pay roll shall
be eligible for nomination as Employe Representatives". Rule 4
stated that "A blank ballot will be offered to each employe present
at work on Monday, March 16, 1936, the date of nomination. On this
ballot the employe will write the name of the person who he desired
to nominate". Witnesses for the respondent, including the employee
representative who drafted the Notice, testified that the second sen-
tence in Rule 4 was designed to make eligible for nomination persons
outside the respondent's employ. In previous years only employees
of the respondent were eligible for nomination.° The testimony on*
the construction of Rule 4 was conflicting. By itself the Notice is
clearly not susceptible of the interpretation urged by the respondent,
for Rule 4 simply states the mechanics of nomination under the limi-
tations of Rule 2. We therefore feel that- the 1936 elections did not
alter the previous eligibility requirement of employment by the
respondent. Nominating elections were held on March 16, carrying
over to the next day, and the final election between those two nomi-
nees in each division who received the highest number of votes, on
March 20. The personnel for the election-tellers and watchers-
consisted of employees selected by the employee representatives. The
voting was done in the plant while it was operating, the tellers going
from employee to employee. There were no voting booths. The bal-
lots were supplied by the management and were of the form used in
previous elections. The final ballot was headed, "Ballot for Election
of Employe Representative in Works Council" and contained the
names of the two nominees. All of the personnel involved in the con-
duct of the election were paid by the respondent for the time spent
on election tasks, at their usual rate of pay. Notices of various
sorts-rules of election, results, etc.-were posted on Company bulle-
tin boards. In the final election, out of 2,935 eligibles, 2,801 or 95.40
per cent voted.
Although the employee representatives themselves, instead of the
Works Council, conducted the 1936 elections, they followed the pro-
cedure developed in prior elections, so that the 1936 elections differed
in no significant manner from those held in previous years.
2. Preliminary meetings
At this point in the description of the functioning of the Plan it
is desirable to consider the steps preliminary to the actual meetings
of the Works Council. The meetings of the Council are held
'In the election conducted in 1935 by the Automobile Labor Board, discussed snfra,
representatives were not required to be employees of the respondent.
5727-37-col i1-22
324 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
monthly. About one week prior to each meeting the employee rep-
resentatives meet informally with the Superintendent of the plant.
This meeting is scheduled by the Superintendent at a time conven-
ient to him and the representatives and notices of the meeting are
sent by the management to the employee representatives. The em-
ployee representatives meet alone for about an hour or so prior to
this informal meeting with the Superintendent to discuss matters
to be presented to him. At this meeting with the Superintendent
matters involving routine complaints or suggestions concerning
working conditions in the plant are presented to him. The following
.examples are typical : slippery wash rack floor in Departments 37
and 50; location of lockers; mats for shower rooms; shortage of rags
in tool crib; parking space problems; unsafe method of lifting
frames to conveyor in Department 15; dangerous position of hooks
attached to light,cords in Department 28 aisles, etc. Often the Su-
perintendent is able then and there to act upon the matter. If not,
he takes the matter under advisement and reports later, either at
such a preliminary meeting or at a Works Council meeting. Those
matters which are taken under advisement are noted by the Secre-
tary of the employee representatives and reported to the next Coun-
cil meeting under the he of "Communications". That is the
only written record made of the meeting. Practically all of the mat-
ters the employee representatives present to the Council have previ-
ously been presented and to some extent considered at such prelimi-
nary meetings. In addition to the consideration of such routine
matters, the Superintendent sometimes talks rather briefly on the
general business outlook for the respondent, such as orders on hand,
etc. He also often stresses the benefit of the Plan both to the man-
agement and to the employees.
These preliminary meetings, both of the employee representatives
alone and with the Superintendent, occur in the plant during work-
ing hours. The employee representatives are compensated by the
respondent for time so spent at their regular rate of pay.
3. Works Council meetings-Committees-1936-1937 Council
The employee representatives elected in 1936 commenced their term
of office on April 8, 1936, at the 107th regular meeting of the Fort
Wayne Works Council. It had been decided by these employee rep-
resentatives that their term of office should be for a year, instead of
six months, staggered, as before.7 They had also at a meeting held
by themselves selected their officers, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and
Secretary, and their representatives to the various committees func-
The circumstances that gave rise to this decision are considered later.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 325
tioning under the control of the Works Council." These selections
were announced at the first meeting of the new Council on April 8,
1936. At the same meeting the Superintendent of the plant an-
nounced the management representatives, six in number," for the
coming year, and the personnel of the management representatives
on the various committees. He also reappointed the Employment
Manager of the plant as the Secretary of the Council. The Works
-Council for 1936-1937 was then organized and commenced to
function.
The meetings of the Works Council occur regularly each month.
Notices of meetings are sent by shop letter to representatives by the
Secretary of the Council. The Chairman at these meetings is usually
.a representative of the Industrial Relations Department of the re-
spondent, generally George J. Kelday, head of that Department.
The Chairman, who has no vote, is the presiding officer. He partici-
pates in discussions, expresses his opinion, imparts needed informa-
tion and advice. The Vice-Chairman, who acts in the absence of
the Chairman, is elected each year by the members of the Council.
The person who is Superintendent of the plant at the particular time
has invariably been chosen Vice-Chairman, although employee rep-
resentatives are eligible for that position. He designates the Secre-
tary for the Council, likewise invariably a management official.
The meetings are conducted in an orderly but informal fashion.
Employee and management representatives sit around a table in an
order marked by convenience rather than separation based upon the
-class of representatives. Each member receives a printed copy of the
agenda, including the various committee reports. The meeting gen-
erally commences with reports from the committees. All of these
committees have both management and employee representatives and.
briefly, are as follows :
a. Committee on Committees.-This committee, which meets once
a month, examines the Minutes of the Council meetings prepared by
the Secretary to the Council and approves them for substance. It
thus exercises a form of control over the Minutes. Apparently that
is its only function.
8 The Plan provides for the appointment of deputy representatives by the employee
representatives when such appointment is deemed to be necessary . In practice any
employee representative who believes it advisable appoints a deputy for his division,
and reports the appointment to the Secretary of the employee representatives Approval
of the Works Council is not necessary . The deputy acts as a substitute when the
elected representative cannot attend and assists the elected representative when the
volume of work requires such aid. Deputies are paid by the respondent for time spent
on Works Council matters. Some deputies have been appointed by the present employee
representatives.
8 For 1936-7 the following are management representatives : superintendent , assistant
superintendent , auditor, general foreman, chief time inspector , supervisor of experimental
work.
326 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. Safety, Health and Sanitation Committee.-The title of this
committee is descriptive of its duties. The committee meets once a
month. One of its functions is a regular monthly safety inspection
tour of all departments in the plant, participated in by the other
representatives as well. Foremen and assistant foremen are present
when these inspections are made and, on the basis of the observations
made on such tours, suggestions are continually offered regarding im-
provements in safety devices, cleanliness and other working condi-
tions. This committee also supervises safety contests in the plant
which are designed to promote safety through competition among
departments. It reviews reports of accidents to determine their
causes and means of preventing them in the future. In general, it
cooperates with the Safety Department and the foremen in the cor-
rection of unsafe conditions and draws the attention of employees to
the importance of safety precautions. Summarizing the duties of
the Safety Committee, the Manager of Industrial Relations stated
that the safety activities are "one of the finest jobs elected men do".
c. Employes' Service Committee.-This committee handles a wide
variety of matters of interest to the employees. Predominant among
these are reports on the numerous athletic activities-basket ball, vol-
ley ball, track, bowling, rifle shooting, soft ball, etc.-of the em-
ployees at the plant, involving both inter- and intra-plant competi-
tion, and participation of Fort Wayne Harvester teams in local ath-
letic leagues. The committee is also concerned with such matters as
parking facilities for employees, music programs, parties, drinking
water facilities, street car service, shower facilities, individual em-
ployee problems under the vacation plan, pension plan, seniority
rules, etc.
After the committee reports the Secretary of the employee repre-
sentatives then reads the various matters presented to the Superin-
tendent at the preliminary meeting and which have been taken under
advisement by him, and reports on those items which have been com-
pleted. The Secretary of the Council then reads a report of the
Credit Union 10 at the plant, in which its financial condition is out-
lined. Whatever old business may be pending is next considered.
New business is then in order. Items of various degrees of impor-
tance are discussed in a mamier that will be considered later in detail.
After the discussion of these items is concluded, the Council members
receive a short talk from a person invited to address them, generally
a management official. These talks are on such topics as accounting
methods, annual report of the respondent, metallurgy, Social Security
Act, the Employes' Benefit Association, etc. The meeting is then
adjourned.
