Jamestown Metal Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 813 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of JAMESTOWN METAL EQUIPMENT Co., INC., AND ITS
SUBSIDIARY, BLACKSTONE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 1240, AFFILIATED WITH
THE A. F. OF L.
Case No. C-1082.-Decided November 17, 1939
Laundry Machinery Manufacturing Industry; Metal Office Equipment Mana-
facturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion : anti-union statements
by supervisory employee-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : deter-
mined by previous Decision of Board-Representatives : proof of choice: pre-
vious Decision of Board certifying Union without election upon basis of uncon-
tradicted testimony and authenticated documentary evidence adhered to-
Collective Bargaining : refusal to . bargain with union that had been certified as
exclusive representative by Board on the ground that Board ' s certification was
invalid-Employer : unfair labor practices by wholly owned subsidiary ; com-
plaint dismissed as to parent corporation not shown to control operations or
labor policy of subsidiary-Discriminzation : charges of , dismissed.
Mr. Edward D. Flaherty, for the Board.
Rogerson, Clary & Hewes, by Mr. J. Russell Rogerson, of James-
town, N. Y., for the respondents.
Mr. Paul R. Hutchings, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Robert F. Koretz, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Association of Machinists, Lodge 1240, affiliated with the A. F. of L.,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Third Region
(Buffalo, New York), issued its complaint, dated October 10, 1938,
against Jamestown Metal Equipment Co., Inc., herein called the
Jamestown Company, and its subsidiary, Blackstone Manufacturing
Co., Inc., herein called the Blackstone Company, both of Jamestown,
New York, said respondents being herein jointly called the respond-
ents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engag=
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
17 N. L. R. B., No. 71.
813
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
The complaint, so far as here material, alleged in substance that
all the operations of the Blackstone Company, including its labor
policy, are wholly directed and controlled by the Jamestown Com-
pany, and that the operations of the respondents form a unified and
integrated system, wholly controlled and directed by the Jamestown
Company; that on or about July 5, 1938, and at all times since that
date, the Blackstone Company had refused to bargain collectively
with the Union although the Union had been designated by a ma-
jority of the employees within an appropriate unit consisting of all
employees of the Blackstone Company, except supervisory and cleri-
cal employees, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining; that, on or about May 20, 1938, and July 22, 1938, the
respondents discharged eight named employees' because of their
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and have since
refused to reinstate them; and that the respondents by the foregoing
acts and refusals, and, on or about January 2, 1938, and thereafter, by
making anti-union statements, by moving certain machines and equip-
ment and transferring certain operations from the plant of the Black-
stone Company, hereinafter called the Blackstone plant, to the plant
of the Jamestown Company, hereinafter called the Jamestown plant,
and by various other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
On October 20, 1938, the respondents jointly and severally filed
their answer in which they admitted certain allegations of the com-
plaint as to the character of the business of each of the respondents
and its interstate nature but denied the allegations of the complaint
concerning the relationship between the respondents and the com-
mission of the alleged unfair labor practices. The respondents fur-
ther averred in their answer that the fiscal affairs and employer-em-
ployee relations of each respondent are separate and distinct from
the other; that the removal of equipment and transfer of operations
from the Blackstone plant to the Jamestown plant were made solely
for economic and financial reasons; and that during the period ex-
tending from the fall of 1938 through the date of the filing of the
complaint a decrease in sales resulted in a reduction of production
which necessitated the discharge of a large number of men, and that
in making said discharges, no consideration was given to membership
in a labor organization.
1 Earl Fields, Gus Lundquist, Elmer Lundell, Carl Johnson, David Gustafson, Arne
Coranson , Ray Adams, and Guy Rowland.
JAMESTOWN METAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 815
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Jamestown, New York,
on October 24, 25, and 26, 1938, before R. N. Denham, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties.
At the opening of the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss
the complaint as to the Jamestown Company on the ground that the
complaint and the charge showed on their face that the Jamestown
Company is not the employer of the persons alleged in the complaint
to have been discriminatorily discharged and the Union does not
claim to be bargaining agent for the employees of this respondent.
This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner.2 At the close of the
Board's case, counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the allegations
of the complaint that Guy Rowland had been discriminatorily dis-
charged, and also moved to amend the complaint to conform to the
proof. The Trial Examiner granted both motions without objection.
