Lennox Furnace Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1940

20 N.L.R.B. 962 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of LENNOx FURNACE CO., INC. and SYRACUSE FEDERA-
TION OF LABOR
Cases Nos. C-1267 and R-1.30-5.-Decided February 28, 1940
Furnace and Air Conditioning Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Inter-
ference, Restraint, and . Coercion : engendering fear of loss of employment for
union activity ; discrediting union and union leaders ; expression of joy at
results of poll conducted in plant necessitating choice of union or company-
Company-Dominated Union: domination and interference with formation and
administration ; advocacy of unaffiliated labor organization by respondent ; out-
spoken hostility to "outside " union held to have resulted in organization of
company-dominated union; ordered disestablished-Discrimination: charges of,
dismissed-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargain big: production and main-
tenance employees , including the installers in the city department , but exclud-
ing executives , other supervisory employees , clerical employees , and teamsters-
Representatives : proof of choice : applications for union membership-Collec-
tive Bargaining: refusal to bargain in good faith ; refusal at outset of negotia-
tions to embody any agreement in a signed contract ; affirmative order to
bargain with the union and to embody understandings in written agreement
upon request-Investigation of Representatives : petition for, dismissed , in view
of order to bargain. -
Mr. Peter J. Crotty, for the Board.
Fraser Brothers, by Mr. Henry S. Fraser, of Syracuse, N. Y., for
the respondent.
Mr. Francis L. McElroy, of Syracuse, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Maurice W. Sharp, of Syracuse, N. Y, for the Association.
Mr. Louis C,ok'in;..of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 17 and September 10, 1938, and January 3 and Feb-
ruary 14, 1939, Syracuse Federation of Labor, on behalf of Sheet
Metal Workers International Association, Local 58, herein called
the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Third Region
(Buffalo, New York) charges and amended charges that Lennox
Furnace Co., Inc., Syracuse, New York, herein called the respondent,
20 N. L. R. B., No. 93.
962
LENNOX FURNA CE COMPANY, INC. 963
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On December 30, 1938, the Union filed a petition alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the respondent and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On January 20, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the Act and, Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, directed that,
an investigation be conducted upon'the petition and that an appro-
priate hearing be held upon due notice. On the same day, the
Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), and Article
III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered a
consolidation of the representation and unfair labor practice cases.
T'pon the charges and amended charges, the Board, by the Re-
gional Director for the Third Region, issued its complaint and
amended complaint dated February 6 and 15, 1.939, respectively,
against the respondent, alleging that it had engaged and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting' commerce, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. Copies of the complaint, the amended complaint, the petition,
the Board's order of consolidation and direction of investigation
and hearing, and notices of hearing on the complaint, the amended
complaint, and the petition, were duly served upon the respondent,
upon the Union, and upon Lennox Employees Association, herein
called the Association.
The complaint, as amended, alleged in substance : (1) that the re-
spondent fostered, encouraged, sponsored, and dominated the Asso-
ciation, interfered with its administration, and contributed support
to it; (2) that the respondent on or about July 12, 1938, and at all
times thereafter, refused and has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of employees of the
respondent in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining, although
the Union was on or about July 12, 1938, and at all times thereafter
has been, the duly designated representative of a majority of the
employees in such unit; (3) that on February 8, 1939, the respondent
terminated the employment of Charles Breh and Robert Guernsey,
employees of the respondent, and refused to reinstate or reemploy
them because they joined and assisted the Union; and (4) that by
these acts, by causing or permitting anti-union speeches on the re-
spondent's property and time, by threats to close down the plant,
and other acts, the respondent'-interfered with, restrained, and
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
On February 15, 1939, the Association filed a motion to intervene
in the proceedings with the Regional Director.. On February 16,
1939, the Regional Director granted the motion but limited the inter-
vention to matters directly affecting the Association.
On February 18, 1939, and at the hearing, respectively, the re-
spondent filed an-answer and an amended answer, in which it denied
that its manufacturing activities are interstate in nature, denied the
allegations of unfair labor practices, and alleged affirmatively that it
refused to bargain with the Union at all times subsequent to Novem-
ber 29, 1938, for the reason that it would have been illegal to do so.
