Lee Rubber and Tire Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1939

18 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORPORATION, REPUBLIC RUB-
BER DIVISION and UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 102,
AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1331.Decided December 1, 1939
Rubber Products Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coer-
cion: hire of employee to make reports on union activities ; surveillance by
supervisory officials of union meetings ; statements by supervisory employees
calculated to discourage membership in union-Company-Dominated Union:
charges of , dismissed-Discrimination : charges of , dismissed.
Mr. Edward Schneider, for the Board.
Mr. Norman A. Emery and Mr. Harry S. Manchester, of Youngs-
town, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Albert F. Gabusha, of Youngstown, Ohio, and Mr. Stanley
Denlinger, of Akron, Ohio, for the United.
Mr. Walter 0. R. Johnson, of Youngstown, Ohio, for the Inde-
pendent.
Mr. Sumner Marcus, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Rubber
Workers of America, Local 102, herein called the United, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Re-
gional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its
complaint dated May 4, 1939, against Lee Rubber and Tire Corpora-
tion, Republic Rubber Division, Youngstown, Ohio, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) 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 notices of hearing,
were duly served upon the respondent, upon- the United, and upon
Independent Association of Republic Rubber Employees, herein
called the Independent.
18 N. L. R. B., No. 13.
100
LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 101
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged,
in substance, that the respondent had (1) interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in their right of self-organization by sur-
veillance over the union activities and union meetings of its employees
and by making various statements designed to discourage membership
in the United; (2) dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the Independent and contributed financial and
other support to it; and (3) discriminatorily discharged two of its
employees, Lloyd Landahl and Thomas Hallman.
On May 10, 1939, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint,
denying that its operations affected interstate commerce and denying
that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the complaint was held in Youngs-
town, Ohio, from May 22 through 26, 1939, and from May 31 through
June 8, 1939, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, the United, and
the Independent, which intervened in the proceeding, were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During
the course of the hearing counsel for the Board made a motion, in
which the United joined, that the complaint be'dismissed in so far as
it related to.the discharge of Landahl and of Hallman. The Trial
Examiner granted this motion. At the close of the Board's case,
and again at the close of the hearing, the respondent moved to dis-
miss the complaint and each of its various allegations, and the Inde-
pendent moved to dismiss the allegation that it was company dom-
inated. The, Trial Examiner denied these motions. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made numerous other rul-
ings on motions and on objections 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 July 17, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served on all parties, in which he
found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended, inter alia,
that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices;
that it withdraw recognition from the Independent as a collective
bargaining representative of its employees; and that it take certain
other action to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair
labor practices.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, the respondent and the Independent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and briefs in support thereof . Pursuant
to notice , oral argument was had before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on November 9 , 1939. The respondent , the Independent, and
the United were represented by counsel at this hearing and presented
their arguments.
The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and has considered the briefs filed in support of them, and save for
those exceptions which are inconsistent with the findings , conclusions,
and order hereinafter set forth , herewith sustains them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board . makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent , Lee Rubber and Tire Corporation , Republic Rub-
ber Division , a New ' York corporation having its principal office and
place of business at Conshohocken , Pennsylvania , and plants at Con-
shohocken, Pennsylvania, and Youngstown, Ohio, is engaged in the
manufacture , sale, and distribution of pneumatic and solid rubber
tires and miscellaneous rubber goods . The present case is concerned
only with the respondent's plant located in Youngstown, Ohio, which
is known as the Republic Rubber Division of the respondent.
The aggregate cost of raw materials , consisting of crude rubber,
reclaimed rubber , fabrics, hose cords, coal, and compounding and
miscellaneous materials , purchased by the respondent for use in its
business during the year 1938 amounted to $919,273, of which 89
per cent were purchased and received from outside the State of Ohio.
During this same year, the total value of the respondent 's finished
products amounted to $3,086,223 . Seventy-eight per cent of these
finished products were shipped outside the State of Ohio.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Rubber Workers of America , Local 102, is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations which
admits to membership all production and maintenance employees
of the respondent , excluding supervisory and clerical employees.
Independent Association of Republic Rubber Employees is a labor
organization affiliated with the Independent Association of America
which admits to membership all of the respondent 's employees, ex-
cept company officials and such hourly or weekly paid employees
as have the authority to employ or discharge.
LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 103
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The first occasion upon which the respondent's employees sought
to organize themselves for the purpose of collective bargaining was
in 1934, when some of them became members of Federal Labor Union
No. 19,123 of the American Federation of Labor. The first president
of this organization was Arthur Campbell, one of the respondent's
employees. At approximately the same time as this organization
came into being, the respondent bought the services of National
Corporation Service, Inc., which furnished reports to the respondent
on union activities and other matters. Arthur Campbell furnished
to National Corporation Service, Inc., reports on union activities
and other matters at the plant. In December 1934, the respondent
ceased to purchase services from National Corporation Service, Inc.,
but from December 1934 until about May 1936, Arthur Campbell
furnished reports on union activities and other matters directly to
the respondent and received payment for so doing from the respond-
ent. Sometime in 1935, Campbell ceased to be president of. said
Local 19,123. However, he continued to be a member of this organi-
zation and of an organization which succeeded it at the plant, Local
29 of United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, until his employment by the respondent
was terminated in November 1936.
At the hearing the respondent conceded the truth of the above
recitals, but objected to the admission of evidence concerning them, on
the ground that these facts were immaterial because they related to
events occurring prior to the organization of the United and of the
Independent. We find that throughout the period from July 5, 1935,
the effective date of the Act, to November 1936, the respondent hired
and retained Arthur Campbell as a labor spy for the purpose of
making reports to it on the union activities of its employees,' and
that during said period Campbell made such reports to the
respondent.
In February 1937, the United Rubber Workers of America, affili-
ated with the Committee for Industrial Organization,) began to
organize the respondent's employees, and on March 16, 1937, granted
to the respondent's employees who were members of the United a
charter as Local 102. The United met with the respondent on April
20, 21, and 23, 1937, for the purpose of negotiating an agreement,
1 A description of the respondent's espionage activities through National Corporation
Service, Inc., is to be found in the report of the Hearings on S. Res . 266, before a Sub-
committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, 75th Cong., Part 25, Exhibit 44,222
( Bd. Exh. 20), and Part 1 , pages 359 and 362 ( Bd. Exh. 21).
2 Now Congress of Industrial Organizations.
2S3029-41-vol. 18-8
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and on April 23, 1937, entered into an unsigned memorandum agree-
ment for members of the United concerning the procedure for sub-
mitting grievances to the management. This agreement was posted
on the respondent's bulletin boards from April 24 to 27, 1937. There-
after, and continuing until the time of the hearing, the respondent
and the United met on numerous occasions for the purpose of dis-
cussing grievances.
The respondent engaged in many acts of intimidation, restraint,
and coercion with respect to its employees from approximately the
time the United began to organize the respondent's employees and
continuing almost up to the date of the hearing. On March 14,
1937, just prior to the time when the United was to begin one of
its meetings, two of the respondent's supervisory officials, Employ-
ment Manager George Hodgson, and General Foreman Fred Shanks,
who were in an automobile, drove slowly by the hall where the
meeting was to be held, picking up speed after they passed it. About
15 minutes later, they returned from the opposite direction,. and
repeated this procedure. That evening the president of the United,
D. F. Doran, who had seen Hodgson and Shanks in front of the. hall
where the meeting was held, telephoned Shanks and asked him what
he had found out that afternoon. Shanks asked who was speaking,
and Doran, without specifically stating, indicated to Shanks that he
was Herbert Croysdale, the respondent's vice president in charge of
the plant. Shanks, believing that it was Croysdale, apologized to
Doran for not having recognized him, and said, "You mean the
union meeting this afternoon." When Doran said that he did,
Shanks stated that "The only ones that were there were Duncan Miller
from my department 3 and I don't know what George found out."
The respondent did.not offer Hodgson or Shanks as witnesses,
although Hodgson was present throughout the hearing, and although
there was no showing that Shanks was unavailable. Nor did the
respondent offer evidence of any kind to refute the testimony of two
Board witnesses,' Doran and Clark, regarding the afore-mentioned
events. Furthermore, although the respondent excepted to many
portions of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, it did not
except to the finding that Hodgson and Shanks drove past the meet-
ing place of the United in order to keep the meeting under sur-
veillance. Accordingly, we find that on March 14, 1937, the re-
spondent, through two of its officials, Hodgson and Shanks, engaged
in surveillance of a union meeting of its employees.
The record also discloses, and we find, that on May 1 and May 7,
1937, upon at least three occasions the respondent, through other of
its supervisory officials, engaged in further surveillance over the
3 Duncan Miller was one of the employees in Shanks' department.
LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 105
meetings of its employees who were members of the United. Al-
though there is some conflict. in the evidence, we are satisfied in the
light of the entire record, that on the afore-mentioned dates Foreman
William Taylor drove slowly past the front of the hall where the
United held its meetings several times for the purpose of finding out
who was attending the meeting and what was occurring in the hall;
that for the same purposes Foreman Ralph Nash twice drove slowly
past the hall where the union meeting was being held; and that a
third supervisory employee, Ray Froom, attempted to peer into the
hall where the union held its meeting, for the purpose of discovering
what was occurring therein.