10 This will be discussed later
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 327
While the Plan provided that the employee representatives and
the management - representatives should vote separately, by the
method of unit voting, this provision has not been followed in prac-
tice. No unit vote has been taken since the inception of the Plan.
Instead, voting is conducted by open "ayes " and "nays" in an infor-
mal fashion , both types of representatives participating at the same
time in the voting . Even such a vote is rare and most of the matters
decided by the Council are not even put to a vote.
4. Employee representative contacts with foremen and assistant
foremen
Many matters handled by the employee representatives are settled
without the necessity of their taking them to the Superintendent or
to the Works Council. The majority of individual grievances pre-
sented by employees to their representatives are generally adjusted
by the latter through contact with the appropriate foreman or assist-
ant foreman. These grievances involve such matters as individual
rates of pay, working conditions, shifts, transfers, etc.
II
In addition to the above description of the framework of the Plasi,
a more detailed analysis of certain aspects of the Plan in its every-
day setting and its integration with other activities at the plant is
,necessary to a complete understanding of its place in the employees'
working life.
1. Employee representatives
An employee representative once chosen is generally reelected time
after time by his constituents. Of the six elected representatives who
were on the Council in 1935 and who were reelected in 1936, one has
been a representative since 1928, one since 1930, one since 1932, one
since 1933 (and also for one and a half years when the Plan was
inaugurated), one at least since 1933 and one since 1935.11 The pres-
ence of such regular reelection and long stay in office in an organiza-
tion of the type under consideration is not without significance. It
is not unreasonable to believe that many of these representatives,
through constant association with management officials, always on a
most cordial basis, come to regard themselves as a part of the man-
1 The present Council thus consists of five representatives of long standing, one
selected first in 1935 and the four new representatives chosen in 1936 as a consequence
of the addition of new divisions . One of the first group had been chosen in two
divisions.
328 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agement and its machinery 12 and, consequently, tend to forget that
they are representatives of employees ostensibly selected for the pur-
pose of bargaining with management. Many of the employees feel
that the representatives are management-minded and that they place
their own personal interests and the interests of the management
above those of the employees whom they represent. -
The almost complete indifference of some of the employee repre-
sentatives to their duties is another important factor. In one case'
especially the circumstances surrounding the nomination and election
of the representative, and the representative himself, were such as to
indicate that the office of representative and the particular employee
elected were not regarded highly by the employees, the election of the
particular employee being looked upon as a "joke". In this regard it
is significant that many of the employees take very little interest in
the Plan. For example, one employee testified as follows :
"Q. What has Mr. Conroy (his employee representative) done
in the department that you know -about . . - what has he done
for any of.the workers in the department?
"A. Well, I wouldn't know. To be sure, I haven't paid a
whole lot of attention."
Another, who was elected as a representative in 1936, stated in regard
to the Council that prior to his election "I never paid much attention
to it". Another employee, who was offered by the respondent as a
"rank and file" witness, testified as follows :
"Q. Do you know of anything that he (his employee represent-
ative) has done as a representative during the time that he has
been representing you?
"A. I just can't recall right now."
The representative in question had been on the Council at-least since
1933. Such attitudes on the part of employee representatives and
employees are to some extent indicative of the efficacy of the Plan
as a method of collective bargaining.
The employees who seek election as representatives do not have
any platforms on which to base their candidacy. The elections conse-
quently do not involve policy decisions on the part of the voting
employees. The choice between rival candidates is made on much
the same bases as are present in social or fraternal elections. And
yet the making of that choice constitutes the sum total- of the.
employees' participation in the Plan. -
v It is the custom of the employee representatives to gather each morning for a few
minutes in the employment office to see if anything should be discussed and to ascertain
whether the employment manager has anything to tell them.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 329
2. Contact of employee representatives with constituents
A significant feature of the Plan is the total absence of contact
of the employee representatives with their consituents as a group.
The Plan has no provision for meetings of employees and its oper-
ation has not produced a system of mass meetings or any similar
procedure . Instead, the employee representative ascertains the
wishes of his constituents entirely through individual contact during
working hours . It is not surprising , therefore , to find that most
of the time of a representative is taken up with the adjustment of
individual grievances and problems and that the Plan is mainly
concerned with such matters. Individual employees do not sponsor
general wage increases , changes in working hours, vacation plans
and other matters of interest to the entire group of employees.
Whatever may be the effectiveness of such a system of individual
contact to bring to the surface individual complaints , it cannot
be regarded as a desirable method of making known to the repre-
sentatives or to each other the collective interests and problems of
the employees.
3. Management support of the Plan
The aspect of management support of the Plan is difficult to
describe in a manner which will adequately convey the extent to
which the Plan has been interwoven into the daily life, both of
work and of social and athletic activities , of the Fort Wayne em-
ployees. Through the years of operation of the Plan , the man-
agement, convinced of its soundness , has carefully supplied prop
after prop for its support so that today the average employee at the
plant accepts the Plan as an institution without any realization of
the careful structure that has thus been built to keep the Plan alive
and functioning . The following discussion relates to ,the important
props; the cumulative effect will be considered later.
a. Linking of Plan with other activities and benefits obviously
desirable to employees.-Wherever possible the Plan has been linked
with activities and working conditions that are obviously beneficial
to the employees and desired by them, so that the Plan may both
receive credit for the benefits resulting from the other activities
and be regarded by the employees as an integral part of the plant
life. Some of these activities and working conditions are :
(1) The Credit Union.-A Credit Union, of the type authorized
by the federal statute on the subject,'," was organized at the Fort
Wayne Works in February, 1935. The management , after the es-
18 Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U. S. C. A, Sec. 1751, et seq.
330 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tablishment of Credit Unions in other plants, had recommended
their value to the Fort Wayne Works Council. The elected repre-
sentatives then imparted information concerning the proposed Credit
Union to their constituents. The incorporators, six of whom were
elected employee representatives under the Plan, next selected a
group of 50 to discuss the Credit Union. With the aid of a federal
official the Credit Union was then organized.14
The Credit Union proved to be very successful and its membership
grew rapidly. At the time of the hearing there were 1,744 members;
total loans to that time amounted to $103,537.11. The reason for
its popularity is apparent in its function, for it is designed to enable
employees to borrow money at low rates of interest and without
security.
Employee representatives were prominent in its organization and
initial activities. Six represenatives were among the eight incor-
porators who signed the certificate of application. Two are on the
Board of Directors (seven in number), having been elected to that
office by the charter members. Two are at present on the Credit
Committee. This prominence of the employee representatives in
the Credit Union, and the consequent linking of the Plan with the
Credit Union, has been heightened in various ways. The Minutes
of the Works Council repeatedly contain statements advising em-
ployees to see their employee representatives for information con-
cerning the Credit Union : "If interested, keep in touch with your
council representative" (Bd. Ex. 41, p. 18) ; "If by chance you did not
get your (pass) book, please advise your councilman of the secre-
tary-treasurer and you will be furnished one immediately" (Bd.
Ex. 46, p. 12) ; "employees desiring membership in the Credit Union
should see their council representative" (Bd. Ex. 47, p. 17) ; "For
Additional Information, See Your Council Representatives" (Bd.
Ex. 61, p. 2). At one meeting the Superintendent, after praising
the Credit Union, stated that "frequent articles in the Works Coun-
cil Minutes might serve the purpose of explaining the various
savings and loan features of the Credit Union" (Bd. Ex. 45, p. 12).
Employee representatives were supplied with membership applica-
tions which they could distribute to their constituents, and they also
received such applications for membership from employees. Finan-
"The officers of the Credit Union, president, vice-president and secretary-treasurer,
are employees Most of their activities are conducted outside of working hours, but the
respondent does permit some activities during Rorking hours without loss of pay. The
officers are appointed by the Board of Duectois from their members This Board is
elected at an annual meeting of the membership. A Credit Committee of five members
is also elected at the annual meeting. Its function is to investigate and pass on appli-
cations for loans. The management provides office space for the Credit Union, makes
payroll deductions whereby loans are repaid, and in general provides its cooperation
whenever necessary.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 331
cial reports on the status of the Credit Union are regularly made to
the Works Council and are included in its Minutes.
It is true that the Credit Union was not directly established by
the management, is an agency organized pursuant to statute, and is
not operated by the management. ' Nevertheless, through the ac-
tivities of employee representatives and the medium of the Works
Council Minutes, the Credit Union, held in high regard by the em
ployees, has been linked with the Plan so that the latter may share
in that regard.
(2) The Athletic Association.-Like the Credit Union, the Athletic
Association is an organization highly regarded by employees' at the
plant. All employees may be i embers of the orbAnizati61y and, it
has no dues. It conducts the numerous. athletic activities carried
'on among the employees, stages banquets, distributes candy at'Christ-
mas, operates. a commissary that sells candy, etc., and engages in
similar activities. From its funds it contributes cash prizes for
various athletic contests.
