Jamestown Machine and Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinue in such a venture, and action taken merely because of recourse to Board
processes. Price did not testify concerning the taking of the key, which terminated
the profit-sharing with Gibbs. He did say that he had been holding the money
since the end of 1958 and, with the idea of treating him as he had Daughtrey, was
going to give him a share of the money on hand at the end of the year. In ap-
parent corroboration of some of this, it appears that, to avoid cluttering up the in-
terference with work, a sign has been posted at Steed's direction that drinks are
available at the machine only.
Aside from the question of company responsibility here, the explanation for the
changes made is reasonable. Apparently not considered sufficient to warrant an
allegation of discrimination, the testimony in this connection does not prove unlaw-
ful interference. Nor is there proof of the allegations in subsections 9(a) or (c).
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company, set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices affecting commerce , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
It has been found that the Company , by promises of wage increase if employees
would not support the Union , made shortly before a Board-conducted election, in-
terfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a)( 1 )
of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the Company cease and desist there-
from and from any like or related conduct.
For the reasons stated in the subsection entitled "The alleged violation of Section
8(a)(3)," I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
the discriminatory transfer , discharge, and refusal to reinstate Daughtrey.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 491, 491-A, 491-B, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By promises to its employees of benefit in connection with union activities,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within ,the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Jamestown Machine and Manufacturing Company and Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District No. 83, AFL-CIO
and The Employees' Shop Committee of the Jamestown
Machine and Manufacturing Company, Party to the Contract.
Case No. 6-CA-1557. April 13, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 5, 1959, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
127 NLRB No. 26.
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 173
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, and finding further that the Respond-
ent has not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint, all as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case,' and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent with our Decision
herein.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. However, in so finding, we rely solely
on Collins' threat to the Shop Committee in September 1958 that the
plant would be closed down or moved if an outside union came in, and
Foreman Heasley's similar threat to employee Love in August 1958.
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act by assistance to, and inter-
ference with, the administration of the Shop Committee, and by the
furnishing of services, facilities, and financial support to it. We do
not, however, adopt all of the rationale of the Trial Examiner. In-
stead, we rely solely on the following :
(a) The participation of Respondent's officials in the employees'
meeting of September 22, 1958, called for the purpose of considering
ratification of the new collective-bargaining agreement, and particu-
larly Collins' attempts to pressure the employees into accepting the
agreement by calling for repeated votes on the question of accepting
the agreement and by questioning individual employees at the meet-
ing concerning their reasons for opposing the agreement.
(b) Respondent's initiation of, and participation in, the subsequent
individual ratifications of the agreement and recognitions of the Shop
Committee as the employees' bargaining representative, as more fully
set forth in the Intermediate Report.
' The Respondent ' s request for oral argument is denied as the record , including the
exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
2 We note and correct an inadvertent error in the second paragraph of section III D of
the Intermediate Report, where the Trial Examiner incorrectly refers to the testimony by
Daniel Kean to the effect that "he (Collins) said he didn't want to see a union come in
there because things would happen . . " The actual testimony was that "he (Collins)
said he didn ' t want to see a union come in there because things could happen. .
.11
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) The furnishing of services and facilities, and of financial sup-
port, as more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report.3
This conduct, and particularly that set forth in (a) and (b), above,
occurred at a time when, as the Respondent knew, the Charging Party
was seeking to organize the Respondent's employees, and followed
closely upon Respondent's unlawful threats to close or move the plant.
In view of all these circumstances, we find that the Respondent has
unlawfully interfered with the internal administration of the Shop
'Committee, has unlawfully assisted the Shop Committee to maintain
its representative status, and has otherwise accorded the Shop Com-
mittee unlawful financial and other similar types of assistance.4
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Jamestown Ma-
chine and Manufacturing Company, Jamestown, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement entered
into on or about September 23, 1958, with The Employees' Shop
Committee of the Jamestown Machine and Manufacturing Company,
or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof, supplements
thereto, or any superseding contracts with the above-named organiza-
tion, or any other contract or agreement between it and the said labor
organization which may now be in force, or with any successor, unless
and until said organization shall have been certified as the majority
representative by the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Recognizing the above Shop Committee as the representative
of any of its employees at its Jamestown plant for the purpose of
dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless
and until said labor organization shall have been certified as such
representative by the National Labor Relations Board.
(c) Assisting, interfering in the administration of, or contributing
financial or other support to, the above-named or any other labor
organization.
3 Contrary to the Trial Examiner, it is not necessary to presume that employees were
paid for attending Shop Committee meetings and that Respondent furnished steno-
graphic and clerical assistance in the preparation of meeting notices , as the record
affirmatively establishes that such was the case . The record also establishes that em-
ployees who , because of attendance at Shop Committee meetings , were paid for more than
40 hours work in a week , were paid at overtime rates for such time in excess of 40 hours
4 See, e.g, Coast Aluminum Company, 120 NLRB 1326; The Standard Transformer
Company, 97 NLRB 669.
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 175
(d) Discouraging membership in International Association of Ma-
chinists, District No. 83, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization
of its employees, by threatening to close the plant or move away if
the employees select any union other than the Shop Committee.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of
Machinists, District No. 83, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from The Employees'
Shop Committee of the Jamestown Machine and Manufacturing Com-
pany as the representative of any of its employees at its Jamestown,
Pennsylvania, plant for the purpose of dealing with it concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, unless and until the said labor
organization shall have been certified by the Board as such repre-
sentative.
(b) Post at its plant at Jamestown, Pennsylvania, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall,
after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive
days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that, except as otherwise found herein, the
allegations of the complaint be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Deciee of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all agreements and contracts,
supplements thereto or modifications thereof, or any superseding
contract with The Employees' Shop Committee of the James-
town Machine and Manufacturing Company, or any successor,
unless and until said organization 'shall have been certified as the
majority representative by the National Labor Relations Board.