At about the time the United entered into an unsigned memo-
randum agreement with the respondent in April 1937, Vice-Presi-
dent Croysdale called President Doran of the United into his office
on two occasions within a week and attempted to dissuade Doran
from continuing his activities in the United and to persuade him to
form an inside organization at the plant. Croysdale told Doran
that the members of the United would give Doran grievances and
then make him "the goat" by not backing him up. Croysdale sug-
gested to Doran that he should accompany Croysdale to a meeting
of the Mahoning Valley Foremen's Association, where he could learn
"both sides" of the union question, rather than be a "radical" going
off "half cocked." He also asked Doran to join the organization and
offered to pay his initiation fee. Croysdale further stated that he
would help Doran in any way he could to form an independent
organization, and more specifically, if Doran and the others formed
an independent union he would "see that every son of a bitch in this
plant belongs." Croysdale called Doran to the office on other occa-
sions in 1937 and made statements of similar import.
Sometime in the latter part of 1937, at a stag party which was
attended by employees of the respondent, Croysdale asked Walter
Zebrak, an employee in the belt department, how the employees in
his `department were "taking to" the United. Although Zebrak
answered that, as far as he, knew, the men were not very interested,
Croysdale went.on to say that he could not see why the employees
were not satisfied, since they were being treated satisfactorily.
During a grievance conference with the United on May 19, 1938,
Croysdale stated that the "Akron bunch . . . are only after your
money" and that the respondent's plant was old, and that, if there was
any "labor trouble," the respondent was going to move its plant.
Croysdale was not offered as a witness by the respondent after
testimony regarding these statements was introduced, nor did the
respondent adduce testimony to refute the witnesses who testified
concerning these statements. The Trial Examiner found that Croys-
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dale made the statements attributed to him by Zebrak and Doran.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding.
The record is replete with evidence of statements made by other
supervisory officials of the respondent concerning the United which
tended to discourage membership in it from the time the United
began to organize until shortly prior to the hearing. For example,
in April or May 1937, Foreman Hugh Campbell told Kenneth Simp-
son, an employee in the belt department who had joined the United
several weeks previously, that he had heard that someone by the
name of Simpson had joined the United, and asked Simpson if he
was satisfied with the way the respondent was treating him. When
Simpson said that he was, Campbell asked him why he had joined
.the United. Campbell also inquired concerning the names of the
organizers of the United, and stated that "the organization. was all
right as long as they had the right people running it" Although,
at the conclusion of his testimony, Campbell denied categorically
having made the above-quoted statement to Simpson, it is clear from
his entire testimony, and the findings of the Trial Examiner, who
from his observation of the demeanor of the witnesses had an oppor-
tunity to form a trustworthy opinion as to their credibility, that
Campbell did make the inquiry and statements attributed to him by
Simpson for the purpose of discouraging membership in the United,
and we so find.
In the latter part of April or the first part of May 1938, Louis
Bergman, an assistant supervisor in the trimming department, asked
one of the employees working under him, Dent Crytzer, whether
Crytzer belonged to the C. I. O. When Crytzer said that, he did not,
Bergman told him that "some of the boys" were starting an independ-
ent organization which was going to get more work for the men,
and told Crytzer where and when the next meeting of this organ-
ization was to be held, and suggested that it would be a good idea if
Crytzer went to see what "it was all about." Bergman denied
categorically having had such a conversation with Crytzer. We find,
as did the Trial Examiner, that Bergman made the statements attrib-
uted to him by Crytzer.
On one occasion during lunch hour around the end of March 1939,
two employees in the mat department, Joseph Biro and Leo Dietz,
were having a conversation when Harley Ortrnan, the foreman of the
mat department and their superior, approached them and, without
determining what they were discussing, stated : "No God damn union
talk in here. If you want to talk get the hell out of here but no
talking in here." Ortman admitted stating to these employees that
they could not talk unionism in the plant. When questioned as to
the circumstances under which employees were permitted to discuss
LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 107
unions in the plant, his answers were vague and contradictory. We
find that Ortman directed Biro and Dietz not to talk about the
United in order to discourage their membership therein.