Here also an organization desired by employees has ben linked
to the Plan.. The various athletic contests are reported on in detail
to the Council by the Employes' Service Committee and full informa-
tion concerning them is published in the Council Minutes. Manage-
ment officials acting as Chairmen at annual banquets of the Asso-
ciation call upon prominent employee representatives for speeches,
appoint them to Association committees. Printed notices advising
of Athletic Association banquets state that tickets should be obtained
from "your foreman or your councilman" (Bd. Ex. 59). Passes for
certain athletic contests may be obtained from council representatives.
(3) Vacation Plan; pension plan.-The International Harvester
-Company system, as' described above, embraces many plants. It is
but natural that many Company policies, such as those pertaining
to vacations, pensions, etc., must have a uniform application. Hence,,
while a request for such a plan may possibly originate in the Works
Council of one of the plants, it is obvious that the matter is one for
the central office to decide. But once such a policy has been deter-
mined by the respondent, it is careful to announce its adoption
through the mechanism of the Works Council in each of the plants
and to give credit to the Plan for the adoption of the policy. The
employees are thus led to feel that Works Councils directly bring
about reforms of such a nature and favor for the Plan is thus stimu-
lated. For example, the letter of the President to the employees
accompanying the printed announcement of the vacation plan began
with the following : "After long and careful consideration, in which
the Works Councils have been of great assistance, the directors and
officers of the Company have worked out and herewith submit a
plan for annual vacations" (Bd. Exs. 36, 37). .Similarly; when the
332 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vacation plan was modified in 1936 to permit more employees to
obtain its advantages, the management's statement of the announce-
ment, printed in the Council Minutes, contained the following : "At
the request of the elected representatives of several works councils,
the management has given consideration to the date on which an em-
ployee becomes eligible for a vacation" (Bd. Ex. 52, p. 14). Al-
though no discussion of the change had taken place in the Fort
Wayne Works Council, the statement itself, and its ambiguous word-
ing, permitted the Fort Wayne Council to share credit for the
change.
That the result desired by this integration of the Plan with such
beneficial activities has been achieved is indicated by campaign
literature distributed by Works Council candidates in March, 1935,
preliminary to an election conducted by the Automobile Labor
Board between those candidates and Union candidates.'5 This litera-
ture stated :
"WHAT YOUR WORKS COUNCIL HAS SECURED FOR YOU.
"Vacations with pay-No other truck or automobile plant
has a vacation plan.
"Forty hour pay for 36 hours work-No other plant in the
industry adjusted wages on this basis.
"Seniority and service rights for vacation, E. B. A. and pen-
sion are more liberal than in any other industry.
"Lockers and showers.
"Parking space for cars.
"Daily contact with and the right to deal with management
in all matters affecting your welfare.
"We believe you want this kind of relationship to continue-
If you do Vote for the Works Council Candidates" (Bd. Ex. 40).
The claims are obvious exaggerations-if not deliberate misstate-
ments. The Fort Wayne Works Council had nothing to do with the
vacation plan or the seniority and service rights under the other
enumerated plans. The "daily -contact" was not secured by the
Works Council-it was given to the employees by the management
when the management decided that the Plan should be established.
And clearly, lockers, showers and parking space would have been
provided in any event. On this point, an employee offered by the
respondent as a "rank and file" witness testified as follows :
"Q. Now, as an old Harvester man, don't you really think
that you would be treated as well as you are treated now; if you
didn't have any representation plan there at all?
"A. Well, I imagine that it would be pretty good."
"This election is described later.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 333
Yet, the linking of the Plan with all such matters has made' it possi-
ble for the adherents to the Plan to advance in its behalf the claims
stated above.
b. Minutes of the Council.-The Minutes of each Council meeting
are regularly published by the respondent. They are contained in a.
little booklet of pocket size and printed with paper and type of the
sort ,that makes for easy reading. The Minutes have been distributed
by various methods in the past, and today the practice differs in the
various departments. Employee representatives, foremen, watch-
men, employees, all play some part in, their distribution. The
method, however, is immaterial; the important thing is that the
respondent endeavors to have each.employee supplied with a copy,
in' a form convenient to take home with him, the object being a
widespread distribution of the Minutes among employees and their
families.
The Minutes contain a full account of the Council meetings, in-
cluding all committee reports. As indicated above, this means that
reports of athletic events, Credit Union activities and finances, and
similar matters are carried in' the Minutes. Complete reports of
the standings of the terms in the various athletic leagues are given,
so that a• part of the Minutes resembles columns in the sporting
pages of a newspaper. Reports of elections are carried at appro-
priate times. The Minutes also contain summaries of the talks made
before the • Council, the provisions of legislation affecting employees,
such as the Social Security Act, the National Labor Relations' Act,
etc., copies 'of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitu-
tion, and reprints of short articles dealing with safety devices and
measures, hot weather hints, the work of The various departments
in the plant, etc.16 Safety hints, often in pictorial form, reports
on inter-works and plant safety contests, analysis of accidents and
means of prevention, 'pictures of plant equipment, pictures of Fort
Wayne Works teams, are liberally sprinkled throughout the Minutes.
It is clear that practically all of the matter contained in these Min-
utes is desired by the employees in the plant and their families. One
employee offered by the respondent as a "rank and file" witness tes-
tified as follows :
"Q. Have you ever read through completely any of the min-
utes of the Council meetings?
"A. I don't'believe I ever have.
"Q. Have you ever read much, or several pages in any of the
minutes?
11 In the Minutes for the May, 1934, meeting there is the following : "the secretary
was instructed to have members of the plant organization write a series of brief articles
outlining some of the activities of their departments, these reports to be published in
the works council minutes" (Bd. Ex. 66, p. 1).
334 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"A. Well, when it would tell about golf or bowling or some-
thing like that.
"Q. You were more interested in the athletic activities and
(than) in the other activities of the Council, is that correct?
"A. Yes."
The Minutes are really used as plant papers by the respondent.
The Manager of Industrial Relations testified on this point as
follows :
"We find that these minutes are appreciated by the represent-
atives and it contains valuable information not only of the
activities of the bargaining agency but these other things, these
folks at home are concerned in the pension plan and the vaca-
tion plan and it is a medium through which the company has of
reaching all employees on these matters of general concern, in
which the employees are interested, and I believe that if we
should endeavor to discontinue the printing of these minutes we
would get a pretty big growl from our employees, because they
are getting information currently that they want and they have
asked for it and it is their right to have it."
The inclusion of such matter in the Minutes of the Works Council
is thus significant, for it has the effect of inducing the belief in the
employees that they are getting all of this because of the Plan and
hence the Plan is a good thing for them. They do not stop to con-
sider that, Plan or no Plan, they would still receive the information,
for it is of the sort that practically any large concern, if intelligently
managed, finds it desirable to provide to its employees.
c. Information and advice given to newly-hired employees.-The
respondent in its advice and information given to newly-hired em-
ployees seems to regard the Plan as a fixed institution in its plant.
Hence, such employees are given the booklet describing the Plan
along with booklets on the Pension Plan, the Vacation Plan, and the
Employes' Benefit Association.17 The management generally goes on
to explain that the Works Council representatives will act as their
representatives in bargaining or in consideration of grievances. In
this regard the answer of the respondent states that :
"The Company admits that newly hired employees are advised
of the existence of the Harvester Industrial Council plan and
that the representatives duly elected by their fellow employees
and currently serving will be available to bargain for them if
they so desire."
17 The Employees ' Benefit Association , established in 1908, is a company -wide organiza-
tion, contributed to by both the respondent and employees , and paying sick, accident and
death benefits It is controlled by a Board of Trustees having employee and manage-
ment representatives. The Pension Plan was also established in 1908.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 335
Foremen often discuss the Plan with newly-hired employees and
point out its merits. One foreman testified as follows :
"Q. Are you instructed as a foreman to tell him (a new em-
ployee) about the Works Council, and how it works, and about
his representation?
"A. Yes, we are asked to sit down and get the confidence of
the man and make him feel at home, to give him a talk of the
organization, and how it operated, and how we handle our tools
in different ways, and the safety-first, and inspection trips, that
are made through the shop."
He later indicated that the instructions did not specify that he go
into the details of the Plan, but that he spoke about the Plan as
part of the procedure of becoming acquainted with the employee
and getting him oriented. Employee representatives in many cases
are introduced to a new employee by the foreman. Employees are
generally not informed of the existence of the Union.