At the conclusion of the hearing the respondents moved to dismiss
the complaint for insufficiency of proof to sustain the allegations
thereof. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on this motion and
in his Intermediate Report denied the motion except in so far as it
was otherwise dealt with therein. During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner made various other rulings on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
dated December 3, 1938, a copy of which was duly served upon all
parties, in which he found that the respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act, but had not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint. He recommended that the respondents cease and desist
from their unfair labor practices; upon request, bargain collectively
with the Union; and post notices of their intention to comply with
the Act. He further recommended that the allegations of the com-
plhint be dismissed in regard to the alleged discriminatory discharges.
On December 17, 1939, the respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and requested oral argument before the Board.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing was held
on September 12, 1939, at Washington, D. C., before the Board,
for the purpose of oral argument. The respondents were repre-
2 See Section III D, infra.
;816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rented by counsel and the Union by a duly authorized representative ;
both participated in the argument.
The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, and in so far as they are inconsistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., is a New York corporation
-with its principal office and place of business at Jamestown, New
York. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
washing and ironing machines. The raw materials used in the
manufacture of these products are tubs, wringers, rubber goods,
and crating. In 1937 it purchased $1,437,000 worth of raw mate-
rials, more than 50 per cent of which were shipped by rail and
truck to the respondent from points outside the State of New York,
and shipped $2,054,000 worth of finished products, 50 per cent of
which were shipped by rail to points outside the State of New York.
The Blackstone Company advertises its products in the trade journal
"Electric Merchandising," which has a national circulation. Ap-
proximately 85 persons were employed at the Blackstone plant at
the time of the hearing.
Jamestown Metal Equipment Co., Inc., is a New York corpora-
tion with its principal office and place of business at Jamestown,
New York. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
,of auto radiators, and metal equipment for offices, banks, libraries,
and hospitals. The raw materials used in the manufacture of these
products are brass, copper, malleable iron, steel, solder, packing, and
paint. From January 1938 to September 1, 1938, it purchased over
$500,000 worth of raw materials, more than 35 per cent of which
were shipped by rail to the respondent from points outside the State
of New York, and shipped over $600,000 worth of finished products,
more than 90 per cent of which were shipped by rail to points out-
-side the State of New York. At the time of the hearing, the James-
-town Company employed approximately 159 persons.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1240, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
mitting to its membership all production and maintenance workers
employed by the Blackstone Company, and includes within its defini-
JAMESTOWN METAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 817
Lion of production and maintenance workers all employees of the
Blackstone Company with the exception of supervisory and clerical
employees.
1.11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The certification
On March 23, 1938, the Union filed a petition for investigation and
certification of representatives under Section 9 (c) of the Act, and
after a hearing held on May 13, 14, and 20, 1938, the Board on
June 24, 1938, issued its Decision and Certification of Representa-
tives,, in which it found that all the employees of the Blackstone
Company, except supervisory and clerical employees, constituted a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that
the Union had been designated by a. majority of employees in the
unit as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The Board therefore certified the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the unit.
No contentions were advanced in the representation proceedings
or in the instant proceedings that the unit found appropriate by the
Board is improper, and we see no reason to depart therefrom. We
find that at all times since the Board's Decision and Certification of
June 24, 1938, all the employees of the Blackstone Company, except
supervisory and clerical employees, constituted and that they con-
stitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The contention is made that the certification by the Board is
invalid because it "was not made or given upon proper and sufficient
evidence and that the proceedings had in respect thereto were not
properly conducted." The objection appears to be based on the
more specific contentions (1) that the authorization cards intro-
duced into evidence by the Union in the representation proceedings
were not properly authenticated; (2) that; in those proceedings,
the Blackstone Company was improperly denied subpenas for the
person whose signatures appeared on the cards; and (3) that the
certification was not validly made since no election was directed.
We will consider the contentions in the order stated.
Chapman, president of the Union, testified in the representation
proceedings that the Blackstone Company employed 163 persons on
March 23, 1938, the date on which the petition was filed, about 13
of whom were supervisory and clerical employees, and on May 11,
1938, employed 123 persons, about 12 of whom were supervisory
$ Matter of Blackstone Manufacturing Company and International Association of
Machinists, Lodge 12110, affi liated with the American Federation of Labor, 7 N. L. R. B. 1169.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and clerical employees; 4 that about 117 employees were members of
the Union at the time of the hearing ; and that the Union had
obtained 121 authorization cards signed by employees within the
appropriate unit, at least 90 of whom were working for the Black-
stone Company at the time of the hearing. The Blackstone Com-
pany produced no evidence to contradict this testimony.