AVE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from the above
organization, or any successor thereto, unless and until such or-
ganization shall have been certified as the majority representative
by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT assist, contribute financial or other support to, or
interfere with, the administration of the labor organization named
above or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf
of International Association of Machinists, District No. 83, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, by threatening to close the
plant or move away if our employees select any union other than
the Shop Committee.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District No. 83, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of 'collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 177
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner in Green-
ville, Pennsylvania , on June 16 and 17, 1959, on the complaint , and amendment
thereto , of the General Counsel and answer of Jamestown Machine and Manu-
facturing Company, herein called the Respondent . The issues litigated were
whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. All parties were represented , except
the Party to the Contract. All parties waived oral argument , and briefs filed by
the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered.
At the conclusion of General Counsel's case, Respondent moved for dismissal
of the complaint and moved seperately for the dismissal of "each and every separate
charge" contained in the complaint . This motion was denied . At the conclusion
of the presentation of all the evidence, Respondent renewed its motion which was
made at the close of General Counsel's evidence and ruling thereon was reserved.
It is disposed of in conformity with the findings and conclusions set forth herein.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
Snake the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation , maintaining its principal office and plant in
Jamestown , Pennsylvania , and is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution
of playground equipment . During the 12 -month period preceding October 1958,
the Respondent received at its Jamestown , Pennsylvania , facility materials , goods,
and other items directly from outside the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania of a value
in excess of $3,000 ,000, and shipped therefrom its products to places outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of a value in excess of $4,000,000. I find that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists , District No . 83, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Charging Party, and The Employees ' Shop .Committee of the Jamestown
Machine and Manufacturing Company, herein referred to as the Shop Committee,
unaffiliated , are each a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background-undisputed facts
The primary issues to be resolved are: (1 ) Whether the Respondent has from on
or about September 22, 1958, and at all times thereafter assisted and interfered with
the administration among its employees of a labor organization known as the Shop
Committee and has contributed financial and other support thereto as specified in
the complaint (paragraph 6); (2) whether the Respondent from on or about Sep-
tember 22, 1958 , did interfere with , assist, promote, support , and encourage the
Shop Committee by entering into and executing a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Shop Committee on September 23, 1958, for its employees at a time when
the Shop Committee did not represent an unassisted majority of Respondent's
employees and when the Shop Committee was not the freely chosen representative
of the Respondent's employees ; and (3 ) whether the Respondent during July and
560940-61-vol. 127-13
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 1958 stated to employees that the company plant would move away if
another union came in; whether the Respondent by the alleged acts engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act-
The Shop Committee was formed sometime in 1955 under circumstances not
enunciated in this record . Recognition did not result from a National Labor
Relations Board conducted election. The Shop Committee has no formal organi-
zation, no constitution , no bylaws, elected no officers , collected no dues, and has
no treasury. A new Shop Committee was elected annually by the employees. Three
men and three women were nominated by the membership at large and the two
men and two women receiving the most votes became the new committee. The
method of selecting the chairman of the committee is obscure. The paper used
for the ballots, the clerical and stenographic assistance, the cutting of the stencils
and mimeographing of the ballots were furnished by the Respondent. Similarly,
stenographic assistance was supplied by the Respondent for the preparation of a
notice or notices of each meeting of the employees which notices were either placed
on the timeclock or sent to each employee by post card or letter notice, in any event
at the expense of the Respondent. The meetings of the employees, for elections
or for other purposes, were held in the plant of the Respondent. Meetings were
held at the end of the workday of the first shift, and all employees were compen-
sated at their regular rate of pay for attending. (First-shift employees continued
at their hourly rate, second-shift employees were on worktime.) While these and
other facts set forth below are undisputed they are presented merely as background
where they occurred in a period beyond the 6-month limitation of Section 10(b)
of the Act.
In each of the years commencing 1955 and ending in 1957 representatives of
management and the Shop Committee negotiated agreements covering wages and
working conditions Upon arriving at an agreement, a notice of a meeting was
prepared and placed on the bulletin board, or post card or letter notices sent out,
advising the employees of the time and place of a meeting, in the plant, for the
purpose of being advised of the terms of the new agreement and for the further
purpose of consideration and approval of those terms. At each of these meetings
the management representatives as well as the Shop Committee participated and
an approval of the agreement was obtained from the employees. Thereupon the
management representatives would withdraw from the meeting and the employees
would elect a new Shop Committee for the next succeeding year. The last such
agreement, prior to the events here considered, expired by its terms August 31, 1958.
In July 1958, the Charging Party began distributing handbills outside Respond-
ent's plant. That the management was aware of the- activities of the Charging
Party and its effort to organize the employees of the Respondent is patent not only
from the testimony of Respondent's officials but also from letters addressed to all
the employees by L. S. Collins, chairman of the board, dated July 14 and 25, 1958,
and J. W. Dean, Jr., president, dated July 31, 1958. The Charging Party filed a
petition for an election and certification as bargaining representative on October 2,
1958. The petition, in Case No. 6-R'C-2193, was dismissed on October 22 and
the dismissal affirmed by the Board on December 2, 1958, on the ground that an
existing collective-bargaining contract was a bar. I have taken official notice of
these actions. Charges were filed in this matter on January 15, 1959. The limita-
tion of Section 10(b) of the Act accordingly would apply to any activity preceding
July 16, 1958.
L. S. Collins was first associated with the Company in September 1953; his
capacity prior to January 1, 1958, is not'specified He was president of the Respond-
ent from January 1, 1958, until sometime in March or April at which time he
became chairman of the board, remaining in that capacity until January 31, 1959,
when he terminated his relationship with the Company. John W. Dean, Jr., became
president of the Respondent on June 2, 1958, and remained in that capacity at all
times pertinent herein. C. William King was first employed by Respondent in
February 1953 as an accountant and bookkeeper. Sometime prior to the first
collective -bargaining agreement in 1955 he became treasurer of the Respondent.