The practice of giving such information and advice to new em-
ployees can have but one result. While specific adherence to the
Plan is not demanded by the personnel office and the supervisory
force in so many words, nevertheless, the effect upon the normal
employee not too curious about the bargaining agencies that may
exist in the plant is that the Plan is a thing to be accepted with-
out question and that, or even because, the management is wholly
in favor of it. When it is realized that since April, 1935, about
600 or 700 new employees have been engaged, the significance of the
practice is apparent.
d. The respondent's recommendation of the Plan.-The respondent
quite openly indicates that it favors the Plan and desires its con-
tinuance in the plant. No opportunity is lost to inform employees
of its attitude. At the council meetings, in preliminary meetings,
in open letters, high management officials repeatedly praise the Plan.
Such words of praise are generally included in the Minutes, so that
the management approbation of the Plan circulates to every em-
ployee and his family.
The Manager of Industrial Relations, who acts as Chairman at
many of the Works Council meetings in the various plants, testified
as follows :
"Q. On that last matter, Mr. Kelday, you do think that the
plan is an excellent plan, do you not?
"A. I am convinced that it has worked very satisfactorily
over a long period of years, Mr. Chairman, yes.
"Q. If an employee asked you what you thought of the plan,
would you tell him that you thought it was a good plan?
336 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"A. If , an employee asked, me, I wouldn't hesitate,to say, in
my opinion,, it was a good plan, and it worked to mutual ad-
vantage of the employee... .
"A. I believe that management do (es) favor this plan be-
cause'it works.
"Q.... you don't deny that consistently and repeatedly, the
representatives from your department and the superintendents
of the various plants, and particularly Fort Wayne, made re-
marks commending the Harvester Council plan?
"A. I believe that the minutes. so indicate ..."
And in its answer, the respondent stated :
"The Company admits that the superintendent of its Fort
Wayne Works and its industrial relations manager commend the
advantages of f-co]lective bargaining through- an employees' rep-
resentation plan" and refer "in meetings of the Works Council,
to advantages and accomplishments of the Harvester Industrial
Council plan."
At the meeting on August 14, 1935, in which the Manager of In-
dustrial Relations discussed the National Labor Relations Act, he
:concluded his remarks by stating:
"The President of the International Harvester Company, in a
letter addressed to the employes dated March 10, 1919, when the
plan of employe representation was submitted to the employes
for approval, said :
"'It is my hope and belief that the plan, if adopted, will
materially strengthen our relations in the work we have in
common, and will make for the greater contentment and well-
being of us all.'
"It is to be hoped that the National Labor Relations Act will
bring to American Industry generally, the same degree of satis-
faction that the Harvester Industrial Council plan of employe
representation has brought to the employes and to the manage-
ment of the International Harvester Company." (Bd. Ex. 46,
p. 22.)
At the meeting of May 17, 1935, the Superintendent of the Fort
Wayne Works said that "throughout his entire experience in the
manufacturing industry, he had never come in contact with a plan
of collective bargaining that could surpass or equal the Harvester
council plan, which he believed was one of the finest bargaining
agencies ever developed". (Bd. Ex. 42, p. 7.) In a letter to the
Superintendent of the plant, written with reference to the 1936 elec-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 337
tions and published in the Minutes, A. A. Jones, Vice-President of
the respondent, stated :
"We believe that Harvester employes generally recognize •the
unusual value of the Works Council Plan and the Company
stands ready to cooperate with its employes in continuing the
plan in such manner as they desire it." (Bd. Ex. 53, p. 12.)
The Superintendent does not hesitate to endorse the Plan at the
preliminary meetings he holds with the employee representatives.
One of the representatives who attended these meetings in 1935-36
testified as follows :
"Q. Did you ever hear him (the superintendent) recommend
the Harvester industrial Council plan as a, plan that employees
should follow?
"A. He recommended that over the period of time, the years
of existence of the Industrial Council plan and the Harvester
system, that it had worked to the mutual benefit of the employees
and the company, and that he believed that this plan was the
best plan for harmony and one big happy family, rather than
an outside or independent organization .. .
"Q. Well, at these meetings that you attended, how often were
these speeches made advocating the Harvester Plan?
"A. Nearly each one of them. I won't say all of them, but
practically a large majority."
While the management states that it desires its foremen to main-
tain strict neutrality on the question of the manner of employee
representation, it is obvious that such neutrality simply cannot exist
in an atmosphere so heavily charged with open management ap-
proval of the Plan. Deliberately, or habitually in the sense that
they are merely performing a routine function, many foremen speak
in favor of the Plan and in derogation of an outside labor organiza-
tion. For example, one foreman stated to some employees in 1935
that the respondent would not tolerate a union in the plant and ad-
vised them not to join a union. The Superintendent admonished
that particular foreman when the matter was called to his attention.
But the significant fact is that the foreman thought along such lines
and openly expressed those views, for an employee's contacts are
with foremen and not superintendents. Again, a foreman ques-
tioned employees as to their presence at a Union meeting. Another
foreman, commenting on the fact an employee had just joined the
Union, stated that "Hank just throwed away $5.00, and that he
should have kept that money". Union application cards distributed
in one department were brought by some of the employees in that
338 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department to the foreman because they believed he would be sym-
pathetic with their disapproval of such a practice."
e. The respondent's financial support of the Plan.-The Plan since
its inception has been entirely supported by the respondent. No
doubt is present on this score, for the respondent readily admits its
financial support. It maintains in Chicago a Department of Indus-
trial Relations which is charged, among other things, with the duty
of keeping the Plan alive and functioning at all of the respondent's
plants. The original announcement of the Plan stated, in Article
III, that "to aid in carrying out this plan the Company has estab-
lished a Department of Industrial Relations which is charged with
the duty of giving special attention Wall matters pertaining to labor
policies and the well-being of the employees". • Representatives of
that Department sit regularly as Chairmen of the Works Councils
in the various plants. The whole complex organization is watched
and guarded with extreme care. The money that goes to maintain
the Department of Industrial Relations is thus in large part money
used for the support of the Plan and can be regarded in no other
light.
In the plant itself the financial support consists of two types :
(1) Money paid to employee representatives.-Every employee
representative is compensated for the time lost from his regular
job because of any activity in connection with the Plan, the com-
pensation being based upon the rate of pay for the regular job of
the representative. These activities in the main are : preliminary
meetings of employee representatives alone, and with the Superin-
tendent, Works Council meetings, committee meetings and com-
mittee work, such as safety inspection tours, contacting of constitu-
ents, contacting of foremen, etc., in an effort to adjust grievances.1°
Most of the time so spent as an employee representative is in the
handling of grievances, that is, both contact with the employee
involved and with the foreman or assistant foreman. The monthly
inspection tours usually take a full day. The preliminary meeting
with the Superintendent, including the meeting of the employee
representatives alone, takes about three hours. The monthly Coun-
cil meetings take about the same length of time. All of these
activities of the employee representatives take place during working
hours and on company property. Representatives are for all practi-
cal purposes free to determine just how much time need be spent
18 It is only natural that outside labor organizations are handicapped in various ways.
Use of the bulletin boards has been denied to the Union , on the ground that the boards
are only for information of a plant nature. Notices of athletic activities , Credit Union
matters ( including elections ), parties, etc., are found on the bulletin boards
19 Up to a month prior to the hearing , the employee , representatives who were on the
Credit Committee of the Credit Union were paid for their work during plant hours in
connection with that Committee.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 339
on Works Council business-there is no attempt to restrict their
activities.20 The activities enumerated above and described else-
where clearly extend beyond conferences with the management. The
respondent so admits, but offers a legal defense for such support,
which will be considered later.
(2) Management payment of all expenses of the Plan.-All of the
expenses involved in the conduct of the Plan are defrayed by the
respondent. Election paraphernalia, such as ballots, notices, print-,
ing, and even tellers and watchers, meeting places, Minutes, etc.,
are paid for or provided by the respondent. The Minutes of the
Works Council are printed by the respondent. Notices of meetings,
such as Works Council meetings, preliminary meetings with the
Superintendent, committee meetings, are prepared by the manage-
ment. The, employees do not contribute one cent to the upkeep of
the Plan. There are no dues. This also the respondent admits-
"The Company admits that all expenses incidental to the operation
of the Harvester Industrial Council plan have been borne by the
Company . . . The Company admits that it had paid the small
expense incidental to the elections conducted by employees for the
purpose of choosing their representatives at the Fort Wayne
Works." 21
C. Recent changes in the Plan
As far as possible, the discussion above relates to the functioning
of the Plan at the time of the hearing before the Board. A com-
parison with the original statement of the Plan indicates that it has
not been appreciably altered since its inception at the Fort Wayne
Works in 1927. However, there are two rather recent situations
that require comment.