The 121 authorization cards introduced into evidence authorized
the Union to represent the signers for the purposes of collective
bargaining. These cards were signed within a period of 2 weeks
prior to the hearing. On 88 of these cards the signature of Chap=
man appears as attesting witness, and on 31 of the other 33 cards
the signature of Carl Johnson, an officer of the Union, appears as
attesting witness. Chapman testified that he had examined all the
cards within the past 2 days and that he had "personally witnessed
the signatures to a great many." Johnson identified himself as the
person "whose name appears as a witness upon some of these
authorization cards."
At first the cards were offered subject to examination solely by the
Trial Examiner or by the Board, the Union claiming that an exam-
ination by the Blackstone Company might lead to discrimination by
this respondent against employees whose signatures appeared thereon.
Counsel for the Blackstone Company protested the conditions at-
tached to the introduction into evidence of the cards and requested
that the Board issue 121 subpenas for the persons whose names ap-
peared as signatures on these cards "in order to cross-examine them
as to the authenticity of their signatures and as to the present status
of the alleged authorizations." The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
on this request. At a later point in the hearing the Union withdrew
all conditions attached to the introduction of the cards, and recalled
Chapman and Johnson and tendered them for cross-examination.
Counsel for the Blackstone Company refused to cross-examine them,
assigning no reason for his refusal. He also declined to examine
the cards, stating that such inspection might result in future charges
of discrimination against the Blackstone Company, a position hardly
consonant with his request that their names be disclosed by the
issuance of subpenas. As stated in the decision in the representa-
4 He stated that these figures were based on a count made by the witness on these dates
of the employees ' cards kept by the Blackstone Company in a rack near the time clock. The
accuracy of this testimony is verified by records submitted by the respondents in the instant
proceedings . which show that the Blackstone Company employed 160 persons on March 26,
1938 , and 125 persons on May 14, 1938.
5 On the contrary Oscar A. Lenna, president of the Blackstone Company. refused to
comply with a sabpena requiring him to produce "the last pay rolls * * * for the
period prior to March 23, 1938."
6In our decision in the representation case we inadvertently stated that these two officers
testified that they personally witnessed the signing of all the cards. As shown above, this
statement is accurate except as to two cards . It is apparent that this minor discrepancy
is of no consequence.
JA_MESTOWVN METAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 819
Lion case, the Board was of the opinion that the request for subpenas
was made merely to obstruct the proceeding.
While Section 9 (c) of the Act provides that the Board may take
a secret ballot of employees, it expressly provides that the Board
alternatively may "utilize any other suitable method to ascertain
such representative." Clearly a suitable method was utilized in the
instant case in certifying upon the basis of sworn testimony and
fully authenticated documentary evidence. Argument to the con-
trary comes with little grace from an employer whose actions have
been, entirely obstructive, and amounts to a claim that an employer,
rather than the Board entrusted by Congress with discretion, shall
determine which suitable method shall be utilized. Although we
have recently preferred in certain representation proceedings to order
an election rather than to certify upon the basis of other proof of
majority,' we, of course, did not intend thereby either to question
the validity of certifications we had issued without an election 8 or
to condone disregard of such certification by employers.
We find that at all times since the Board's Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representatives of June 24, 1938, the Union was and that
it is the exclusive representative of all employees of the Blackstone
Company, except supervisory and clerical employees, for the purposes
of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages; hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.9
2. The refusal to bargain collectively
On July 5, 1938, a representative of the Union wrote a letter,
addressed to Oscar A. Leona, president of the Blackstone Company,
R In the first of those cases , Matter of The Cuda hy Packing Company and United Packing-
house Workers of America. Local No. 21, of the Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee,
13 N. L . R. B. 526, decided a year after the occurrence of the refusal to bargain alleged in
the instant case, we said . in footnote 8: "It should be noted that we are not here con-
fronted with the necessity of deciding , upon the testimony and documentary evidence in the
record , whether on the date of an alleged refusal to bargain , the union represented a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. That question could not be answered
by an election , for the result of a present election would not show the union ' s authority on
the particular past date in question . Were it necessary to decide in the present case
whether the testimony and documentary evidence in the record did or did not establish a
majority for the United , we would find that it did . However . it is not necessary . in this
proceeding to make such a determination on the present record . We are here concerned
with establishing representatives for future bargaining purposes , and under the circum-
stances we think that such future bargaining will best be effectuated by holding an election
by secret ballot."