Approximately in April 1959 he was designated as personnel director. Clarence
Jones is and has been plant manager of the Respondent since 1951. Frank Stevens
was the chief of engineering of the Respondent. Sometime between October 1959
and June 1959, he became manager of a plant of the Respondent at Linesville In
the period preceding June 1958, when Dean became associated with and president
of the Respondent , Collins, King, Jones, and Stevens constituted the management
team which bargained with the Shop Committee. Upon association with Respond-
ent, Dean became part of the team. Collins' activity in September 1958 is noted
below. Joseph Steel and Harvey Heasley were the two day-shift foremen during
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 179
the period under consideration and were supervisors within the meaning of that
term as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
The total number of maintenance and production employees of the Respondent
in September 1958 was 128. Respondent operated two shifts and the employees
were divided 107 on the first shift and 21 on the second shift. Russell K. Adams
was a member of the Shop Committee in the years of 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958 and
its chairman in the latter 2 years. The other members of the Shop Committee in
the period ending after September 23, 1958, were Charles Minetti, Harriet Rowe,
and Frances Davis. Pearl Love was one of the individuals elected to the new
Shop Committee on an unspecified date following September 23, 1958.
B. The September 22, 1958, meeting and the events preceding
The Shop Committee had four, possibly five, negotiating meetings with the
management team on unspecified dates, starting September 16 and ending on or
before September 22, 1958. They discussed wages and other items. A tentative
agreement apparently was confined to a 4-cent per hour wage increase to be granted
immediately with an additional 2-cent per hour wage increase to be deferred until
January or February 1959.
It was agreed, in accordance with past practice, that the tentative agreement
would be submitted to the employees at a meeting to be held in the plant on Sep-
tember 22, 1958, at 3:30 p.m. (the time at which the day shift ended and the second
shift began). The employees were notified "by a notice on the bulletin board"
placed there by Russell K. Adams, chairman of the Shop Committee It is undis-
puted, and I find, that the Respondent furnished the paper and secretarial service
essential for the preparation of the notice. The notice, not in evidence, explained
the purpose of the meeting. In the language of Adams "It was about the new
contract."
The meeting was held in the warehouse section of the plant. Collins, King,
Jones, Stevens, and Dean for management (as well as at least one foreman) were
present. Employees present were estimated at 110 to 112 by Dean, 120 by Jones,
and 115 to 120 by King (Stevens and Collins did not testify). It is undisputed
in the record, and I find, that all employees attending were paid at their regular
rate of pay for the approximate 1 hour that the meeting lasted.
The meeting was called to order by Dean, president of the Respondent, who
turned the meeting over to Adams, chairman of the Shop Committee. Adams read
the proposed agreement. Thereupon Collins, chairman of the board of Respond-
ent, addressed the group and then asked the employees if they approved of the
contract to so indicate by a raising of hands. No one raised their hands. Collins
spoke further to the group and then asked those approving to stand up and no one
stood up. The management group then had "a quick huddle" and decided that it
would be up to the Committee to carry on the meeting from there "and to come
to us if they wanted us again; and then we withdrew." i (Findings relative to
the actions of Collins are set forth below.)
It appears that the employees then advised the Shop Committee that they desired
that the proposed 6-cent increase be retroactive to September 1, 1958, and that
in addition the Committee should request either an additional paid holiday or a
weekly, as distinguished from a biweekly, payday.2
Immediately following the employee meeting, the Shop Committee met with
management and arrived at an agreement on the 6-cent increase retroactive to Sep-
tember 1, 1958. The Committee was authorized by management to conduct a poll
of the employees the following morning, to determine if the majority desired the
paid holiday or the weekly payday.
C. The events of September 23 and 24
On the morning of September 23, Adams, chairman of the Shop Committee;
canvassed the employees individually, during worktime, and determined that the
majority desired an additional paid holiday. Pursuant to prior agreement, the,
1 This is based on the testimony of King, Respondent's treasurer, Dean, Respondent's
president, and Jones, the plant manager. The only variance appears in the testimony of
Jones who asserted that Adams requested the first vote on whether to accept the agree-
ment or not
Since only annual meetings of the employees "to ratify the collective bargaining agree-
ment," and to hold elections, are mentioned in the record and in Respondent's brief, it
appears no meetings of the membership were held for the purpose of advising the Shop
Committee of desired contract changes
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shop Committee and the management representatives met at 10 o'clock in the
morning. Collins took the previous contract and "marked it up to include what
you see in the present form." 3 The contract was then signed.
Dean, whose testimony I credit on this point because it is undisputed, testified:
Adams was not very happy about what transpired. He felt, and so stated, that
he wasn't too content with what he secured for the people; and he felt that he
probably let them down a bit; and he said it would be the same thing over
again. Of course what would happen again, there would be a lot of people
state "well, we don't understand the agreement you have; we never understood
it to be this way." So, with that situation, Collins spoke up and he said, "if
that's the case, Rusty, why don't you have the entire membership here ratify
the agreement with you, give a vote of confidence on it." [Rusty was the
nickname by which Adams was known.] Adams thought it was a very good
idea. And I believe it was my suggestion at that time, that in order to expedite
the matter and do it in goodly form that it be done in our conference room
by Rusty calling the people in one at a time and having them, if they so desire,
certify that they were in accord with what had been agreed upon.4
Adams, whom I credit, was asked if the Shop Committee had advised manage-
ment that they had decided to ask the employees to individually sign the 1958-59
agreement. He testified, "Well, it wasn't our idea." He was then asked if he
meant they did not approve of it and answered, "Oh, we approved after it was-it
had been drawn up. We thought it would be a good idea afterwards."
Dean further testified that Collins dictated "this information" at the top of the
addenda to the attached agreement and that it was prepared by "our secretary
there at the plant." In view of the credited testimony of Adams immediately above,
I do not credit Dean's statement that "it was requested that management do that." 5
The addenda to the attached agreement prepared by Collins reads:
The following employees, by their signatures, claim to be the collective bar-
gaining unit on wages and working conditions with the Company; recognize
their Shop Committee as their negotiating committee for such purposes and
ratify and confirm this agreement, covering our employment September 1,
1958, through August 31, 1959.6
The addendum contains the clock numbers and names of 128 employees and the
alleged signatures of 127 employees with the notation "sick" preceding the clock
number of the one employee who did not sign.