1. Automobile Labor Board period-1935-36
In 1935, pursuant to an agreement between employers and em-
ployee organizations in the automobile industry, the Automobile
Labor Board was established under the Code for the Automobile
Industry under the National Industrial Recovery Act. This Board
attempted to establish bargaining agencies in the various concerns
in the industry, in which employee organizations were represented
in proportion to votes received in elections held by the Board so
as to insure minority representation. The respondent acquiesced
20 Originally, in 1927 , they have been told that they were spending too much time
on, works Council matters and that they should try to limit such time to about two
hours a day. The limitation has been removed and employee representatives are the judges
of the amount of time to be spent.
2 'Answer , pp. 13, 15. See discussion , antra.
5727-37-vol. 11-23
340 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the Automobile Labor Board's establishment of such an agency
in its Fort Wayne Works. Accordingly, that Board conducted nomi-
nating and final elections in 1935 for employee representatives.
As a result of the nominating elections, two tickets were entered,
one representing the Works Council, which had received 1,172
nominating votes, and one the Union (or American Federation
of Labor ticket), which had received 782 votes. In the final
election all of the six Works Council candidates were elected,
each having run against a Union candidate. The Automobile Labor
Board then ruled that the bargaining group for the employees in
the plant should consist of the six employee representatives who were
elected and five additional employee representatives designated by
that Board. Of these, four were designated as affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor and one as unaffiliated, inasmuch as
240 unaffiliated votes were cast in the nominating election. Desig-
nated representatives were not permitted to handle grievances
directly with the supervisory force but were required to refer them
to the proper elected representative.
There were thus 11 employee representatives instead of six as be-
fore, and whose term of office was to be for the year 1935-1936. But
aside from this change and a few minor changes required by the rules
of the Automobile Labor Board, the Works Council for 1935-1936
functioned as did previous Works Councils under the Plan in the
past. The Minutes of the new Council indicate that no fundamental
change in the Plan took place. The effect of the Automobile Labor
Board rules upon the Plan was considered at a special meeting held
on May 7, 1935. The employee representatives received a written
welcome from the President of the respondent, addressed to the
Superintendent of the plant, stating :
"Will you please convey to the newly-elected and appointed
representatives of the Fort Wayne Works Council a hearty
welcome from the directors and officers of the -International
Harvester Company." (Bd. Ex. 42, p. 5.)
The Superintendent then gave a brief talk in which he stated "that
the plan laid down by the Automobile Labor' Board compares very
closely with the Works Council plan, which has been in effect at
this plant for many years . . . Our Council plan, which has been
in effect for many years, provides a satisfactory, means for
men to contact their council representatives and state their griev-
ances, ... the Works Council plan was the ideal- method of bring-
ing to the attention of the management any conditions that might
need correction" (Bd. Ex. 42, p. 7). He urged the "new representa-
tives to become better acquainted with council procedure" (Ibid.,
p. 9). The Chairman, the Manager of Industrial Relations, then
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 341
discussed the rules of the Automobile Labor Board, pointing out the
few cases in which they differed from the Plan. These differences
were: there were designated as well as elected representatives; the
term of office was one year instead of six months; the recall pro-
cedure (never used at Fort Wayne) was slightly different; repre-
sentatives need not be employees of the respondent. He concluded
that "it was interesting to note that the rules and instructions of
the Automobile Labor Board conform very closely to the practices
that have been followed by the Harvester Company. In fact .. .
the council plan gives the employees a wider latitude in exercising
collective bargaining" (Ibid., p. 16). He then explained the Coun-
cil procedure-designation of officers, function of committees, order
of business at Council meetings, etc. (Ibid., pp. 18, 20). He con-
cluded by stating that "the Harvester Company has had a Works
Council plan for sixteen years, which has proved to be a satisfactory
medium for collective bargaining", and he "suggested that the mem-
bers continue to function under the Council plan and the bargain-
ing agency, with the exception that where the rules as followed in
the past, conflict with the rules and instructions of the Automobile
Labor Board, the Board's rulings would be followed" (Ibid., p. 20).
The suggestion was followed. As a result, the organization and
activities of the Works Council remained the same for 1935-6 as
they had been in previous years, with the exception that there were
in that period 11 instead of six employee representatives. The bar-
gaining agency continued to be known as the "Fort Wayne Works
Council, Harvester Industrial Council", the term used prior to the
Automobile Labor Board elections.
The respondent contends that in 1935 the Plan passed out of exist-
ence because of the acts of the Automobile Labor Board. However,
as shown above, the evidence indicates the contrary. Instead of
being superseded by the Automobile, Labor Board rules, the Plan
simply altered very slightly to conform to those rules and continued
as altered, thereby illustrating the extent to which the respondent
had established the Plan in the plant. Far from disrupting the Plan.
the injection of the Automobile Labor Board served really to show
the strength of the Plan set up by the respondent.
2. 1936 elections for employee representatives
The Automobile Labor Board ended with the Supreme Court's
ruling that the National Industrial Recovery Act. was unconstitu-
tional.22 The terms of the employee representatives elected and des-
ignated in 1935 expired in April, 1936. These two factors naturally
22 A. L A Schechter Corp. v . Un4ted States , 295 U S 495 ( 1935).
342 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gave rise to doubt concerning the 1936 elections. At the meeting
of the Works Council for March 11, 1936, the elected employee rep-
resentatives raised this question and stated that they had agreed that
an election should be held. In reply, the Superintendent read the
following letter, dated March 5, 1936, from the Vice-President of the
respondent:
"About nine years ago the employees at Fort Wayne Works
requested and by a 96 % favorable vote adopted a Works Council
Plan similar to plans which had been operating since 1919• in
other Harvester plants. Continually, since that date employees'
representatives have been elected from time to time.
"A year ago with the consent and approval of both employees
and Company, the Automobile Labor Board appointed by Presi-
dent Roosevelt, supervised the election of employee representa-
tives to serve for one year and certified those duly elected and
also designated representatives of minority groups.
. "As last year's procedure was somewhat different from that
followed in prior years and the time for a new election is ap-
proaching, the question has been raised as to how elections should
be held this year.
"In order that Harvester employees at Fort Wayne Works
may fully understand the Company's policies and attitude with
respect to elections of employee representatives, we request that
you present this letter at the next meeting of the Works Council.
"The management now wishes to record its desire that all mat-
ters relating to new elections should be determined by the em-
ployee representatives in consultation with their constituents.
This applies to the time and manner of holding elections, num-
ber of voting divisions, qualifications, number of representatives,
terms of office, supervision of election, etc. The Company does
not wish to take part in any of these proceedings but to leave to
its employees the fullest freedom as to the manner of choosing
representatives.
"The substance of the Works Council Plan has been to provide
a means for recognition by the Company of duly elected repre-
sentatives of its employees with whom representatives of the
'Company could meet to discuss matters of mutual interest, ex-
change ideas, get each other's viewpoint and develop ways and
means for adjusting all problems.
"It is the substance of this plan which is important and the
spirit in which it has been carried on, not the details of the pro-
cedure. We believe that Harvester employees generally recog-
nize the unusual value of the Works Council Plan and the Com-
pany stands ready to cooperate with its employees in continuing
the plan in such manner as they desire it."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 343
Pursuant to such letter, the employee representatives then conducted
the 1936 elections, as described above. The representatives desig=
nated by the Automobile Labor Board as affiliated with the Union
refused to participate in the plans for the election, since they thought
that the election should be held away from the plant under Govern=
ment supervision, and because they felt that the Works Council was,
controlled by the management.
There is much in the record which suggests that the employee rep-
resentatives elected in 1935, in other words those employee repre-
sentatives who were in favor of the Plan, were informed by the
management sometime prior to the Council meeting on March 11,
1936, of the scheme made public at the later date in the Jones letter
quoted above, and that this information was withheld from the des-
ignated, or Union, representatives.23 Many of the acts of the elected
representatives prior to the Council meeting on March 11-their con-
fident preparation for an election under their supervision, whereas
in the past the Council had supervised the elections, the redistricting
of the plant, etc.-seem explicable only on such a basis. But it is
unnecessary here to find that the management secretly participated
with the employee representatives in such maneuvers. It is neces-
sary to go no further than the Jones letter to demonstrate how com-
pletely the management controlled the Plan and with what assur-
ance it considered it as its creature. The letter states: "The manage-
ment now wishes to record its desire that all matters relating to new
elections should be determined by the employee representatives in
consultation with their constituents" (italics ours) .24 Its tone indi-
cates that a favor is being bestowed upon the employees for reasons
best known to the respondent. Nowhere is there any indication that
the employees have a sufficient interest in the Plan to warrant con-
sulting them on the change. The letter is really an affirmation of the
28 For example , the Secretary of the employee representatives , himself one of the elected
representatives, testified that on February 29, 1936, he talked about the forthcoming
election with a representative of the Industrial Relations Department in the latter's
private railroad car, then at the station in Fort Wayne . The following is from his
testimony :
"Q And then did he say that they were going to turn over the election procedure
to the employee representatives?
