Julius Kayser & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

e
In `the Matter 'of JULIus KAYSER & Co. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. C4035.-Decided March 16, 1942
Jurisdiction : textile manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Company-Dominated Unions: formation, of successor-dominated organization by
nucleus of employees who had been officers of predecessor found to be illegally
formed in prior decision ; Company did nothing to disabuse employees of the
impression that acts of employees associated in the organization and adminis-
tration, of the "successor" were not regarded with similar favor to that which
had been, manifested when the same individuals had been active in connection
with the formation and functioning of the predecessor; successor was well
entrenched, had an established membership, a treasury, and a contract with
the Company before the Company posted a notice quoting the order of the
Board'in the prior proceeding.
Remedial , Orders : employer ordered to disestablish dominated organization;
abrogation of contract with'dominated organization.
Mr. Peter J. Crotty, for the Boarrd.
Hardy, Stancliffe d Hardy, by Mr. John L. Farrell, of New York
City, for the respondent.
Mr. David Jaffe, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Arthur F. Curtis, of Delhi, N. Y., and Mr. Charles N. Peake,
of Walton, N. Y., for the Association.
Mr. Reynolds C. Seitz, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
IAND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge 1 duly filed by Textile Workers
Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Third
1 The original charge was filed on November 30, 1940, the first amended charge on March
17, 1941, and the second amended charge on July 17, 1941
39 N L. R. B., No 163.
825
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region (Buffalo, New York), issued its amended complaint 2 dated
October 29, 1941, against Julius Kayser & Co., Walton, New York,
herein called° the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2
,(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in,substance that the respondent, at its plant in Walton, New
York, (1) in or about the summer 1933, initiated, formed and spon-
sored a labor organization known as the Grievance Committee or the
Independent Representation Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Com-
mittee; (2) on or about October 20, 1940, initiated, formed and spon-
sored The Independent Association of Textile Workers,3 hereinafter
referred to as the Association; (3) from the summer of 1933, domi-
nated, contributed support to, interfered with the administration of
the Committee; (4) from about October 20, 1940, dominated, con-
tributed support to, and interfered with the administration of the
Association; and (5) by the foregoing acts interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. It further alleged that the Committee and the
Association comprised one single labor organization, or in the alterna-
tive, two separate labor organizations, the Association being the suc-
cessor to the Committee. - '
Copies of the amended complaint, accompanied by a notice of
hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, the Association, and
the Union. On November 8, 1941, the respondent filed its answer in
which it denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on November 13 and 14, 1941,
at Walton, New York, before Will Maslow, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. - At the commence-
ment of the hearing, the Association 'filed a motion to intervene,
which was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Association then
filed its answer in which it denied that it was a successor of the Com-
mittee and that the respondent had formed, sponsored, dominated,
interfered with, or contributed support to the Association. The
Board, the respondent, the Union, and the Association were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
2
The original complaint , issued on July 18, 1941, by the Regional Director for the
Second Region , combined allegations of unfair labor practices by the respondent at two
plants located respectively in Brooklyn and in Walton , New York The , Board severed
the proceedings and transferred the instant case to the Third Region by order dated August
15, 1941.
3 The full name of the Association is "The Independent Association of Textile Workers ,
in Walton, New York " It is also known as "I A. T. W."
JULIUS KAYSER & CO. 827
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the
commencement of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved for
a bill of particulars amplifying the amended complaint. The Trial
Examiner denied this motion, granting leave to the respondent, how-
ever, to apply for a continuance if surprised by the evidence ad-
duced by the Board. No such application was thereafter made. At
the close of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved that the
pleadings be conformed to the proof in respect to names, dates, and
places. The Trial Examiner granted the motion. Counsel for the
respondent and for the Association- moved at the close of the Board's
case and again at the conclusion of, the hearing to dismiss the
amended complaint for lack of substantial evidence. These motions
were denied by the Trial Examiner. During the hearing the Trial
Examiner made numerous rulings on other motions and on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial' errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On December 8,
1941, all parties availed themselves of the opportunity to file briefs
with the Trial Examiner. The briefs have been duly considered.
On December 19, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the
Union, and the Association, wherein he found that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section'8 (1) and (2) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain
affirmative action,to remedy the situation. None of the parties filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Julius Kayser & Co. is a New York corporation with principal
offices in New York City. It operates plants in Brooklyn, New
York; Walton, New York; Bangor, Pennsylvania; and Hattiesburg,
Mississippi. The present proceeding involves only the Walton plant,
where the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of knit fabric
cloth from silk, cotton, and rayon yarns. During the year ending
August 31, 1941, the respondent received. 500,000 pounds of rayon
yarn and 400,000 pounds of cotton yarn at its Walton plant from
points outside the State of New York. During the same period, it
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shipped 25,000 pounds of knit fabrics from its Walton plant to points,
outside the State of New York.