We find that the respondent by hiring a labor spy,' by keeping
under surveillance the union activities of its employees, including
their meetings; and by making various statements to its employees
which were calculated to discourage membership in the United, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged domination of the Independent
In March 1938 several of the respondent's employees, including
Walter Homer, Clyde Magee, Charles Baker, and Richard Kutan,
began to discuss the possibilities of forming an independent organ-
ization of the employees at the respondent's plant. According to the
testimony of these men, their reason for doing so was dissatisfaction
with the United, and particularly their fear that if the United con-
tinued to represent the employees of the respondent, it would call
what they believed to be an unnecessary strike and cause a loss of
work to the employees. After talking to the employees mentioned
above, as well as to other employees who indicated their interest in
an independent organization, Homer discussed the question with
Davis, the president of an independent organization at General Fire-
proofing Company, also located in Youngstown. Davis gave Homer
information concerning his own organization and further agreed to
address employees of the respondent who were interested in forming
an independent organization.
Sometime in April 1938 a meeting of 15 or 20 of the respondent's
employees was held in the basement of the Non-Partisan Club, a
building owned by a social organization in Youngstown. Davis ad-
dressed this group concerning the formation of an independent organ-
ization, and a discussion regarding this matter was held after his
speech. At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed to hold a
second meeting the following week at the same place. At the second
meeting, held a week later, there was further discussion concerning
the formation of an independent union, and a decision to print
application cards to be distributed to the respondent's employees and
to fix dues for the organization to be formed at a dollar a year with
an initiation fee of 50 cents.
' Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf, Trailer Co., 301 U. S . 49 rev'g. 85 F.
(2d) 391 (C. C. A. 6 ), and enf'g. Matter of Fruehauf Trailer Company and United Auto-
mobile Workers Federal Labor Union, No . 19375, 1 N. L. R. B. 68.
e National Labor Relations Board v . Lund et at . ( Christian A. Lund, doing business as
C. A. Lund Company and Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, et al.), 103 F. (2d)
815 (C . C. A. 8). enf 'g. Matter of C. A. Lund Company and Novelty Workers Union, Local
1866. 6 N. L. R . B. 423.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the second meeting at the Non-Partisan Club, Homer secured
the services of a Youngstown attorney, Walter Johnson, to represent
the organization which was being formed. On May 7, 1938, Johnson
addressed a group of the respondent's employees who were interested
in the new organization at a meeting held in the American Legion
Hall in Youngstown. Thereafter regular monthly meetings of the,
new organization were held, at which the organization's business
was transacted, and which were occasionally addressed by outside
speakers, such as officers of the independent organization at General
Fireproofing Company and the president of the Independent Asso-
ciation of America. At the meeting of October 22, 1938, a constitu-
tion for the organization, which was named the Independent
Association of Republic Rubber Employees, was approved by the
membership, and permanent officers were elected.
Meanwhile, on September 17, 1938, 20 or 25 employees of the
respondent met at the office of Attorney Johnson and decided to
circulate among the respondent's employees a petition, stating that
the signers were in sympathy with the aims and purposes of the
Independent and authorizing the officers of the Independent to rep-
resent them in all matters affecting rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, and their relationship as employees to the respondent. The
record does not disclose how many employees authorized the Inde-
pendent to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining
with the respondent. In any case, after some negotiations, on
December 21, 1938, the respondent entered into an unsigned memo-
randum agreement with the Independent, which was posted on the
respondent's bulletin board for 2 days. The agreement between the
respondent and the Independent is similar to that previously entered
into between the respondent and the United, in that it relates chiefly
to the procedure for the taking up of grievances, but differs from
the latter in that there is no provision for arbitration of grievances
which cannot be adjusted otherwise.
At a meeting held by the Independent on November 5, 1938, the
Independent voted to affiliate with the Independent Association of
America, an association of "independent" unions. Although the In-
dependent ceased to pay any dues to the Independent Association of
America some time prior to the hearing, the affiliation continued
until the time of the hearing.
The Independent continued to hold regular monthly meetings up
to the date of the hearing.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Independent
and had contributed financial and other support to it. He based his
finding solely on the fact that employees had participated in the
LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 109
formation and administration of the Independent for whose actions
he considered the respondent to be responsible. The Trial Examin-
er's findings with respect to participation by supervisory employees
of the respondent related to three such employees : Herbert Gilmore,
Raymond Logan, and Rudy Anderson.
Gilmore is in charge of the respondent's printing department,
which, including himself, consists of three of the respondent's ap-
proximately 650 employees. He prepares the work to be done by
himself and the other two employees in the department, and assigns
work to these two employees. If the work of the two employees is
unsatisfactory, he may recommend their discharge.