"A He said , 'I imagine that is what will happen , that it will be turned over to,
you men the same as it as to the other employees in other plants.'
"Q. What did he say was going to be turned over?
"A. The work of taking the election "
u Compare the following testimony of the Secretary of the employee representatives
regarding a conversation with a representative of the Industrial Relations Department in
which the latter stated that the conduct of elections would be turned over to the
employees :
"Q. What do you think was the necessity of discussing an election with a repre-
sentative of the company if the employees were going to have complete control of it?
"A. I didn't know that we were going to have , until he told us."
344 NATIONAL1' LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD
fact that the Plan given to the employees in 1927 is still the respond-
ent's property, to be altered when its interests so dictate.
The respondent contends that the Plan as it was constituted in the
past ceased to exist with this letter-that it was turned over to the
employees. The contention is without merit. The letter itself indi-
cates that the only, aspect- of the Plan from which the management
claimed to withdraw was the election procedure. The fifth para-
graph is unequivocal on this point :
"The management now wishes to record its desire that all mat-
ters relating to new elections should be determined by the em-
ployee representatives in consultation with their constituents.
This applies to the time and manner of holding elections, num-
ber of voting divisions, qualifications, number of representatives,
terms of office, supervision of election, etc. The Company does
not wish to take any part in any of these proceedings but to
leave to its employees the fullest freedom as to the manner of
choosing representatives."
And even as regards this aspect of the Plan, as shown above the
election procedure was so well established that in substance the
1936 election did not differ from those conducted prior to 1935.
The rest of the letter and the events since the election show con-
clusively that the Plan is still in effect. The bargaining group is still
called the "Fort Wayne Works Council"-its 107th regular meeting
was held on April 8, 1936. Its Minutes are headed "Harvester
Industrial Council, Fort Wayne Works"-the Plan announced in
1919 and instituted at Fort Wayne in 1927 was called the "Harvester
'Industrial Council". The organization of the Council remains the
same, its procedure and activities have not changed, the format of the
Minutes is identical.
D. The "collective bargaining" that has resulted under the Plan
The scope of the Plan has, been described and its mechanism de-
tailed. The picture may be completed by a description of the col-
lective bargaining that has resulted and an evaluation of the Plan.
A study of the Council Minutes for the last year shows that, nearly
exclusively, the matters dealt with by the Council and the employee
representatives concern minor aspects of working conditions in and
around the plant. While examples have already been given above,
an analysis of each meeting will be helpful. In each of the 12
meetings commencing with April, 1935, there was a lengthy discus-
sion of safety factors in the plant, a report on athletic activities and
a report on the Credit Union. The communications relating to the
preliminary meetings dealt nearly entirely with working conditions
in and about the plant, of the nature already described. These four
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 345
items-safety, Credit Union, athletic activities, communications-
are the routine matters dealt with in each Council meeting and they
are handled in routine fashion. The "New Business" consisted of
the following : April-the employment manager in answer to a
question clarified a minor detail in the vacation plan; May (regular
meeting 25)-the employee representative on the Board of Trustees
of the Employees' Benefit Association reviewed the recent meeting
of that Board ; the demand for a wage increase initiated by one of
the designated (Union) representatives was discussed; 26 June-no
new business; July-the management answered a question concerning
solicitation in the plant for the Community Chest; August-a brief
discussion on the tact required in handling grievances with foremen;
the Chairman explained the National Labor Relations Act, which
was also printed in the Minutes; September-a few items of the type
discussed at preliminary meetings with the Superintendent were
considered; October-about the same as September; traffic conditions
on a road running.by the plant being specially considered; Novem-
ber-election of a new Vice-Chairman ; discussion of the Social Se-
curity Act by the Chairman; December-an address by the Chief
Inspector on the functions of the inspection department, including
the reading of a poem by Edgar A. Guest; January-a member of
the Planning Department spoke on planning in industry; further
discussion by the Chairman on the Social Security Act; February-
announcement by the Chairman of a change in the vacation plan;
an address by the chief metallurgist on the manufacture of steel;
March-discussion on parking problems and the holding of the 1936
election; an address by the plant auditor on accounting.
On the matter of wages alone there has been in a real sense little
or no collective bargaining. The history of wage chanb s in the
plant is as follows : In November, 1931, and again in October, 1932,
wages were reduced by the respondent in the Fort Wayne Works.
While the Manager of Industrial Relations stated that these reduc-
tions were "reluctantly agreed" to by the employee representatives,
it should be noted that the reductions, which were caused by the
depression and were Company-wide, were not the result of any bar-
gaining concerning them. There were the same discussions in the
Works Councils in the other plants-and in each, reductions were
the outcome. After the passage of the National Industrial Recovery
Act wages were raised 10 per cent through the restoration of one of
these reductions. This restoration was not restricted to the Fort
Wayne Works. After the Automobile Code went into effect changes
were made in wages and hours and these changes were "discussed"
25A special meeting dealt with the problems raised by the Automobile Labor Board in
the organization of the Council.
26 See discussion , infra.
346 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the Works Council. In March, 1934, the employee representatives
requested a 15 per cent wage increase. The respondent, after some
discussion in the Works Council, offered a five per cent increase,
which was accepted. Shortly thereafter the Automobile' Chamber
of Commerce recommended that hours be reduced from 40 to 36.
The respondent, treating the reduction as an accomplished fact,
discussed in the Works Council the manner of putting it into effect.
A further adjustment was made in February, 1935, after the Auto-
mobile Code was extended, the management presenting its proposal,
which was accepted. While all of these changes were discussed in
the Fort Wayne Works Council, it is significant that comparable
changes were made each time in the Springfield plant of the re-
spondent, which also operated under the Automobile Code. There
is thus much 'in this history to indicate that the Works Council dis-
cussion had little effect upon the course of wage and hour changes
in this period and that the actual changes made were in most cases
the result of plans' formulated by-the respondent and motivated in
large part by the Code for the industry, but carried into effect
through the medium of the Works Council.
In May, 1935, one of the designated representatives affiliated with
the Union, without consultation with the elected representatives, re-
quested a 15 per cent increase at the preliminary meeting with the
Superintendent. The latter advised him to discuss the matter with
the elected representatives. He did so and a demand for a 10 per
cent increase was decided upon, the elected representatives agreeing
to support the designated representative in such a demand. The
demand was made at the May 15, 1935, meeting and was based upon
an increase in the cost of living. The Superintendent said that while
it would take several weeks to consider the matter, he could see no
justification for the increase. The Chairman, a representative from
the Industrial Relations Department, stated that he would notify
the management in Chicago of the demand for an increase and that,
"If after all the facts have been. secured, the management decides
that an increase cannot be granted at this time, the representatives
and employees can feel assured that the decision was made only
after a thorough study and complete investigation of every phase
of the matter" (Bd. Ex. 43, p. 21). At the next meeting he reported
that the management felt an increase was not justified at the present
time, especially in view of the various individual adjustments that
had recently taken place. The elected representatives gave no sup-
port to the demand in the discussion that ensued and the proposal
was dropped. The Chairman then stated that "he had thoroughly
enjoyed attending the past two council meetings, at Fort Wayne
Works. In his opinion it was evident that a great deal of progress
could be made with the continued cooperation and understanding
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 347
between management and employes, as had already been shown in
the spirit manifested in the Fort Wayne Works council". (Bd. Ex.
44, p. 15.)
Thus, since 1927, the elected representatives made only one request
for a beneficial change in wages and hours. Throughout the entire
period of the depression and the introduction of the Codes under the
National Industrial Recovery Act, this was the only attempt of the
elected employee representatives to the Works Council to bargain
with respect to wages and hours in general. The 1935 request was
made by a designated representative, representing the Union, and
admittedly hostile to the Plan. No agreement concerning wages,
hours or even working conditions has been entered into since the
Plan has been in operation at the plant.
The following testimony is a revealing commentary on the matters
"bargained" about. The Secretary of the employee representatives,
who has been on the Council since 1932. stated in answer to a question
as to what was the most important demand he had presented, "I
asked the management to change the paint grates in the paint booths
every week." The most important thing that the Council had ob-
tained for the employees that the management did not in his opinion
wish to grant was the five per cent increase in 1934. The demand
that took the longest period of time after its presentation before it
was granted was a request for a method of eliminating steam from
the pickling room. The most important thing that another employee
representative, on the Council at least since 1933, secured for his con-
stituents was ice water coolers.