Dean testified that 3 or 4 minutes after the meeting of the 23d, Collins, Jones,
and Adams came into his office. "Collins stated that Adams had said that he felt
he would be a lot better off if someone from the management team would sit in at
this meeting with him during the signing of this addenda to the contract indicating
the agreement-in order to explain anything that may arise, as he would not be
able to satisfactorily explain to the people, the entire membership." Jones corrob-
orated the fact that Adams made such a request. General Counsel did not rebut
this testimony , and it stands undenied in the record . While credited, it is discussed
below.
Clarence Jones , the plant manager , was designated to sit in as the management
representative. Dean and Collins both approved the designation. Jones and Adams
worked from approximately 12 o'clock noon on the 23d until 5 p.m. and from 7 a.m.
of the 24th until 5 p.m. in the conference room obtaining the signature of each
individual employee, each of whom was brought in separately "to ratify the con-
3 Testimony of President Dean. The contract was then typed by Dean 's secretary.
4 Dean later testified that it was Collins ( chairman of the board of directors ) who sug-
gested to Adams that the employees be brought in individually. Treasurer King testified
that it was Dean who made the suggestion . The testimony of Manager Jones that "Rusty"
requested individual signatures is not credited.
5 King testified that it was Collins who suggested that the addenda be prepared and
that the employees be brought in to ratify the contract.
6 That the language of the addenda was the language dictated by Collins and that it
was prepared in full by an office girl was the testimony of Dean, corroborated by Jones.
Dean also testified "it was Collins' suggestion to Adams when Adams seemed so disturbed
[that the employees be brought in individually to ratify the contract] Collins sug-
gested that he get a show of membership by having them sign the addenda-an addenda
to the contract indicating their willingness and support to the committee that they had
done a good job in negotiating. It was my suggestion that the signing be done in our
conference room at the plant."
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 181
tract." Jones estimated that approximately 100 of the employees came in the room
in the 2 days, but those not obtained in those 2 days (by reason of illness, etc.) were
obtained in subsequent meetings. It is clear from the record that this activity oc-
curred during normal working hours and it may be reasonably implied that the
employees were compensated for the time spent in the separate conferences each
had with Adams and Jones for the purpose of examining the agreement , asking
questions , and signing the addenda.
During this series of conferences Plant Manager Jones advised Daniel Kean, an
employee, that he should sign the contract "to show we were backing the Shop
Committee." Richard Alabran, an employee, testified that he inquired from Jones
if he had to sign the addenda and was told he did "if I wanted to work for another
year." Dora Johnson testified that she noticed that the contract provision relative
to retroactivity was not back to September 1.7 Jones thereupon asked her, "Don't
you trust us we told you we would." She advised Jones she did not know if she
trusted them and he then said that maybe they did not want that kind of people
working there. Jones denied having made the alleged statement to Alabran and did
not specifically remember Dora Johnson and the conversation alleged by her. In
view of the findings hereafter I find it unnecessary to resolve this credibility conflict.
D. The alleged threats on and prior to September 22, 1958
Paragraph 6(b) of the complaint alleges in essence that the Respondent has from
on or about September 22, 1958, assisted and interfered with the administration
among its employees of a labor organization known as the Shop Committee by mak-
ing statements urging the acceptance of the employment agreement which state-
ments contained threats therein. Paragraph 8 alleges that the Respondent during
July and August 1958 by Joe Steel and Harvey Heasley stated to employees that the
company plant would move away if another union came in.
Daniel Kean, an employee, testified that in his speech on September 22, 1958,
Collins "pointed out the good parts of the contract hoping that we would accept it
and appreciate it, and said if they had to go any higher in wages it would come to
cutting down the hours or we would not work as long in the summer; we wouldn't
have summer work; and there wouldn't be as many people to be employed because
the way production was it was just suicide; they just couldn't afford to pay any
higher wages than what they offered us " The witness further quoted Collins as
"he said he didn't want to see a union come in there because things would happen
where it might hurt the people or we wouldn't have a job or could cut down the
hours; and he didn't know just what would be the outcome of it." He further testi-
fied that Collins said the proposed contract was a good contract and he did not feel
the Company could give any more.
Benjamin Darr, an employee , testified that Collins said "that if they didn 't accept
it [the proposed agreement], well, they have to close down the shop because they
couldn't afford to pay any more than 6 cents." Evelyn Nottingham, an employee,
quoted Collins as saying ( in answer to an employee's request that the increase be
made effective at the present) that "they couldn't give it to us right now, they
couldn't afford it," 8 and that this statement was made to the entire body of em-
ployees. Jones similarly denied that the subject of outside unions was discussed
by Collins during his talk to the membership on September 22 but acknowledged
Collins saying "we couldn't afford to pay the 6 cents at that time." King was unable
to recall Collins ' exact words at the meeting but stated that he reviewed the opera-
tion of the Company for a period of a year or a few months back. He reviewed
the financial position. This witness was unable to recall whether that review was
that the financial condition was good or bad or that the Company could not afford
to pay any more money. I do not credit the denials of Dean and Jones for reasons
set forth below.
Adams testified that at one of the negotiation meetings held in September 1958
Collins said "if there was ever an outside union come in that the plant would close
down or leave." Dean acknowledged that Collins attended the last negotiation
7 The contract provides the 6-cent rate increase is "effective September 14, 1958."
Dean testified nothing was put in writing relative to retroactivity to September 1 because
the stockholders did not like paying retroactive pay
8 Dean denied that Collins made any statement at the September 22 meeting with regard
to an outside union coming in , or that the Company could not afford to pay any more at
that time (although this latter statement was immediately qualified ) and he did admit
that Collins had said that they could not afford the 6-cent increase at that time.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting prior to the meeting of September 22.9 Jones and King testified that Col-
lins attended the last negotiating meeting.io
The threat made by Collins to the Shop Committee is not within the specification
of paragraph 6 which is related to the meeting of September 22, nor could it be con-
sidered within the specification of paragraph 8 of the complaint which relates to
activities occurring in July and August 1958 as distinguished from September. How-
ever, it is clear from the record that the matter was fully litigated and accordingly is
properly considered.