All parties stipulated that the respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. At the time of the hearing, it em-
ployed approximately 166 persons at its Walton plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting em-
ployees of the respondent to membership. '
The Independent Association of Textile Workers in Walton, New
York, is an unaffiliated labor organization- admitting to membership
persons employed in the textile industry in Walton.
The Committee was an unaffiliated labor organization admitting
employees of the respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background: the Committee
The respondent was involved in an earlier proceeding before the
Board, in which'the Board issued its Decision and Order on February
24, 1941,4 finding that the respondent had violated Section 8 (1) and
(2) of the Act, and ordering the respondent to withdraw recognition
from and completely to disestablish the Committee, a labor organiza-
tion found to have been dominated by the respondent. The Board
based its conclusion of employer-domination upon findings that the
Committee was created in 1933 after a suggestion by R. K. Boadwee,
a vice president of the respondent, when employees in the region in
which the Walton plant of the respondent is located were "talking
unionism"; that the Committee consisted of representatives or com-
mitteemen of each of the departments of the Walton plant, elected
in the plant during working hours; that it had no constitution, by-
laws or provision for the collection of dues, the regular conduct of
meetings, or formal membership; and that it was not given a formal
name and functioned in accordance with Boadwee's recommendations
as a vehicle for the presentation of grievances. The Board further
found, in support of its conclusion, that when the-Union in 1939 began
to organize the employees of the Walton plant, this effort encountered
the hostility of Verne E. Darling, the plant manager," and Boadwee;
that Fred Baxter, a committeeman, prepared a petition or -agreement
whereby the signers agreed not to affiliate with any • outside labor
4Matter of Julius , Kayser & Oo and Textile Workers Union of America , 29 N. L R B.
1025.
6 In the present proceeding he is described as the production manager
JULIUS KAYSER & CO. ,829
organization, and with the help of Howell Gray, another committee-
man, arranged a meeting in the plant during working hours at which
the petition was circulated among the employees; and that this peti-
tion was later turned over to..Darling. The Committee functioned
until about October 1940. At that time the committeemen were :
Rodney Barlett, Fred Baxter, Ray Chapin, Arthur Crawshaw, Howell
Gray, and Lynn Stilson.
B. The Association
After the hearing had concluded in the case involving the Com-
mittee, but before the issuance of the Intermediate Report,' the
Union, on September 30, 1940, through its organizer, John McMahon,
wrote to Milton C. Hendee, superintendent of the respondent's Wal-
ton plant, indicating that it represented employees in the ,Walton
plant and would like to arrange for a conference in order to negotiate
an agreement. The conference was set and held on October 15, 1940.
At the meeting the Union claimed to have pledge cards signed by a
majority of the employees of the respondent, and requested, to be
recognized as the sole collective bargaining agent. When, however,
the respondent's representative asked to see the cards in order to
verify the signatures, the Union refused, and the conference
broke up.'
On October 16, the day, after the Union presented its claim for
bargaining rights, 10 of the,employees signed a paper addressed to
John McMahon, the Union organizer, demanding the return of the
pledge cards and stating that they had changed their mind about
joining the Union. Seven more names were shortly added to those
of the original 10 who signed the petition. , The list as finally aug-
mented contained the names of Chapin, Bartlett, and Crawshaw,
three of the six committeemen of the old Committee."
The next day, on Chapin's suggestion, two other employees who
had signed the withdrawal petition joined him in seeking the advice
of Charles 'N. Peake, a local attorney, as to how the withdrawals
from the Union could be made "effective." Peake told them that
they should form an independent labor organization of their own,
and told- them to return the next morning when he would have
9 The hearing closed on August 15 and the report was issued on November 23, 1940.
'Later, on November 1, 1940, Boadwee wrote the Union giving it until November 8 to
submit proof of its majority . The Union never replied to this letter
^A number of the employees who withdrew from the Union testified that they had not
really considered themselves as members of it There is nothing in the record to show
that the 17 participated in any of the activities of the Union Chapin, the leader of the
movement , had been a member of the Union for 2 or 3 months The record , however,
does not indicate that he had ever ceased to be a committeeman under the old Committee.