IV. CONCLUSION
I
Before considering the legality of the Plan under the provisions of
the National Labor Relations Act, it may be profitable to analyze it
for the purpose of determining its value as a method of employee
representation. The Plan is intended to provide a medium whereby
"representatives elected by the employees shall have equal voice and
vote with the management in the consideration of matters of mutual
interest". It is therefore a "labor organization" within the meaning
of the Act, which, in Section 2, subdivision (5), for the purpose of
statutory construction, defines the term "labor organization" to mean
"any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee represen-
tation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which
exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or conditions of work". But, in any real sense, can the
348 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harvester Industrial Council Plan be considered as an effective
method of employee representation and collective bargaining? Or,
on the contrary , is it anything more than an elaborate structure
designed to create in the minds of the employees the belief that they
possess something of substance and value that enables them to deal
with their employer on an equal footing, so that they will be suffi-
ciently content to resist the appeal of an outside labor union? The
skillful and painstaking efforts which the respondent exerted to
secure the establishment of the Plan in its various works, and the
extreme care with which it nourishes and guards the Plan today,
would cause it, at the very least, to be open to careful scrutiny to a
person familiar with the history of labor's struggles to organize in
this country.
As seen above , the employees as a group come in direct contact
with the Plan when they elect their representatives. But when such
yearly elections are concluded , the employees as a body cease to have
any direct concern with the Plan until the next year. They do not
meet in a group to instruct their chosen representatives , to in turn se-
cure information from them, or to consider as a group problems that
affect them as a group . Since the adoption of the Plan, no election
has ever been held on substantive questions or on the advisability
of changes in the Plan-each election has been merely for the pur-
pose of choosing representatives under the Plan. And even at such
an election the vote concerns personalities and not issues-the candi-
dates have no platform . The role of the employees as a group in
the workings of the Plan is thus negligible.
The major role in the Plan is occupied by the Works Council. As
stated in the Plan, it is designed to provide the representatives of
the employees "an equal voice and vote with the management in the
consideration of matters of mutual interest ." On paper it is ad-
mirably adapted to that purpose. Representatives of management
and employees sit in solemn council, discuss and debate matters of
mutual concern , and decide such matters by a vote in which the
strength of each is equal , one vote to each side . But obviously, the
management representatives do not exercise a judgment independent
of that of their superior , the Superintendent . His decision is their
decision , so that a conception of the Works Council as a deliberative
body possessing power is false . It is no more than a meeting of
employee representatives with the Superintendent . If he agrees to
a request it is carried out. If he disagrees , for all practical pur-
poses that is the end of the matter. The elaborate machinery of ap-
peal to the President , convocation of a General Council , resort to
arbitration upon the acquiescence of the management serves only
further to create the illusion of equality." At every step it is merely
V The General Council and arbitration devices have never been utilized.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 349
a question of whether management, subject only to self-restraint and
the dictates of its conscience, says "yes" or "no". Moreover, the
whole philosophy of the Plan is based upon free discussion between
employer and employees as a method of handling disputes, instead
of a resort to direct employee action as a group. It presupposes
well-informed employee representatives and intelligent discussion
between them and management. Yet it is clear that even the sin-
cerest employee representatives are at a hopeless disadvantage. On
one side are management representatives possessing complete in-
formation, statistical and factual, relating to the business and able
to command the resources of a huge and efficient organization. On
the other are employee representatives with no information other
than that which their working experience has given theln. Intelli-
gent discussion of the complex problems involved in the fixing of
wages, hours and general working conditions in an organization of
the respondent's size is impossible under such conditions. The only
possible weapon of the employee representatives-the assistance of
outside experts-is effectively denied to them, since the management
controls the purse strings. The employee representatives at the
Fort Wayne Works have never had the aid of experts. Finally,
when a deadlock is reached on any matter, the employee representa-
tives can do nothing. They possess no funds, no organization to
fall back upon, no mass support."
The manner in which fundamental changes in working conditions
are made indicates that the Plan does not provide genuine collec-
tive bargaining. Such changes are nearly uniformly "announced"
to the Works Council as accomplished acts; their formulation is for
the management, not the Council. For example, at the meeting of
August 14, 1935, the employee representatives are advised of a
change in the pension plan made by the Board of Directors; at the
meeting of March 30, 1934, the employee representatives are advised
that the 36-hour week will be adopted; at the meeting of November
13, 1935, the employee representatives are advised that the passage
of the Social Security Act makes it "necessary for the Company to
modify its (pension) plan. When the modifications are finally de-
cided upon, the Works Councils will be promptly notified" (Bd. Ex.
49, p. 16) ; allowances based upon time studies are prepared by the
management and then explained to the employee representatives,
but only after they requested a copy of the allowances. In some
28 Compare the following testimony .
"Q. As I understand your answer to the Chairman , Mr Shrock ( President of the
Union ), you don 't think that the employee representatives could call a strike.
"A. Well, you can 't do it very well if you haven 't a mass meeting, if you haven t
had one in nine or ten years, it is not possible.
"Q. If they did call one, who would be bound by their strike order?
"A. It would be positively nobody, because there is no organization."
350 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instances the employee representatives point out defects in certain
management policies and thereby "focus attention" on these as-
pects. But instead of the Council making a change, the manage-
ment then considers the problem alone and announces its solution
to the Council . In furtherance of such policies , no agreement relat-
ing to hours , wages or conditions of employment has ever been en-
tered into by the management with its employees . By keeping itself
free from any binding commitments in these fields , so that it may
at will make any changes that it desires, the management has at the
same time denied to its employees the advantages of collective labor
agreements . As a result , its employees possess only the shadow, not
the substance , of collective bargaining.
Other acts of the management indicate that the Plan cannot be
regarded as productive of genuine collective bargaining . The die
sinkers employed by the respondent belong to an outside labor union.
These die sinkers have representation under the Plan and partici-
pate in the selection of employee representatives . Yet the respond-
ent has at various times met with representatives of the die sinkers
in the union and dicussed working conditions affecting them. The
respondent states that such a procedure is in accord with its policy
of standing ready to meet and bargain freely and willingly on any
matters with any group of its employees . Yet if the Plan must be
taken as seriously designed to provide an effective bargaining agency
for the Fort Wayne employees , it is clear that such conduct is at
variance with that purpose, for the policies underlying the Plan are
directly opposed to such conduct . Again, after a designated rep-
resentative had brought up at a preliminary meeting the fact that
one of the foremen had been openly uttering anti-Union statements
and the assistant Superintendent had stated he would investigate
and correct the foreman 's attitude, the assistant Superintendent sub-
sequently, in a personal conference with the designated representa-
tive, requested him not to bring such matters before the Council
and thus put him "on the spot", but instead to bring them to him
personally and he would attend to them. Such a request obviously
is contrary to the basic policy on which the Plan is said to rest.
Finally, the Plan has no means of independent financial sup-
port. No dues are payable by the employees who participate by
voting. All of its expenses and requirements are met by the re-
spondent . The employee representatives are reimbursed by the re-
spondent . Such complete management support of the Plan has two
immediate consequences . Considering the Plan as a functioning
method of collective bargaining, the result of such support is that
the management pays the agent who is supposed to bargain with it
on behalf of the employees . The respondent would not tolerate a
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 351
comparable situation in its dealings with other concerns-the Man-
ager of Industrial Relations testified he could not conceive of the
respondent permitting a situation to exist whereby one of its pur-
chasing agents was receiving a commission on materials purchased
by the respondent, even though the commission was openly acknowl-
edged. One need not seek far for the reason why such financial sup-
port is incompatible with independent employee representation and
genuine collective bargaining -an employee representative testified
as follows :
"Q. You do think that you owe some loyalty to the man wha
pays you to do the job?
"A. I try to do a good job for him."
Moreover, such management support, in conjunction with the
other aspects of the Plan, is a subtle device to make difficult a fair
consideration of the advantages of an outside labor organization
through the persuasion of the "something for nothing" argument-
During the Automobile Labor Board election the Works Council
candidates circulated campaign literature which, after an enumera-
tion of the things they wanted-good living wages, steady work,
best working conditions and "an open door at all times to deal with
management", stated that, "What We Don't Want (is) to have to
pay for these privileges" (Bd. Ex. 40). An employee represelta-
tive explained the statement as follows :
"Well, we have had collective bargaining there, and getting
it for nothing, if you want to term it that way, and I feel that
the average workman in that plant, a large percentage of them,
are above the average intelligence."
The philosophy of the respondent is thus the same as that of the
foreman who believed that "Hank just throwed away $5.00" when
he joined the Union.
The second consequence is just as important. Such complete sup-
port of the Plan makes its existence entirely subject to the will of
the respondent. If it chooses to withdraw its support, the Plan
collapses at once. If it chooses to continue its support, the Plan
continues. The choice as to whether representation of employees
for collective bargaining shall continue is thus a choice that rests
with the respondent and not with the employees.