Pearl Love, an employee for 5 years and a member of the new Shop Committee
elected after September 23, 1958, testified that she had a conversation with Fore-
man Harvey Heasley in August 1958 about unions. She quoted that Heasley "said
if the Union came in there they'd just pull in some trucks and load up the stuff and
move out." She placed her discussion with Heasley as being in the plant "in his
department, I was working for him then." She located it as being "right beside the
big conveyor" and stated that, in a 10-minute discussion, the outside union was the
only thing discussed. She acknowledged having no knowledge of any similar state-
ment having been made by this foreman. This witness impressed me with her direct
and forthright manner and I credit her testimony.ii
While elsewhere herein I have credited those portions of the testimony of Dean
and Jones which were undisputed, I discredit the denials relative to the evidence in
this section. That Collins sought to thwart the outside union is clear from this record,
albeit not all of his activity was in derogation of the proscriptions of the Act The
testimony of Kean, Darr, Nottingham, Adams, and Love are to a degree mutually
complementary on the substance of different quoted statements They were all
employees of Respondent. I am constrained to find, in view of the entire record,
that the testimony of these employees could be rejected only upon a belief of fabrica-
tion or faulty memory; my impression is opposite. The separate events are clearly
related. In so finding, I am not unmindful that some of the quoted statements fall
within the "free speech" provisions of Section 8(c)
Having found that Collins and Heasley made threats that the plant would close
or move if another union came in, I find that such conduct constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion and, thus, was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.12
Respondent's counsel has urged that the statement to the employees that the
Company could not afford to pay any more was "a proper bargaining statement"
whether said to the membership or to the negotiating committee. Here the statement
included a threat, as distinguished from a prediction-"the cutting down the hours
or we would not work as long in the summer; there wouldn't be as many people
to be employed" or "they have to close down the shop because they couldn't afford
to pay any more than 6 cents." N L.R.B. v. American Pearl Button Company,
footnote. 12.
9 Dean denied that Collins in the course of a negotiating meeting at which he was pres-
ent, or at any other time, said to the Shop Committee that if an outside union came in the
Company would close down its plant a Jamestown and move away He acknowledged a
statement by himself at one of the weekly meetings (there were weekly grievance meet-
ings) "I stated that we were again being cluttered with handbills , and I repeated our
position that we certainly were not in favor of an outside influence such as that , it was
not good for ourselves and they had nothing to offer the employees "
10 While both Jones and King, like Dean, denied that Collins made such a statement,
I credit Adams for reasons set forth herein
11 Heasley, whose testimony was taken at a hospital where he was undergoing either
observation or treatment for an abdominal difficulty, was a most unconvincing witness
He had been employed by the Respondent for about 8 years, the last 5 of which he was
foreman, having approximately 20 employees under his direction at the time of the hear-
ing Mrs. Pearl Love was one of these employees. He disclaimed knowing much about
the organizing effort, although he had received union handbills on his way to work, "I never
paid any attention." He did not know how long the Shop Committee had been in existence,
how it was elected, or if the employees paid dues He did not know if there was a meet-
ing on September 22 or that the contract was signed on September 23. He also did not
know that the employees were asked to ratify the contract or that the employees lie
supervised were taken individually down to the conference room for that purpose. He
acknowledged that lie did not miss any work during the month of September 1958 He
likewise claimed no knowledge that the Shop Committee processed grievances, as provided
in the contract.
19 N L R B. v American Pearl Button Company, 149 F. 2d 311 (C.A. 8) ; N.L R.B v.
Laister-Kaufmann Aircraft Corporation, 144 F 2d 9 (C.A 8) ; Taylor Manufacturing
Company, Incorporated, 83 NLRB 142. Cf. Mylan-Sparta Company, Inc., 78 NLRB 1144.
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 183
Richard Alabran was employed by the Respondent for 3 years at the time of
hearing. He testified that he heard Joe Steel, the second day-shift foreman, say in
July or August, "If another union would come in the shop would move." The
conversation was in the part of the plant where they packed gym sets. The witness
described walking up to a group of three or four employees and overhearing only
this remark and none of the balance of the conversation. He was unable to identify
any of the other employees allegedly present. He testified that it was during working
hours, but he did not know what time of day. He did not join in the conversation
and made no effort to talk to the others. In response to the Trial Examiner's ques-
tions he stated that he just happened to walk up at the moment when this remark
was made and immediately walked away. Steel is a foreman with some 60 employees
under his supervision. His testimony was that the gym sets are packed in the front
of the plant and this work is not under his jurisdiction and is not done at a place
where he would normally work He testified that in July and August his hours were
from 6 a.m. to 3:30 p in. while Alabran was working on the second shift from
3:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. and that the only time that he would see Alabran would
be as he was leaving the plant and Alabran was reporting for work. He denied
the alleged conversation. In view of the vagueness of Alabran, on this point, I do
not credit his testimony even though it appears that similar remarks were made by
the other foreman and by Collins. It is also here noted that General Counsel has
not, as to this allegation, met the requirements of Section 10(b) of the Act in
proving that this event, even assuming it did happen, was within the period
of,6 months prior to the date of the charge herein. I shall accordingly recommend
that this specification be dismissed.
E. Other events of and following September 22, 1958
It is undisputed in this record that it was customary for management to participate
in the meetings of the employees, where a tentative bargaining agreement had been
reached, for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the membership to the agree-
ment. This past practice was followed at the meeting held on September 22, 1958.
President Dean opened the meeting and had Adams advise the employees of the
tentative agreement of a 4-cent increase immediately and 2-cent additional the follow-
ing January or February. It appears that Collins then explained that the Company
was not in a position to grant a larger increase and it was Collins who requested
a show of hands of those favoring the agreement. No hands were raised. Collins
then selected particular employees and asked them why they did not agree with the
tentative agreement and was advised either that the increase was not enough or that
they wanted the increase retroactively. Pearl Love, a witness, identified one of the
individuals questioned by Collins as Margaret Zurovchak who, upon being asked if
she was not going along with the agreement, said she would have to go along with
The employees. Collins then told the assembled employees that the Respondent could
not pay more than the 6 cents offered. He asserted the alternative as: cutting down
the hours; cutting out summer work; less people would be employed; they would
have to close down the plant; if an outside union came in they wouldn't have a job.