8 Even under our present policy we have in certain cases continued to issue a certification
without requiring the holding of an election . See, P. g., Matter of Paramount Pictures,
Inc. and The Society of Motion Picture Artists and Illustrators , et al ., 13 N. L . R. B. 846;
Matter of Walt Disney Productions, Ltd. and Federation of Screen . Cartoonists , et at.,
I3 N. L. R. B. 865 ; Matter of R. K. 0. Radio Pictures, Inc. and Screen Publicists' Guild, et at.,
13 N. L. R. B. 876 ; Matter of Stokely Brothers S Company , Incorporated, and Van
Camp's, Incorporated and Federal Labor Union No. 21752, affiliated with A. F. of L., 15
N. L. If. B. 872.
8 Matter of Whittier Mills Company and Silver Lake Company and Tactile Workers Organ-
izing Committee, et at ., 15 N. L. R. B. 457 . See also Matter of Charles Cushman Com-
pany, et at. and United Shoe Workers of America , 15 N. L. R. B. 90.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which called his attention to the Decision and Certification of Repre-
sentatives mentioned above, and requested an appointment for the
discussion of a proposed contract, a copy of which was enclosed.
Lenna testified that he had received the letter and filed it without
reply, and that he then refused, and still refuses, to recognize the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in
the unit found appropriate.
Upon these facts it is clear that the Blackstone Company has re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union.l° We find that on or
about July 5, 1938, and at all times thereafter, the Blackstone Coin-
pany refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees, except supervisory and clerical em-
ployees, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion,
The Union organized employees of the Blackstone Company dur-
ing 1937. In the early part of 1938 a shop committee of the Union
met with officials of the Blackstone Company on three or four occa-
sions. Allen Conroe, an employee at the Blackstone plant and an
officer of the Union, testified that shortly after a meeting between
the shop committee and Oscar A. Lenna, Larson, Austin Lenna,
and Rogerson, president, vice president, employment manager, and
attorney, respectively, of the Blackstone Company on April 22, 1938,
Harry Engberg, foreman of the final assembly line and a supervisory
employee with authority to recommend discharge of employees, said
to him, "We will all be out of work if we keep monkeying around.''
Elmer Lundell, an employee at the Blackstone plant, testified that
Engberg, at about the same time, stated, "If this Union gets too
insistent, we will close down." Lawrence Chapman, another em-
ployee and the president of the Union, testified that when he asked
permission of Engberg to attend this meeting that Engberg gave
his consent, but said, "You fellows are going to fool around with
this union business until they close up the shop." Engberg testified
that he did not remember the conversation with Conroe, but would not
deny that this conversation had occurred. Engberg admitted having
had the conversation with Lundell and that he had granted Chapman
permission to attend the meeting referred to above. However, he
denied that he had mentioned the Union, and stated that his remarks
merely had general reference to a drop in production due to the loss
of important customers.
10 We shall consider infra the contention of the Jamestown Company that the complaint
be dismissed as to it.
JAMESTOWN DIETAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 82 i.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Engberg made the state-
ments attributed to him by Conroe, Lundell, and Chapman. The
circumstances under which these remarks were made lead us to the
conclusion that Engberg, even if he did not mention the Union,
referred to, and intended that he be understood to be referring to,
the afore-mentioned union activities of employees. Although Eng-
berg may have been motivated by concern over the condition of the
Blackstone Company's business, his statements were clearly
intimidating and coercive.
We find that, by the foregoing statements, the Blackstone Company
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7.of the Act.
There is no evidence that machinery and equipment were moved or
operations were transferred from the Blackstone plant to the James-
town plant because of union activities of employees at the Blackstone
plant. On the contrary the evidence is clear and undisputed, andi
entirely supports the findings of the Trial Examiner, that the Black-
stone plant is located in two antiquated buildings, that the Jamestown;
plant is a modern building which is better adapted to the performance•
of these operations, and that the transfers were made in the interests
of economy and efficiency.
C. The alleged discrimination in hire and tenure
As we have stated above, the Trial Examiner found that the evidence
did not substantiate the allegations that employees at the Blackstone
plant had been discriminated against. The finding is plainly correct:
and we shall not review the evidence in detail inasmuch as the Union:
filed no exceptions to the finding of the Trial Examiner and did not:
question the findings at the oral argument before the Board.