The respondent's answer, as amended, also contained affirmative alle-
gations with respect to the two employees allegedly discharged for
union activities.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 20, 21, 23, 24,
27, 28, and March 1, 1939, at Syracuse, New York, before Madison
Hill, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board,
the respondent, the Union, and the Association were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. The Associa-
tion moved to intervene at the commencement of the hearing. The
motion was granted. At the commencement of the hearing, at the
close of the Board's case, and at the close of the hearing, counsel for
the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, as amended, on
various grounds. The motions were denied. At the close of tie
hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to
the proof. The motion was granted. During the course of the
hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi-
cial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On March 17, 1939, the respondent filed a brief. On April 26,
1939 the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of
which were duly served upon all parties, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in the unfair labor practices al-
leged in the amended complaint. On June 20 and 21, 1939, respec-
tively, the respondent and the Association filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report. On May 8, 1939, the respondent requested
oral argument before the Board. On July 1, 1939, the respondent
filed a brief.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent, upon the
Union,-and upon the Association, a hearing for the purpose of oral
LENNOX FURNACE COMPANY, INC. '965
argument was held before the Board on October 31, 1939, in Wash-
ington, .D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel and participated
in the argument. The Union and the Association did not appear.
The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and the
Association and the briefs of the respondent, and save as the excep-
tions are consistent 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 RESPONDENT
The respondent, an Iowa corporation, owns and operates plants at.
Marshalltown, Iowa, and Syracuse., New York, where it is engaged
in the business of manufacturing and distributing steel furnaces, air-
conditioning equipment, blowers, and oil burners. This proceeding
is concerned only with the plant at Syracuse.
In 1934 the Syracuse plant expended $160,000 for the purchase of
raw materials, 90 per cent of which were shipped to it from points
outside the State of New York. The respondent does an annual busi-
ness amounting to approximately $1,000,000 at its Syracuse plant,
84 per cent of which is derived front shipments made to points outside
the State of New York. The respondent employs approximately 110
employees at its Syracuse plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 58, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It
admits to membership all employees of the respondent engaged in
handling 10 gauge or lighter steel, excluding office workers, foremen,
other supervisory employees and watchmen.
Lennox Employees' Association is an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the respondent, including watchmen, but excluding de-
partment heads, foremen, other supervisory employees, and office
and clerical employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
On July 12, 1938, the Union held a, meeting attended by employees
of the respondent. On July 13 or 14, 1938, one Fredericks and. John
Speirs, representatives of the Union, called upon. Ralph E. Martin,
factory manager, and stated that the Union had been designated by
2 53031.-41-vol . 20-(12
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it majority of the respondent's employees and requested exclusive
recognition for the production and maintenance employees. - The
union representatives also indicated that they would ask for a closed
shop, and they asked Martin whether the respondent would sign an
agreement with the Union. Martin discussed the nature of a closed
shop with the union representatives, but stated that since he had no
.authority to bargain with the Union, the union representatives would
have to see Dana W. Norris, at that time general manager and sub-
sequently vice president of the respondent.
Norris had been in Buffalo. On July 13, 1938, E. T. Booth, secre-
tary-treasurer of the respondent, telephoned him in Buffalo from
Syracuse and informed him that the Union had held a meeting the
night before. On July 15, 1938, Norris returned from Buffalo. Mar-
-tin reported to Norris the subject of his conference with the Union.
Norris summoned the employees to a meeting which was held in the
plant during working hours on July 15. Norris explained to the
assembled employees that he had called them together to discuss
"several problems" of the respondent and to make "a declaration of
company policy with respect to collective bargaining." Norris then
delivered a talk to the assembled employees. In substance, he stated
that business conditions might necessitate lay-offs in the near future,
:set forth alleged rights of employees and employers under the Act,
and quoted portions of the opinion of the Supreme Court in National
Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.' In the
course of this speech, he twice characterized the representatives of
the Union who had called upon Martin as "outsiders." At one point,
in stating that the respondent would not "refuse to talk to any
group,!! Norris mentioned as an example thereof "outsiders, knowing
nothing about our business." With. respect to the demands of the
Union, Norris, among other things, said the following :
Now, that means that we have a perfectly legal right to refuse
to agree with anybody. I do not mean by that to state that we
are not going to agree with anybody. I will tell you definitely,
with all emphasis that I can put on it, that this company will
never agree with anybody to a closed shop. The reason why we
make that statement and take that attitude is that we will not
force our employees to pay tribute to any organization for the
right to work in this shop. That is what our employees would
have to do under a closed-shop agreement. We do not intend to
sign any agreement with any organization. The law does not re-
quire us to do so. It is not my place to express any opinion to
you men as to whether you should join any organization or should
1 301 U. S. 1.