Gilmore attended the first meeting of the employees interested in
forming an independent organization, which was held in April 1938
at the Non-Partisan Club. Gilmore testified that, prior to the hold-
ing of this meeting, he had not been informed that there was a move-
ment to start an independent organization of the employees at the
plant. The explanation which he gave for his presence at this
meeting was that he customarily came to the Non-Partisan Club,
of which he was a member, two or three times a week for the pur-
pose of playing cards ; that he had gone to the club on the evening on
which the first meeting of the employees was held solely in order
to play cards; that while there, he met Homer, who told him about
the meeting and asked him if. he desired to participate in it. Gil-
more agreed to do so. Becoming interested in the organization which
was being formed, Gilmore also attended the second meeting held at
the Non-Partisan Club, at which he agreed to join the organization
and paid his initiation fee and a dollar dues. Gilmore also attended
the first meeting of the new organization which was held at the
American Legion Hall on May 7, 1938. During a general discussion
at this meeting concerning the question whether the payment of dues
entitled a member to membership for. an entire year or only until
January 1, 1939, Gilmore said "a few words" and stated that it was
his opinion that dues were for the period only until January 1, 1939.
Although Gilmore testified that he attended no meetings after this,
it is apparent from Homer's testimony that Gilmore attended at
least one more meeting of the organization, namely, the one held at
the American Legion Hall on May 14, 1938. In any case on June
24, 1938, Gilmore submitted to Homer, who was then the temporary
president of the organization, a letter stating that "due to certain
conditions arising as to my position with Republic Rubber Division,
I find it advisable to resign and withdraw my application for mem-
bership in your Independent Order of Republic Rubber Employees."
Gilmore testified that the reason he left the organization was that in
an address to the members of the organization Attorney Johnson
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that department managers could not belong to it, and also be-
cause Homer asked him to leave the organization. Homer testified
.that Gilmore told him, when he was thinking of resigning, that he
did not belong in the organization and did not want to inconvenience
the other men.
Rudy Anderson was employed for approximately 18 years by
the respondent prior to the hearing. During the 3 years preceding
March 1, 1938, he was a supervisor in the trimming department.
On March 1, 1938, he ceased to be a supervisor, and became a produc-
tion worker. His new work was confined to the operation of a
tumbling machine in a part of the plant separate from the other
employees. He is the only employee in the plant engaged in that
particular type of work. He receives the same salary at the present
time as he did when he was a supervisor.
Anderson joined the Independent at the end of May 1938, and was
active on its behalf.
Logan was employed by the respondent for 5 or 6 years prior to
the hearing. Before February 28, 1938, he was engaged in super-
visory and inspection work. From February 28 to December 31,
1938, he worked in the channel department on production and inspec-
tion. He did no supervisory work during this period. From Janu-
ary 1 to May 13, 1939, he was again employed in supervisory and
inspection work. From May 13, 1939, to the date of the hearing,
he did only production work.
Logan was one of the employees of the respondent who was present
at the meeting in Johnson's office on September 17, 1938, described
above. He took one of the petitions which were handed to the
employees that day, and returned it about a month later with eight
or nine signatures on it. He solicited these signatures both at work
and at employees' homes. In soliciting the signatures, he stated that
the United was a "radical organization," and urged employees to
authorize the Independent to be their bargaining representative.
We find that Gilmore occupies such a position in the respondent's
plant as to make the respondent responsible for his acts with refer-
ence to the employees' choice of labor organizations. However, we
do not find that his activities, under the circumstances here present,
warrant a finding that the respondent dominated or interfered with
the formation and administration of the Independent. Nor do we
find that the respondent can be held responsible for Anderson's and
Logan's acts with regard to the Independent, since neither Anderson
nor Logan held a supervisory position or otherwise represented the
respondent in its dealings with its employees at the time they
engaged in the activities in question.
LEE RUBBER AND TIRE CORP., REPUBLIC RUBBER DIVISION 111
We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with
the formation or administration of the Independent, or contributed
support to it. We shall order that the complaint be dismissed in so
far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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.
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. United Rubber Workers of America, Local 102, and Independent
Association of Republic Rubber Employees are labor organizations,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, with-
in the meaning of Section 8 (2) and (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Lee Rubber and Tire Corporation, Republic Rubber Divi-
sion, Youngstown, Ohio, and its . officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist United Rubber Workers of
America, Local 102, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganizations or any other 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) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in
the manner set forth in paragraph 1;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it alleges
that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the admin-
istration of, and contributed support to, Independent Association of
Republic Rubber Employees within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of
the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Lloyd Landahl and Thomas Hallman, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.