The. same is true as to Bartlett and Crawshaw.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ready for them an "Agreement to Form Independent Association of
Textile Workers in Walton, New York." 9
As soon as the three employees left, Peake called the respondent's
plant and left word that Superintendent Hendee, whom he had
never met before, should call upon him. Hendee, accompanied by
the production manager Darling, did call upon Peake at 5 o'clock
in the afternoon. Peake testified, and we find, that at this meeting
when Hendee was informed that "a new organization, totally inde-
pendent" was being formed, he made no reply that "amounted to
anything except o. k." 10
On the morning of October 18, Chapin, Smith, and Northup se-
cured the "Agreement to Form Independent Association" which Peake
had prepared. They proceeded to solicit the signatures of persons
who worked in the respondent's Walton plant. On the same day,
Darling, the respondent's production manager , came to Peake's office
in response to his call, and checked a list of employees of the respond-
ent which had been prepared by Chapin, Smith, and Northup. On
October 23 Farrell, the respondent's attorney, telephoned Peake from
his office in New York and exhibited interest in whether Peake had
"gotten out" the withdrawal letter yet 11 On various occasions there-
after, Farrell and Hendee kept Peake informed of every development
affecting the Union 12
At a meeting held in Peake's office on either October 22 or 23, a
nucleus of two officials of the old Committee acted on the nominating
committee for officers in the new Association 13 The first meeting
of the Association was held on October 26 and the slate of officers
selected by the nominating committee was unanimously elected. All
but one of the six employees who were members of the governing
body of the old Committee in October 1940 were among the group
elected to office in the new Association 14
e According to Peake it was the general feeling in Walton that the Committee would
be "kicked out" by the Board as a result of the prior proceeding.
1o Hendee testified that he did not remember such reply . In the light of the entire
record, however , Peake's testimony that Hendee acquiesced in the proposal is convincing
u Peake had called Farrell on October 18 and told him he would "serve" him with a
copy of the withdrawal petition to McMahon signed by the 17 employees
_120n November 2, 1940, Farrell telephoned Peake from New York, advising him that
the Union had until November 9 to submit proof of membership . On November 8, Hendee
told Peake that the Union had not submitted such proof On November 29, 1940, after
the Intermediate Report in the prior proceeding had been issued by the Trial Examiner,
Farrell telephoned from New York to tell Peake that the T . W. U. A. had "served notice
of appeal" from the Trial Examinei's Report.
13 Fred Baxter and Howell Gray , officers of the old Committee , were two of four who
actually proposed names at the meeting. The record indicates that there were between 15
and 20 people present at the meeting. It is a reasonable inference that the group was
made up of many of the 17 who originally withdrew from the Union.
'* Fred Baxter was elected chairman of the Departmental Committee Serving on the
Departmental Committee were Howell Gray, Arthur Crawshaw , and Ray Chapin . Rodney
Bartlett was elected guard . In addition , William Stedman, who was elected president of
the Association , had been a committeeman ' of the old Committee in 1935. At the second
annual election of the Association held on November 8, 1941, Crawshaw and Gray were
elected president and vice president respectively.
JULIUS KAYSER & CO. 831
On October 24, two days prior to the election of officers, Peake sent
Hendee a photostatic copy of the withdrawal, petition signed by the
17 employees, and a copy of a letter addressed to the Union demand-
ing the return of the pledge cards. At the same time he requested
a conference with the respondent, offering to prove that the Associa-
tion represented a majority of the Walton employees. By that date
the "Agreement to Form Independent Association" prepared by
Peake had been circulated by Chapin and others and had been signed,
by about 90 persons who worked for the respondent in the Walton
plant. Chapin had secured 52 of the signatures.
On October 30, in compliance with Peake's request, Hendee and
Arthur H. Walker, assistant general superintendent, of the respond-
ent, met with Peake and the officers of the Association. Peake sub-
mitted a typewritten list of the members of the Association who were
paid up in their dues. The list was left with the respondent to be
checked, and Peake stated that there had been no "company activity"
in the organization of the Association.- After the conference,
Darling compared the typewritten list of Association members with
the respondent's pay roll and found that every person on the list
was an employee. Walker "simply looked over" the various papers
headed "Agreement to Form Independent Association" to see whether
the signatures had been "written by the same person" but did not
compare the signatures with any other document. 16 On November
14 Peake was notified by Hendee that the Association was recognized
as the sole bargaining agent for all the Walton employees except
clerks and supervisors.
On November 16 Farrell called Peake from New York concern-
ing a contract. Peake, thereafter, on November 20 drafted a pro- -
posed agreement and three days later called in Hendee who said
that "it sounded all right." Soon after, on November 26, Peake
submitted a contract to Farrell which provided for adjustment of
grievances, arbitration, seniority, and for the execution "within 60
days of supplemental contracts relating to hours, wages, and work-
ing conditions." On December 2 and 3 bargaining conferences were
held which were attended by representatives of the respondent and
of. the Association. Superintendent Walker testified that the re-
spondent' "made certain offers on wages which were acceptable and
the committee for the Association did not argue about wages."