LENNOX FURNACE COMPANY, INC. 967
not. It is to know exactly where we stand on this subject of
collective bargaining, signed agreements, and closed shops. I
don't mean by anything I have said that we will refuse to talk
to any group, whether that be outsiders, knowing nothing about
our business, whether that be a group representing your men, or
whether that be your [sic] nien as individuals. I will go a
little further than that and say that I will guarantee, so far
as I have it in nmy power to do so, that none of you has to pay
dues, assessments, or anything else to any outside organization
for the right to work in this plant. Conversely, I will guarantee
to any and all of you that your jobs will not be in jeopardy in-
any way, shape, or form simply because you do happen to join
any outside organization.
It will thus be noted that Norris stated categorically that he would
"never agree with anybody to a closed shop," and characterized such
an arrangement as compulsion upon an employee ' to pay "tribute"
for "the right to work." Although Norris asserted his willingness
"to talk to any group," he insisted that the respondent did "not intend
to sign any agreement with any organization."
On July 19, 1938, pursuant to agreement, Speirs, union representa-
tive, and Norris net in the plant.. At the opening of the conference,
Norris summoned eight employees and three supervisory employees
to attend and explained his action to Speirs as follows :
I have called in these fellows here representing the various
departments in the plant 2 because as long as we are going to talk
about wages and hours, I wanted them to know what was being
discussed.
Norris then asked Speirs whether he had "any statement or proposi-
tion to present." Speirs stated in reply that the object of the confer-
ence was to inform the respondent that the Union had been designated
by a majority of the employees and to confer with Norris about the
preliminaries incident to making a collective bargaining agreement.-
Speirs stated further that he had not expected "to meet with repre-
sentatives from all- the departments," that -he- was not yet prepared
to discuss terms and conditions of employment in detail, and that he
would soon receive from union headquarters a standard form of agree-
ment which he would then submit with appropriate insertions to the
respondent. There then ensued a general discussion in the course of
which Norris repeated portions of the speech which lie had delivered
to the employees on July 15. Norris asked Speirs whether the Union
The record does not indicate that ti:ese employee., represented their respective depart.
meets Other than by selection by N( rris.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA13OR RELATIONS BOARD
would demand a closed shop. Upon Speirs' affirmative reply,. Norris
stated the following :
... we are not going to agree with anybody as to a closed shop.
That is definite and final. Now the reason why we take that posi-
tion is that we believe, and the law says, that every employee has
the right to join or refrain from joining any organization, and
our opinion is that any agreement on our part to a, "closed shop"
would deny the employees the right which they are entitled to
under the Constitution of the country.
Norris again described a closed shop as forcing the employees to pay
"tribute" ' and insisted that the respondent's position in regard to the
closed shop was "definite and final and not a subject for discussion."
There was further general discussion in the course of which Speirs
stated that the Union would insist on a signed agreement and Norris
reiterated his position a number of times that no matter what pro-
posals the Union submitted, the respondent did "not intend to sign
any agreement." At the close of the conference Speirs indicated that
he would be prepared to submit concrete proposals at a subsequent
time. The respondent and the Union agreed to meet Monday, July 25.
On July 21, during the lunch period, Leon Heagle, at this time a
member of the Union and one of the employees selected by the re-
spondent to attend the conference of July 19, stated to a group of
employees that they would receive no benefits from the Union other
than the privilege of paying dues. Heagle testified he became dissatis-
fied with the Union for the first time at a meeting of the Union held
on July 20.4 This was the day after he attended the conference be-
tween the respondent and the Union at Norris' invitation. Another
member of the luncheon group suggested that Heagle summon the
employees to a meeting. Thereupon, Heagle, accompanied by Frank
Galuski, a member of the Union, and another of the employees who
attended the July 19 conference at Norris' request, asked Norris for
permission to address the employees. Norris granted him the. re-
quested permission. At the hearing Norris testified that he "suspected
that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Union question but
I had no idea what the outcome of the meeting" would be. Heagle and
Galuski returned to the already assembled employees in the plant and
a meeting followed. The meeting started during and continued beyond.
S Norris further stated in this connection: "I think it is pretty tough for the average
worker to-day to meet his grocery bills, rent, and all other personal living expenses
without being forced against his own choice to pay tribute for the right to work in any
shop. It is his legal privilege to do so, but the law does not force him to do it."
4 neagle was nominated for the office of secretary in the Union at this meeting but
declined the nomination "for good and substantial reasons." Fleaglo testified at the.
hearing that his reasons were that the Union knew nothing about the conditions at the
respondent 's plant.
LENNOX FURNACE COMPANY, INC. 969
the lunch period. The employees were not docked for the time spent
at this meeting. Heagle told the assembled employees, in substance,
that he had been to the "front office," that from his duties as a shipping
clerk he knew that the respondent was losing money, and that the
plant might close any day. An unidentified employee suggested that
the employees vote whether or not they wished to be represented by
the Union. Clarence Mitchell, foreman or group leader in charge of
the paint department, suggested that the ballot read, "Lennox or
Union." Heagle adopted Mitchell's suggestion. Accordingly, the em-
ployees were asked to vote for the respondent or for the Union. The
result of the balloting was as follows : 52 for the respondent, 12 for
the Union, 10 not voting.