It was after this that Collins asked those in favor of the agreement to stand and no
one stood.i3
Paragraphs 6(c) and (d) of the complaint alleged that the employees were coerced
into recognizing the Shop Committee as their negotiating committee and into ratifying
and confirming the employment agreement. Paragraph 7 of the complaint in essence
alleges that from on or about September 22, 1958, the Respondent did further inter-
fere with and assist the Shop Committee by entering into and executing a collective-
bargaining agreement (employment agreement) at a time when the Shop Committee
,did not represent an unassisted majority, and when the Committee was not the
freely chosen representative of the employees.
13 Dean's testimony leaves no doubt as to the sequence of these events He testified that
after Adams read the contract changes Collins was introduced and Collins gave a little
talk concerning the formulation of the new agreement, and at that time asked for a show
of hands as to whether or not the agreement was in accord with the membership. No
'hands were displayed. He then asked for a standing vote indicating that they were in
'favor of the agreement that the committee had negotiated Again there were no standups
at all At that time Collins pinpointed certain people in the audience as to what was
wrong, why they could not see that the agreement was in good faith and a good job ; and
the general impression was, from the few he pinpointed, that they were not getting enough.
He identified Zurovehak as one employee so pinpointed.
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's letters of July 14, 25, and 31 to its employees clearly reflect the
attitude of this employer toward outside unions. It is succinctly stated in the first
letter, ". . we don't want them and will do everything legally possible to keep
them out." 14 Thereafter, as found above, Collins on at least two occasions (once
at the meeting of all employees) threatened to close the plant or move it away if
an outside union came in. Immediately following the signing of the employment
agreement by management and the Shop Committee, and allegedly because the chair-
man of the Shop Committee felt he had not obtained as much as he should have in
the negotiations, Collins prepared the "Addenda" (reciting both recognition and
ratification) and President Dean decided that the employees should be called in
individually to the company conference room to sign. It appears of little moment
who requested a management member to sit in during the signing (Plant Manager
Jones was selected). Clearly this record is void of any authority to make such a
request having been given Adams by either the Shop Committee or the employees.
That management was apprehensive of a rejection may be implied.15
Foreman Steel (corroborated by Jones) testified that Plant Manager Jones told
him that the employees under him (Steel) would be called into the conference room,
one at a time, to sign the contract (addenda). President Dean acknowledged he
instructed Jones to call the employees in individually. It is clear this was done during
work hours. The poll by Adams to determine if the employees wanted an additional
holiday or a weekly paycheck was also conducted during work hours. The September
22 meeting, part of which was exclusively an employees' meeting at which the Shop
Committee was advised that the employees would accept a 6-cent raise, after being
told by Collins the plant would close down if they did not, was held during work hours
for the second shift, and all employees were paid for attending.
Jones, the only witness questioned on the matter, was unable to recall how the
Shop Committee came into existence, and could not recall if there was an election
among the employees "to indicate they wanted the Shop Committee to represent
them."
Respondent urges that because the Shop Committee is a labor organization within,
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, Respondent was required to bargain with it.
Respondent also urges that "at no time has any person, group, or union, other than
the Shop Committee, been recognized by the employees -as their negotiating com-
mittee." It is urged that: The contract had been authorized, ratified, and executed
before there was any thought or discussion of an addenda; on September 22 the
Shop Committee was "authorized" by the employees to go to management with a
new proposal; the poll (by Adams) on September 23 was continued "recognition"
of the Shop Committee; this poll "constituted the second ratification and confirma-
tion of the new collective bargaining agreement"; the addenda was neither a ratifica-
tion nor confirmation of the agreement, since the authorization given the committee
obviated the need for either; the individual signing of the addenda was not an addi-
tional ratification or confirmation, but a "medium through which the employees could
better understand the terms and conditions of their collective bargaining agreement."
Respondent has cited a number of court and Board cases holding somewhat similar
statements to be'privileged expressions of opinion, protected by Section 8(c). The
distinctions relate to forum and context. Uttered to a collective-bargaining repre-
sentative in a negotiating session, absent activity of an outside union, and without
other facts appearing in this record, a finding that some of the quoted (threatening)
language was a "prediction" would be appropriate. The test is whether the "predic-
tion" was coupled with a threat to use the employer's economic power to make the
prediction a reality. Here we are treating with the membership being told the plant
would close (or move) if an outside union came in, or if they insisted upon more
than a 6-cent increase.
Here, the employees were addressed directly by management representatives, and
it clearly appears that the threats enumerated issued after initial rejection of the
tentative agreement. Some of the statements and activities related in this section
constitute assistance and interference with the administration of the Shop Committee,
14 General Counsel has not contended any violation of the Act by reason of the contents
of these letters
15 The Trial Examiner asked Plant Manager Jones : "Why was that [past] practice [of
calling the employees together and submitting the agreement to them] varied at this time
to this different approach of having them come in and sign singly?" He responded : "We
didn't have the group together at the final discussion and decision on the agreement. . . .
They turned it down on the first try."
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 185
presuming it was the designated bargaining representative of these employees.16
Such assistance and interference constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (2).
A finding that a Shop Committee is a labor organization is but one requisite for
recognition; there is no evidence in this record that the employees ever designated
or requested recognition of the Shop Committee or that they were ever given an
opportun,ty for a "free and untrammeled" expression of their desires relative to
representation. Respondent treats the terms "authorized," "confirmed," and "rati-
fied" as synonymous. Rejection of contentions that "ratification" and "confirma-
tion" of an agreement can precede execution, or even the drafting, in fact even
before a "meeting of minds" on the agreement, requires no elucidation.