Throughout we have spoken of the system of employee representa-
tion and collective bargaii ing at the respondent's Fort Wayne Works
as the "Harvester Industrial Council Plan" or, simply, the "Plan":
That Plan was originally embodied, as shown above, in a booklet
distributed to its employees. With the passage of time and the
development of the Plan through experience, both changes in the
352 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
original scheme and new procedures and aspects having the sanction
of custom were added to those contained in the booklet. Some
changes were more deliberate, such as the change in 1936 in some
aspects of the election procedure.29 But all together-booklet,,-10
customs and deliberate innovations-constitute a plan of employee
representation which exists for the purpose of dealing with the
management. The fact that all aspects of the Plan are not stated
in print has no bearing upon the case. Both the employees and
management know what is meant by the Plan. The Jones letter of
1936 contained the following words : "We believe that Harvester
employees generally recognize the unusual value of the Works Coun-
cil Plan", and it must be assumed that the Vice-President considered
such language to be intelligible to the average employee. The
Minutes of the Works Council, the notices for the 1936 elections,
rise the term "Harvester Industrial Council"-the term used to de-
scribe the Plan when it was introduced. The Board's use of the
term "Harvester Industrial Council Plan" to describe the procedure
of employee representation and bargaining with the management in
existence at the Fort Wayne Works at the time of the hearing thus
accords with the understanding and practice of both the manage-
ment and the employees.
II
We may now turn to a consideration of the legality of the Plan
under the National Labor Relations Act in the light of the facts
found above. Section 8, subdivision (2) declares that it shall be an
unfair labor practice for an employer "to dominate or interfere with
the formation or administration of any labor organization or con-
tribute financial or other support to it".
At the outset it must be remembered that the respondent con-
ceived of the Plan, formulated it and caused it to be put into opera-
tion. It started out as the respondent's Plan-not the employees'.
It has continued to be the respondent's Plan. Its entire upkeep, all
its expenses, are defrayed by the respondent. The persons who are
charged with the task of representing employees are reimbursed by
the respondent for the - cork they perform in such capacity. The
respondent admitted such financial support but contended. it was not
contrary to the Act for the following reasons : (1) The proviso of
Section 8, subdivision (2), properly construed, permits the practice
of allowing employee representatives to perform all of their duties
without loss of pay. Consequently, they may be compensated at
29 The year 1935-1936 saw some temporary changes occasioned by the activities of the
Automobile Labor Board.
39 The booklet was still being distributed to new employees in 1936. A copy was given
to one of the designated representatives in 1935.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 353
their regular rate of pay for time spent in activities in connection
with the Plan, such as contacting constituents, meeting among them-
selves, etc., even though such activities do not involve at the time
conferences with management, since such activities enable the repre-
sentatives later to confer intelligently with management. But the
clear words of the proviso negate any such construction-"an em-
ployer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer
with him during working hours without loss of time or pay" (italics
ours). The Senate Committee Report speaks of the "right to re-
ceive normal pay while conferring ",3x and it is manifest that the
proviso goes no further than permitting such conferences directly
with management to occur without loss of pay to the employee
representatives; (2) The respondent further contended that Section
8, subdivision (2) does not prohibit the respondent from giving
financial support to the Plan and bearing the expenses incidental to
its operation since the Plan is not a labor organization and the
Section only prohibits the contribution of financial support to a
"labor organization". The Plan is said not to be a labor organiza-
tion in that it is not a membership society capable of acting as a
legal entity-it has no members, no existence of any kind as an
:artificial person but is merely an aggregate of practices. In rela-
tion to the efficacy of the Plan as a collective bargaining mechanism,
this admission is significant. As an argument, however, it borders
on the frivolous in view of the language of Section 2, subdivision (5)
defining the term "labor organization" as used in the Act to include
"any agency or employee representative committee or plan in which
employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or
in part, of dealing with employers" (italics ours). It is obvious
that the term "labor organization" is not used in its ordinary mean-
ing but in a special and technical sense solely for the purpose of
statutory draftsmanship and to make the prohibition of Section 8,
subdivision (2) all inclusive.3' That prohibition was intended to
apply to any device which would tend to displace, or masquerade as,
a genuine labor organization, whether it was itself such a genuine
organization or not. In short, the term "labor organization" was
so defined to avoid the very contention that the respondent now urges
upon us.33
The respondent's contributions are not limited to financial support.
Its President, Vice-Presidents, Manager of Industrial Relations,
81 74th Congress , 1st Session , Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 573,
p 10. (Italics ours )
32 See In the Matter of Atlanta Woolen Mills , Supplementary Decision and Modification
of Order, June 10, 1036 ( 1 N L R B 328).
33 74th Congress , 1st Session , Senate Committee on Education and Labor , Report No.
573, p. 7
354 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Superintendents-in fact its whole executive and supervisory force-
unceasingly extoll the virtues of the Plan. The employee whose
economic life is at the mercy of those who sing such praises will not
fail to comprehend their significance. And, such economic consid-
erations aside, the praises of such business leaders at the very least
are certain to commend the Plan to many an employee and his f am-
ily-"Approbation from Sir Hubert Stanley is praise indeed." In
another field, by careful manipulation and scrupulous adherence to
the outward forms of collective bargaining, the respondent has so
interwoven the Plan into the numerous beneficial activities designed
to improve the welfare and morale of the employees and thus increase
their efficiency-vacation plan, Credit Union, Athletic Association,
pension plan, safety measures, etc.-that the Plan receives credit for
many of these benefits in the eyes of the employees. This association
of things intrinsically beneficial to the employees with a system of
collective bargaining which in reality has played little or no part in
their creation or functioning constitutes "restraint" upon the em-
ployees to adhere to the Plan and "support" for the Plan. The im-
propriety would hardly be more obvious if the respondent were to
inaugurate the practice of Christmas bonuses and allot them to the
employee representatives for distribution.
With equal skill and subtlety the respondent controls the proce-
dure of the Plan. Its Industrial Relations Department sits at the
controls, keeping constant watch. The normal operations of the
Plan can be steered in any direction by means of the many checks
carefully established-preliminary meetings, management officials as
Chairman and Secretary, appeals to higher executives, etc. Now this
change will be made, now that change, if the management so "wishes
to record its desire".
The Plan is thus entirely the creature of the management. The
respondent in its relation to the employees may be conceived as a.
holding company-the Athletic Association, pension plan, vacation
plan are the subsidiary operating companies. The Harvester Indus-
trial Council Plan is merely one of these subsidiary concerns con-
trolled by the respondent. In so controlling it the respondent is be-
yond question acting contrary to Section 8, subdivision (2), and in-
terfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We find that the aforesaid acts of the respondent tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
- The respondent has controlled the Plan atits' Fort Wayne Works
ever since its inception in 1927, and such control today is a violation
of the Act. To terminate that violation and to insure to the em-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 355
ployees at the Fort Wayne Works the right to self-organization and
the free choice of representatives for collective bargaining guaran-
teed to them by the Act, the Board will order that the respondent
shall withdraw all recognition from the Plan as an agency for col-
lective bargaining at the plant and completely disestablish it as a
representative of its employees . Such disestablishment is the only
effective remedy in the case. In the Matter of Pennsylvania Grey-
hound Lines, Inc., decided December 7, 1935 (1 N. L. R. B. 1) ; In the
Matter of Clinton Cotton Hills, decided December 31 , 1935 (1 N. L.
R. B. 97 ) ; In the Matter of Wheeling Steel Corporation , decided
May 12, 1936 ( 1 N. L. R . B. 699 ) ; In the Matter of Ansin Shoe Manu-
facturing Company, decided June 12, 1936 (1 N. L. R . B. 929).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. The plan of employee representation and collective bargaining
at the Fort Wayne Works known as the "Harvester Industrial Coun-
cil Plan" is a labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2,
subdivision ( 5) of the Act.
2. By its domination and interference with the administration of
such "Harvester Industrial Council Plan" , and by its contribution of
financial and other support thereto , the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8, subdivision (2) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth above, the respondent has interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , and has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivision (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are 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, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent , International Harvester Company, and its officers
and agents , shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing 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, and to
5727-37-vol. i1-24
356 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection;
2. Cease and desist from dominating or interfering with the for-
mation or administration of any labor organization of its employees
or contributing financial or other support thereto.
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the "Harvester Industrial
Council Plan" as representative of its employees at the Fort Wayne
Works for the purpose of dealing with respondent concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
conditions of work; and completely disestablish the "Harvester In-
dustrial Council Plan" as such representative;
(b) Post notices in conspicuous places throughout all departments
of the Fort Wayne Works stating (1) that the "Harvester Industrial
Council Plan" is so disestablished, and that respondent will refrain
from any recognition thereof, and (2) that such notices will remain
posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from
the date of posting.