Peake estimated that the wage agreement amounted to a raise of
from "10 to 15 percent." In addition on June 23, 1941, a supple-
5 The statement was made in response to questions which Peake had been asked by
walker and Hendee as to whether the Association was "organized on company time or
property " and whether there was "any interference on behalf of the company."
It will be recalled that when the Union presented its claim , the respondent 's repre-
sentative asked to see the cards in order to verify the signatures.
448105-42-vol. 39-54 1
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mental agreement was entered into by the Association and the re-
spondent granting 167 individual increases, and another general
increase of 10 percent.
It was not until March 12, 1941, that the respondent posted a
notice in its Walton plant stating that it was withdrawing recog-
nition from and disestablishing the old Committee. By that time
the Association was firmly entrenched.
C. Conclusions
'The Committee, as has been found by the Board, was created by
the respondent in 1933 as its answer to the employees' desire for
self-organization. In 1939, when the Union sought to organize the
respondent's employees, Baxter and Gray, leaders of the Committee,
joined with the respondent in its efforts to combat the Union. In
1940, just one day after the Union sought recognition as a collective
bargaining agent for the respondent's employees, Chapin, one of
the six leaders of the Committee, led an effort to "break" the Union's
majority by obtaining renunciation of pledge cards signed for the
Union. Chapin's anti-union efforts were quickly transformed into
activity looking to the formation of an "independent" labor organ-
ization and the' active leaders of the Committee became active
organizers of the Association.
Thus it was Chapin who was instrumental in securing the services
of Attorney Peake, and who alone secured the signatures of more
than half of all the 90 employees who signed the "Agreement to
Form Independent Association." Among those whose renunciation
of the Union was the initial step in the formation of the Association
were 4 of the old Committee, Chapin; Bartlett, Crawshaw, and
Stilson. Out of the 4 at the meeting of the nominating committee
who actually proposed the names of candidates for office in the Asso-
ciation, two, Baxter and Gray, were members of the old Committee.
Five of the 6 officials of the old Committee as it existed in October
1940, were elected officials of the Association. Under these circum-,
stances the Association necessarily appeared to the respondent's em-
ployees to be a revision or revival of the Committee and to succeed
the Committee as the recipient of the respondent's favor.,
Nor was there ever any sharp line of cleavage between the two
organizations. 17 The respondent did nothing "to mark the separa-
tion between the two organizations and publicly to deprive the suc-
14 The last election of committeemen to the Committee had been held a year or more
before October 1940 The Committee has never been formally dissolved. Chapin, who
had been a committeeman of the Committee continuously since it first was established,
testified that he remained a member until the "new organization " was started. Smith
testified that the Committee had been "discontinued " because "new officers and a new
grievance committee had been installed " on October 26, 1940 , at the first meeting of the
Association. Ray, another employee, testified that the Committee ceased to function
"right after or about the time" the Association was formed
JULIUS I(AYSER & CO. 833
cessor of the advantage of its apparently continued favor."" The
respondent's employees had seen the Committee join' with the re-
spondent in fighting the Union in 1939. They had seen in that year'
instances of the respondent's approval of the Committee and hostility
to the Union. In 1940 the respondent did nothing to disabuse them
of the impression that the acts of Chapin, Crawshaw, Baxter, and
Gray, and several other employees associated with them in the
organization and administration of the Association, were not regarded
with similar favor to that which had been manifested when the same
individuals had been active in connection with the formation and
functioning of the old Committee.19
While the Association was being organized, the employees of the
respondent were not notified that, regardless of the prior acts of
the respondent, they were free to exercise the rights guaranteed by
the Act without, fear of interference, restraint, or coercion 20 As
we have found, it was not until March -12, 1941, when the Associa-
tion was well entrenched, had an established membership, a treasury,
and a contract with the respondent, that the respondent posted a
notice in the Walton plant quoting the Order of the Board in the
prior proceeding 21 and, indicated that it was complying with the
'Order by withdrawing recognition from the old Committee and dis-
establishing it.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Association arose out
of and was the successor to the Committee; that the respondent,
through its domination of the Committee and its failure to disestablish
it prior to the organization of the Association, made 'possible the
ii Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co v. N. L R B , 112 F. (2d) 657 (C. C A. 2),
affirmed 61 S. Ct. 736
'9 On the contrary , as appears from our findings in Section III B , supra, the respondent
cooperated closely with Chapin and other leaders of the old Committee who were interested
in forming the Association and blocking the efforts of the Union to obtain bargaining
rights, recognized the Association as the ' sole bargaining agent without comparing the
signatures on "The Agreement" with any other document , and after recognition , itself
initiated bargaining negotiations in which it displayed unusual readiness to agree upon
terms and even granted unsolicited wage increases . Under the circumstances here present,
these activities of the respondent , though not in themselves reprehensible, encouraged the
employees in the belief that the Association had succeeded the Committee in the respond-
ent's favor
29 In Westinghouse Electric & Mfg . Co v N L . R B, supra, footnote 18, the court said:
The theory is that in cases such as this , where an unaffiliated ' union seems to the
employees at large to have evolved out of an earlier joint organization of employer
and employees , the Board may take it as datum , in the absence of satisfactory evi-
dence to the contrary , that the employees w ill suppose that the company approves the
new, as it did the old, and that their , choice is for that reason not as free as the
statute demands
To the- same effect see National Labor Relations Board v Stehls & Co ., Inc, February 6,
1942 (C C. A. 3) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Rath Packing Co , 115 F (2d) 217
(C. C. A. 8) ; National Labor Relations Board v Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Co., 308 U. S. 241 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Link -Belt Co , 311 U. S. 584;
Roebling Employees Ass'n v National Labor Relations Board, 120 F. (2d) 289 (C. C. A. 3) ;
Western Undon Telegraph Co v. National Labor Relations Board, 113 F. ( 2d) 992
(C. C A. 2)
21 Supra, footnote 4.
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
initiation and establishment of the Association; and that the respond-
ent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration
of the Association and contributed support thereto, and thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. 'THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act and to restore, as nearly as possible, the situation that existed
prior to the respondent's commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation of the Association and has contributed support
to it. By such domination, interference, and support the respondent
has prevented the free exercise of its employees' right to self -organiza-
tion and to collective bargaining. In order to remedy the respondent's
unlawful conduct and restore to the employees the full measure of
their rights guaranteed under the Act, we shall order that the re-
spondent withdraw all recognition from said Association as repre-
sentative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work and completely disestab-
lish it as such representative.
We have also found that on or about January 18,1941, the respondent
entered into an agreement with the Association, recognizing it as the
sole collective bargaining agent of its employees. By virtue of auto-
matic renewal provisions found therein, this agreement may still be -
in effect. We shall order the respondent, to cease and desist from
giving any effect to the contract of January 18, 1941, or to any exten-
sion, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any super-
seding contract which may now be in force. Nothing in this Decision
and, Order shall be taken to require the respondent to vary any non-
discriminatory wage, seniority, or other substantive features of its
relations with the employees themselves which the respondent estab-
JULIUS KAYSER & Co. '835
lished in performance of the invalid contract as extended, renewed,
modified, supplemented, or superseded.22
In view of our findings above, it is apparent that the respondent
has, by varying methods and over a long period of time, dominated
and interfered with labor organizations of its employees and thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent's course
of conduct discloses a fixed purpose to defeat self-organization and
its objects.
Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and, its underlying
purpose, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are
persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and
that a danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past.23 The pre-
ventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is co-
extensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of
unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act,
we will order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner
infringing the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
- 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. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, and the Independent Association of Tex-
tile Workers in Walton, New York, are labor organizations, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation of The Inde-
pendent Association of Textile Workers in Walton, New York, and
contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair. labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
22 See Matter of New Idea, Inc. and Federal Labor Union No. 21213, affiliated with the
A. F. ofL, 31N.L R.B.196
23 National Labor Relations Board v Express Publishing Co, 312 U S 426.
836 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 Julius Kayser & Co., Walton, New York, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns ' shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of The Independent Association of Textile Workers in Walton,
New York, or the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing support to said
labor organization or any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) In any manner recognizing The Independent Association of
Textile Workers in Walton, New York, as representative of any of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or conditions of work;
(c) In any manner giving effect to the contract of January 18, 1941,
between the respondent and The Independent Association of Tex-
tile Workers in Walton, New York, or to any supplement, modifica-
tion, extension, or renewal thereof;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form,, join,, and assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose 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) Withdraw all recognition from, and completely disestablish
The Independent Association of Textile Workers in Walton, New
York, as the representative of any of the respondent's employees for,
the purpose of dealing with' it concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at
Walton, New York, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its, employees
stating : (1)' that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it has_ been ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a),
(b), (c), and (d) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent 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 the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.