Respondent further urges that an employer does not violate the Act by executing
a contract with an incumbent union, even where a rival union has requested recogni-
tion or filed a petition.17
In Midwest Piping (footnote 17) the Board pointed out the requirement of em-
ployer neutrality when confronted with rival claims of competing unions. This was
recently reaffirmed. The Wheland Company, 120 NLRB 814. The Gibson case 18
(footnote 17) involved a contract made with an incumbent union which had previ-
ously been certified by the Board. The case here considered involves neither a certi-
fied nor, so far as this record reveals, a properly recognized, union. The situation
here is that of a Respondent-assisted organization, clearly distinguishable.
Shortly after September 23 a new Shop Committee was elected. Dean testified
they held a meeting in the warehouse of the Respondent for this purpose. The
ballots were printed or mimeographed and furnished to the Shop Committee by the
Respondent, who likewise furnished the paper and the stenographic assistance to
prepare them. He also acknowledged that when the necessity arose for the Shop
Committee to use any stationery or any clerical help it was furnished by the Respond-
ent. It may likewise reasonably be presumed that whatever notice was issued for the
election meeting the stenographic and clerical assistance for preparation of the
notice was furnished by the Respondent.
F. Concluding findings
Briefly stated, Respondent's actions and motivations resulted from the awareness
of the organizing efforts of an outside union, when it had been dealing for several
years with an inside union, as above described. It made its opposition to the outside
union clear to its employees.
The Supreme Court has said: "The active opposition of the employer [to one
union] . . . has a direct bearing on the events during that intermediate period.
Known hostility to one union and clear discrimination against it may indeed make
seemingly trivial intimations of preference for another union powerful assistance
for it. Slight suggestions as to the employer's choice between unions may have
telling effect among men who know the consequences of incurring that employer's
strong displeasure." The Court found that the Board was wholly justified in finding
that the employer assisted the union in International Association of Machinists, etc.,
Lodge 35 v. N.L.R.B. (Serrick Corp.), 311 U.S. 72, 78 While no discrimination is
here alleged, assistance and interference have been. The Supreme Court, on June
8, 1959, stated that the prohibitions contained (in Section 8(2)) in the original
Wagner Act were left unchanged by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
N.L.R B. v. Cabot Carbon Company, etc., 360 U.S. 203.
In Mccullough Motor Corporation, 120 NLRB 1709, the Board found that the
employer violated the Act by assisting and furnishing support to an employees'
relations committee and by interfering with the administration of such committee.
This decision encompassed many of the factual itemizations of support related herein.
16 Cf. N L R.B. v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 356 U.S. 342, where
the employer insisted upon a "ballot" clause calling for a prestrike vote of the employees
as to the employer's last offer as a condition precedent to accepting any collective-
'bargaining contract. In finding such insistence to be a violation of Section 8(a)(5), the
Supreme Court said in part • "The 'ballot' clause . . deals only with relations between
the employees and their unions. It substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system
provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by
the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than
with their statutory representative "
17 Citing William D. Gibson Co., Division of Associated Spring Corporation, 110 NLRB
•660, as an exception to the Midwest Piping doctrine See Midwest Piping & Supply Co.,
Inc., 63 NLRB 1060.
Is In Shea Chemical Corporation, 121 NLRB 1027, 1029, the Board overruled the
,Gibson case.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
See also Wyman-Gordon Company (Ingalls Shepard Division) v. N.L.R.B, 153 F.
2d 480 (CA 7), in which the court held that the company's furnishing of some
financial aid and other support to an independent employees' council constituted an
unfair labor practice even though the support might have been meager and of little
significance.
A situation in some respects akin to the facts here appears in another recent case.
An informal employee association died out after three successive contracts. It was
reactivated when an outside union became active. The "smaller types of assistance,"
such as a free meeting place, stenographic and printing service, were found. The
Board found that a company union was reactivated as a direct result of the employ-
er's unlawful interference. In distinguishing between domination and assistance the
Board found the latter, even though it found there was no evidence that the com-
pany participated in the organization' s internal affairs Adhesive Products Corpora-
tion, 117 NLRB 265.
The Board has distinguished between payment of union representatives for
attendance at negotiating and grievance sessions , proper under Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act, and payment for attendance at meetings concerning internal committee
management , which constituted assistance . The Board said that by attending these
meetings and permitting the use of its facilities for these discussions the Respondent
dominated and interfered with the administration of the Commttee. Aerovox Cor-
poration, 102 NLRB 1526. See also Remington Rand Arms Company, Inc., 62
NLRB 611. While that case is distinguishable from the facts and complaint herein,
in that domination is not here alleged and it is not claimed that management attended
election meetings, nevertheless such meetings were held in the plant of the Respondent
and it may be presumed from the evidence that employees were paid for attending.
The Board found a violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act where the
employer contributed financial and other support to a shop union, where the un-
lawful support consisted of making available to the union the use of its premises for
union meetings; paying officers of the shop union for time spent in consulting their
legal advisor; permitting notices of shop union meetings to be posted on its bulletin
board; and granting prompt recognition to the shop union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees. The majority of the employees had expressed their
preference between the shop union and an outside union seeking recognition. The
Board stated: "It is incompatible with'true freedom of choice to limit employees to a
selection between two unions, both suggested by the employer, foreclosing any
expression of preference for other unions or for no union at all. Moreover, the fact
that in this case the selection was made in the presence of a supervisor was not
conducive to a free and untrammeled expression of the employees' desire." [Empha-
sis supplied.] Ephraim Haspel, An Individual, d/b/a Ephraim Haspel, 109 NLRB
37, 39. In this record it is clear that the employees signed the "addenda" during
worktime, with Plant Manager Jones present. One stated purpose of the "addenda"
was to "recognize" the Shop Committee.
That the Shop Committee has no formal organization, no constitution, no bylaws,
no elected officers, collected no dues, and has no treasury, is undisputed Likewise
undisputed, all meetings of the employees were held in Respondent's plant; the
meeting of September 22 was during worktime for the second shift and all employees
were paid their regular hourly rate for attending. Shop Committee members were
paid for all time spent on Shop Committee activities, and all necessary clerical and
stenographic assistance , stationery and mimeographing of ballots were furnished by
the Respondent. These facts applied in September 1958 and to all meetings held
in that month, presumably including the last election meeting.