D. Dismissal of the complaint as to the Jamestown Company
The Jamestown Company contends that the complaint should be dis-
missed as to it. While the record discloses that the Jamestown Coln--
pany owns the stock of the Blackstone Company, and that Lenna is:
the president of both corporations, it does not show that the Jamestown
Company directs and controls the operations of the Blackstone Com-
pany or that it determines the labor policies of the latter. Upon the
record, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Jamestown Company-
is not shown to be the employer of the employees at the Blackstone-
plant within the meaning of the Act,'-' and, as such, responsible for-
and chargeable with unfair labor practices engaged in by the Black-
stone Company. Further, the record does not indicate that it is,
necessary that any order be made to the Jamestown Company in order
n Section 2 (2) of the Act provides that the term "employer" as used in the Act " includes-.
any person acting in the interest of an employer , directly or indirectly."
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to insure the effectiveness of the order we shall make with respect to
the Blackstone Company. Accordingly, we shall. dismiss the com-
plaint in so far as it alleges that the Jamestown Company has engaged
in unfair labor practices.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the Blackstone Company set forth in
Section III A and B above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the Blackstone Company 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.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the Blackstone Company had refused to bar-
gain collectively with the Union which had been certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, and, by said refusal to bargain and by anti-union statements,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights of employees to self-organization and to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing. Accord-
ingly, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the
Blackstone Company to cease and desist from said unfair labor prac-
tices and to bargain with the Union upon request as the exclusive
representative of all its employees, except supervisory and clerical
employees. We shall also require the Blackstone Company to post
notices to this effect in the Blackstone plaint and to take certain other
affirmative action more particularly set forth in the Order below.
Although there may have been a loss of majority by the Union in the
lapse of time since the refusal to bargain,'-2 we will, nevertheless, re-
quire the Blackstone Company to bargain with the Union at this time.
In accordance with Section 10 (c) of the Act, we have previously
held "that to effectuate the policies of the Act, the respondent's refusal
to bargain must be remedied by an order to bargain, based on the
majority obtaining on the date of the refusal to bargain." 13
12 The Blackstone Company introduced no evidence to show any change in the status of
the Union as the representative of employees in the appropriate unit since the hearing in
the representation proceedings referred to above . Moreover , upon the basis of the uncon-
tradicted testimony that at least 90 of the 113 persons who had signed authorization cards
were then employed by the Blackstone Company , an analysis of the records in the repre-
sentation proceedings and in the instant proceedings reveals that at the time of the bear-
ing in the instant case a majority of the persons employed by the Blackstone Company in
the appropriate unit had signed such cards.
is Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalga-
mated Association of Iron , Steel, and Tin Workers of North America , Lodges Nos. 6/1, 1010,
and 1101, 9 N. L. R . B. 783 . See also Matter of The Gates Rubber Company and Denver
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No . 40 and Denver Typographical Union No. 44, 18
N. L. R. B . 158; Matter of Charles Cushman Company , et al . and United Shoe Workers
of America , 15 N. L . R. B. 90 , and cases therein cited in footnote 27.
JAMESTOWN METAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 823
We shall dismiss, for want of proof, the other allegations of unfair
labor practices by the Blackstone Company averred in the complaint.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1240, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All the employees of Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., ex-
cept supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1240, was on
July 5, 1938, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive rep-
resentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
4. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively
with International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1240, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the above-stated unit,
Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of
the Act.
5. By making anti-union statements, and by the refusals to bargain
collectively with the Union, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
7. Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., has not discriminated in
regard to hire or tenure of employment, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization and engaging in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
8. Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., has not, except as herein-
above stated, engaged in and is not engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act alleged in the
complaint.
9. Jamestown Metal Equipment Co., Inc., has not engaged in and
is not engaging in unfair- labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act alleged in the complaint.
2473S4-40-vol. 17--53
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Stating to its employees that activities by them on behalf of
the International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1240, or any other
labor organization, would result in the closing of the Blackstone
plant;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association
of Machinists, Lodge 1240, as the exclusive representative of its
employees, except clerical and supervisory employees;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, Lodge 1240, as the exclusive representative of
its employees, except clerical and supervisory employees, in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment;
(b) Post notices immediately in conspicuous places in its plant, and
maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days stating (1) that Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., will cease
and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c)
of this Order, and (2) that it will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps they
have taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it alleges that
Blackstone Manufacturing Co., Inc., by acts other than making anti-
union statements and refusing to bargain collectively has engaged in
unfair labor practices be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it alleges
that Jamestown Metal Equipment Co., Inc., has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Act be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.