After Norris had authorized the holding of the meeting, he went
to lunch, returned to his office, and waited between an hour and an
hour and a half "expecting to get word from somebody, as to what
had gone on at that meeting." Between 2 :30 and 3 :00 o'clock Heagle,
Galuski, and 'Bill Bell, an employee, came to Norris' office and in-
formed him of the vote and its outcome. A discussion ensued. Ga-
luski asked Norris what type of labor organization the respondent's
employees at Marshalltown, Iowa, had. Norris replied that the C. 1. 0.
had attempted to organize the plant and that a majority of the em-
ployees there, opposed to it, had organized a "Lennox Association."
Norris stated further to these three employees that his father had
told the employees in Marshalltown that if any trouble or a strike
occurred, he would shut the plant and go to California.
Immediately after this conversation Norris summoned the em-
ployees to a meeting at the plant and expressed his joy at the out-
come of the vote as follows : "I feel like getting drunk." He informed
the employees that the respondent had planned a sales program, that
"when the union trouble started I could see the whole thing go out
the window," and that now Norris could "sell" the program to his
father, president of the respondent, "if I can assure him we are not
going to have any labor trouble." Norris thanked the employees for
their expression of confidence in the respondent. He also requested
the employees not to discuss unions in the plant.
On July 25, pursuant to arrangement, Norris met with Speirs and
William Goff, representing the Union. Norris again summoned to
the conference five employees and three supervisory employees. At
this meeting there occurred a general discussion covering several
matters, including the balloting held on July 21. Norris stated that
in view of this vote, the respondent had no right to recognize the
Union as exclusive representative. Goff and Speirs challenged the
authenticity of the vote. Norris asked if the union representatives
were ready to submit a proposed contract. Speirs replied that the
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'.Union was . not yet so prepared because the July .21 balloting had
prevented the meeting at which the Union was to formulate its
specific bargaining demands. In the course of the conference Speirs
and Norris agreed that when Speirs was ready he would call Norris
"and set a date for another meeting." At the close of the conference
Goff stated that the Union would "lay the matter before the Board
to determine the bargaining agency.",
On August 17 and September 10, 1938, the Union filed a charge
with the Regional Director alleging that the respondent had'engaged
in unfair labor practices, within Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
On September 12 the Regional Director informed the respondent that
the Union had filed charges against it.
On October 5, 1938, a group of five employees called upon Maurice
H. Sharp, an attorney, informed him that they wished to form an
association, and requested him to draft. a constitution and bylaws.
Two 'of these five employees, Harry Coughenour and Gene Elliott,
had been selected by Norris to attend the conference between the
respondent and the Union held on July 25.
On October 10, 1938, four or all five of these employees met at
Sharp's office. Sharp submitted to this group a proposed constitution
which they approved. Sharp suggested that the organization be
called Lennox Employees' Association. He also submitted to the
group a proposed petition designating the Association as bargaining
agent.. At the close of the meeting the group decided to hold a gen-
eral meeting on October 12 at a place outside the plant.
On October 12, 1938, the meeting of the newly formed Association
was held as scheduled. The record does not disclose the number of
employees present at this meeting. Edward Mynton, an employee,
presided. Sharp read the constitution and, following some discus-
sion, promised to redraft the provisions relating to grievance pro-
cedure. Thereafter officers were elected. After some discussion of
eligibility requirements and the Act, the meeting adjourned.
Between October 13 and 17, 1938, about 100 employees came to
Sharp's office and there signed the petition purporting to designate
the Association.
On September 22, 1938, Speirs, representing the Union, and Norris,
representing the respondent, held a conference attended. by the
Regional Director of the Board. At this conference Norris stated :
. . . that the information that I had as to the attitude of a
good many of the men whom the Union claimed as members
was such that I did not think that the Union at that time truly
represented the majority of the employees.
LENNOX FURNACE COMPANY, INC. 971
Norris refused to. follow the recommendation .of the Regional Direc-
tor that the respondent "meet with representatives of the Union and
bargain with then in good faith, and notify the employees by means
of a bulletin" of the respondent's determination to do so. At the
close of the conference the Union and the respondent agreed to meet
at a subsequent time.