An organization,- such as the Shop Committee, functioning entirely upon. the
employer's property and having no dues or other independent means of support,
must necessarily depend for its existence upon the aid, support, and continued favor
of the employer. Respondent furnished a portion of its plant for the annual elec-
tions , and all assistance requisite thereto. As was well stated -by the Trial Examiner,
and adopted by the Board, in The Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670, 689,
the support may not be viewed as insubstantial since "Illegality of employer support
of a• labor organization is not measured in terms of its cost to the employer, but in
terms of its effect upon the recipient organization and the employees." Here, as
there; 'the Respondent has bestowed • upon the Shop Committee all the support it
has required for its maintenance.
This record is silent as to the moving force which initially brought about the
organization and recognition of the Shop Committee; and the activity, if any, of the
Respondent therein. It was stipulated that recognition did not result from •a
National Labor Relations Board election. Likewise, this record is silent as to any
JAMESTOWN MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 187
election being held or any designation made at any time by the employees of
Respondent for the selection or determination of a collective -bargaining agent, other
than the automatic right apparently conferred on all employees to participate in an
election of nominees to serve as committee members. That the Respondent recog-
nized this fact may be fairly inferred from the language chosen by the chairman of
its board , Collins, in preparing the "addenda ," to wit: "The following employ-
ees, . . . recognize their Shop Committee as their negotiating committee for such
purposes and ratify and confirm this agreement . ," when for the first time so
far as this record shows they were given this opportunity . (Emphasis supplied.)
Aside from timing , after a fait accompli , the circumstances surrounding the obtain-
ing of the signatures on the addenda are far removed from that freedom of choice
in designating and selecting a collective -bargaining representative contemplated by
the Act . The pressure on the employees to sign the addenda gathers additional
significance when we consider the supineness of the Shop Committee itself. I find
that the obtaining of signatures under the circumstances appearing here was coercive
and did constitute assistance and interference with the administration of the labor
organization.
This record is replete with instances of assistance and interference with the admin-
istration of, as well as contributions of financial and other support to , the Shop
Committee by the Respondent from on or about September 22, 1958. That the
employment agreement was entered into at a time when the Shop Committee did
not represent an unassisted majority and was not the freely chosen collective-
bargaining representative is patent . I so find To further elongate would be
redundant.
I find, in view of the foregoing and upon the record as a whole, that Respondent
did engage in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
I have above found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
I further find that Respondent 's continued recognition of the Shop Committee
constitutes a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights
guaranteed them under the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with Respondent 's operations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to tradD . traffic, and commerce among the several
States , and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices tend
to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Although I have recommended dismissal of the portion of the 8 (a)(1) allegations
relating to Joe Steel, I have found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 2) of the Act . I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the Respondent has assisted , contributed support to , and inter-
fered with the administration of the Shop Committee. To effectuate the policies of
the Act and to free the employees from the effects of Respondent 's unfair labor
practices , I will recommend that Respondent withdraw all recognition from the
Shop Committee and refrain from recognizing and dealing with it, unless and until
the Shop Committee ( The Employees ' Shop Committee of the Jamestown Machine
and Manufacturing Company ) shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status pursuant to a Board -conducted election among the Respondent's
employees . I shall further recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from
giving effect to any contract or agreement with the Shop Committee; however, nothing
herein is intended to require Respondent to vary the wages, hours , and other condi-
tions of employment heretofore established.
Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent committed are related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commis-
sion in the future is reasonably to be anticipated from its past conduct, the pre-
ventive purposes of the Act may be thwarted unless the recommendations are
coextensive with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act , therefore , it will
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jamestown Machine and Manufacturing Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, District No. 83, AFL-CIO, and the
Employees' Shop Committee of the Jamestown Machine and Manufacturing Com-
pany are each a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By assisting, contributing support to, and interfering with the administration of
the Shop Committee, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Bottfield-Refractories Co.; Frommeyer & Co.; Jack Casper &
Co.; Joseph Liberati ; Swartz & Funston , Inc.; John B . Kelly,
Inc. of Pa.; Dan Lepore & Sons; Alex Guerrina & Sons; John
Campagna Co.; Anastasi Bros. Corp .; Michael G. Sabia and
John J. Hennelly
Bottfield-Refractories Co.; Swartz & Funston , Inc.; John B.
Kelly, Inc. of Pa.; Alex Guerrina & Sons; John Campagna
Co.; Anastasi Bros. Corp .; Employing Bricklayers ' Associa-
tion of Delaware Valley and Vicinity and Eugene B. McGough
and William Tammaro
Swartz & Funston , Inc.; Dan Lepore & Sons and John P. Murphy
Swartz & Funston , Inc.; Alex Guerrina & Sons; John Campagna
Co.; Anastasi Bros. Corp . and David E. Harte
Jack Casper & Co.; Swartz & Funston , Inc. ; John B. Kelly, Inc.
of Pa.; Alex Guerrina & Sons; John Campagna Co.; Anastasi
Bros. Corp. and Edward Kelly
Bottfield-Refractories Co. and William Wallace McNeill
Frommeyer & Co.; Jack Casper & Co.; Swartz & Funston, Inc. ;
John B. Kelly, Inc. of Pa.; Dan Lepore & Sons ; Alex Guerrina
& Sons; John Campagna Co.; Anastasi Bros . Corp. and
Frank Craig
Bottfield-Refractories Co.; Jack Casper & Co.; Swartz & Fun-
ston, Inc.; Alex Guerrina & Sons; John Campagna Co.;
Anastasi Bros. Corp. and Michael Conway . Cases Nos. 4-CA-
1853, 4=CA 1854, 4-CA-1861, 4-CA-1856, 4-CA-1858, 4-CA-1860,
4-CA-186$, 4-CA-1866, and 4-CA-1877. April 13, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 16, 1959, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
127 NLRB No. 28.