On October 14, 1938, the respondent and the Union held a further
meeting attended by the Regional Director. The respondent reiter-
ated the position which it had taken at the conference of September
22, namely that it did not believe that the Union represented a
majority and that it would not bargain with the Union. At the
close of the conference the respondent and the Union agreed to meet
again the following week.
On October 18, 1938, Sharp informed the respondent by letter of
the formation of the Association. On October 19, 1938, Sharp in-
formed the ^ respondent . by letter . that the Association represented a
majority and demanded exclusive recognition.
On October 21, 1938, pursuant to arrangement, Speirs and Goff,
representing the Union, and Norris, representing the respondent, met
in conference. Norris informed the union officials that the Associa-
tion claimed to represent a majority and that he therefore could not
recognize either the Union or the Association as the exclusive repre-
sentative. Goff thereupon suggested that the respondent recognize
the Union as representative of its 67 claimed members. Norris stated
that he could not accede to this suggestion because the Union and
the Association were , advancing conflicting. membership. - claims.
Speirs then asserted, and Norris denied, that the Association was com-
pany dominated. Norris proposed that an election be held. At first
the Union took the position that it was opposed to an election. Fol-
lowing some discussion, the Union offered to submit to an election
provided that Norris would post a "cease and desist" notice, whose
terms were to be agreed upon and provided further that the name of
the Association would not appear on the ballot. Norris stated that
he could not.speak for the Association. The Union thereafter pro-
posed that an election be conducted with the Association on the ballot
provided that the respondent would agree in advance to enter into
a closed-shop agreement with the organization which won the elec-
tion. Norris agreed to consider this proposal. The parties arranged
to meet again on October 27.
On October 21, 1938, Norris assembled the employees at the plant
and delivered a talk to them. He spoke briefly about the Association.
He then described in detail the employees' "prospects for continued
employment." With respect to the Association, Norris mentioned
its demand for exclusive recognition, stated his intention to require
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proof from the Association that it represented a majority and con-
-t.inued as follows : -
I made a statement last July upon the subject of a closed shop
which I really meant at that time. I am informed that that state-
ment constituted a violation of the law. I don't agree with that.
The reasoning behind the charge that it did constitute a violation
of the law, is not important, but I meant the. statement when I
said it, and when I made the statement that I would guarantee
that no man would be discriminated against in this shop because
he joined any labor organization or refused to join it, I meant
what I said, and I am absolutely impartial in that stand. It
doesn't make any difference to me what the labor organization
in question may be, whether it be Lennox Employees' Association
or any other; I still make the statement that you don't have to
belong to any organization to hold a job in this shop, as far as
I am concerned, and I want that thoroughly understood. In
other words, that is simply a policy on the part of the Company
management which applies to one and all labor organizations
alike.
On October 22, 1938, the respondent, replying by letter to the
demand of the Association for exclusive recognition, dated October
19, requested the Association to supply proof of majority designation.
On October 23, 1938, the Association met with the respondent.
Norris took the position that the respondent could not recognize the
Association because the Association and the Union were advancing
conflicting membership claims. He stated that an election by secret
ballot would be necessary. Norris also informed the Association
,of his meetings . with the Union and that the respondent and the
Union were to meet again on October 27.
On October 24, 1938, the Association sent the respondent a list
of members claimed by the Association. On October 26, 1938, the
respondent returned the list with an accompanying letter stating,
among other things, that under the circumstances it could not regard
the list as "conclusive." The letter also contained the following:
I must have unmistakable proof as to which of these rival
organizations our employees now want to have represent them
for purposes of collective bargaining, as I have. already told you
verbally. I am leaving it up to the organizations involved as to
what method may be adopted to provide me with conclusive evi-
dence of the wishes of our employees. I understand that your
Association is now proposing that an election be held under
impartial auspices to determine the answer to my question. This
procedure appears to be all right, but'I want it understood that
LENNOX lURNA'CE 00MPANY, INC. 973
I will have.:notliing.to do.personally with anything of that
kind.
On October 27, 1938, the respondent and the Union held a confer-
ence as scheduled. The respondent advised the Union that it could
not agree lawfully to enter into a closed-shop agreement with the
organization winning an election, that it would not consent to a closed
shop, and that it would discuss an election to be conducted by the
Board. Grant Radley, president of the Association, was present at
this,meeting with the Union's consent. The meeting adjourned, how-
ever, because the Union objected to the attendance of Sharp who,
without the knowledge. of the respondent, had been invited by Radley.
On November 2, 1938, the respondent and the Union held another
meeting attended by the Regional Director. The respondent sug-
gested that a representative of the Association be invited to be present
but abandoned the. suggestion because of the Union's opposition
thereto. At this.. meeting the