Lincoln Bearing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 1069 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

LINCOLN BEARING COMPANY 1069
requested by the Petitioner are, in any event inappropriate. The Pe-
titioner has limited its unit requests to bathhouse attendants, elevator
operators, and the bathhouse porters. It does not seek to include the
masseurs, the clerical workers who sell tickets and act as cashiers, the
maintenance men, boilerroom engineers, and the porters who work else-
where than within the confines of the bathhouses. Neither the cate-
gories sought to be included nor those whom the Petitioner would
exclude are so highly skilled as to suggest that their interests and work-
ing conditions are dissimilar to all the other groups. They are all em-
ployed as part of a service organization, subject to similar conditions
of employment, and with similar interests in their wages, hours, and
other terms of employment.
In view of our finding that the unit requested by the Petitioner,
even if limited to individual employer units, is inappropriate, we shall
dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER RODGERs , concurring :
Without necessarily disagreeing with what my colleagues have said,
I would dismiss the petition on the flat ground that it would not ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over bathhouse
activities.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
Lincoln Bearing Company and International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO
Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 8-CA-P289, 8-CA-
2247, and 8-CA-2259. October 16, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 13,1961, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent has been engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report and a supporting brief.
133 NLRB No. 109.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, excep-
tions, brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Lincoln Bearing
Company and Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company, Cleveland, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Soliciting signed cards from the employees for any union.
(b) Warning, threatening, promising benefits, exacting promises
to support the Company as against the Union, and interrogating them
concerning their membership in or activities on behalf of the above-
named Union or any other labor organization in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing such employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Leedom , Fanning, and Brown].
2 We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner's credibility
rulings are erroneous and should be overruled . As the clear preponderance of all relevant
evidence does not demonstrate that the credibility findings are incorrect , we hereby adopt
them. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
s Like the Trial Examiner , we find that the Respondent 's interrogation of its employees
after October 19, 1960, during the pendency of a Board proceeding to determine the repre-
sentative status of the Union was coercive and hence is in violation of Section 8(a) (1).
Cecil J . Daggett, et al., d/b /a Allied Chain Link Fence Company, 126 NLRB 608 Con-
trary to the Respondent 's contention , the rule of Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB
591, is inapplicable to the facts of this case. Here the Respondent knew that a secret
election was scheduled by the Board , and there was, therefore , no legitimate reason for its
questioning employees as to how they intended to vote in the election . See Balls Egg
Products, Inc., 121 NLRB 873, footnote 1. Moreover, the Regional Director acted within
his authority in setting aside the settlement agreement . See Courier Post Publishing
Company, 102 NLRB 26, 28. Accordingly , we also adopt the Trial Examiner 's conclusions
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act between August 1960 and
October 17 , 1960, by soliciting signed cards for a favored union , interrogating employees,
threatening loss of employment , exerting financial pressure , promising benefits , and exact-
ing a promise to support the Company against the Union.
LINCOLN BEARING COMPANY 1071
(a) Post at its plant in Cleveland, Ohio, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region,'shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent or its representatives, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees concern-
ing union activities in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits upon condition that
they do not support International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, nor shall we exact promises of their support against the said
Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
the aforesaid Union or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to,
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining , members in good standing of International
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
LINCOLN BEARING COMPANY AND LINCOLN
BEARING SURPLUS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding with all parties represented was heard before W . Gerard Ryan,
the duly designated Trial Examiner , at a hearing held in Cleveland , Ohio, on
February 2 and 3 , 1961 . The issues presented by the pleadings were whether Lincoln
Bearing Company and Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company constituted a single
employer (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ) and had violated Section
8(a)(1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act . The Respondent filed a brief on
March 24 , 1961 , and the Union filed a brief on March 27 , 1961 . No brief was re-
ceived from the General Counsel.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
It was stipulated that Lincoln Bearing Company and Lincoln Bearing Surplus
Company would constitute a single employer if Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company
had employees and engaged in any business , transacted any affairs of any kind, and
had people on its payroll involved in this labor dispute.
The Respondent 's answer was orally amended at the bearing so as to admit the
commerce allegations of paragraph 2 of the complaint as it applies to the Lincoln
Bearing Company and with respect to the Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company
that it is an Ohio corporation but does not engage in business , has no employees on
its payroll , has no property , and does not transact any affairs.
It is noted that in Case No . 8-CA-2247 the settlement agreement and the notice
attached thereto were signed by Lincoln Bearing Company by its president, Louis
Levine, and in Case No. 2259 the settlement agreement and the notice attached
thereto were signed by Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company by its president, Louis
Levine . Thus, to that extent, at least , Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company has partici-
pated in the transaction.
Accordingly for the purposes of this proceeding , I find that both companies above
named constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act and will hereinafter
be referred to as the Respondent.
The answer was orally amended further at the hearing to admit that Lincoln
Bearing Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and in
the course and conduct of its operations at Cleveland , Ohio, annually ships finished
products valued in excess of $100,000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio.
Accordingly, I find the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A charge was filed in Case No. 8-CA-2247 by the above-named Union on Sep-
tember 1, 1960 , against Lincoln Bearing Company that the said Company since on
or about August 31, 1960, had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
LINCOLN BEARING COMPANY 1073
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating
Section 8 (a)( 1) of the Act. -
A charge was filed in Case No. 8-CA-2259 by the above-named Union on Sep-
tember 22 , 1960, against Lincoln Bearing Surplus Company that the said Company
since on or about August 31, 1960, had interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby
violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
On October 17, 1960, the Respondent and the Union executed and entered into a
settlement agreement in Case Nos . 8-CA-2247 and 8-CA-2259 approved by the
Regional Director on October 19, 1960, providing inter alia that Respondent will
comply with the following terms and provisions of a notice to all employees:
The employer will not assist , contribute support to, or interfere with the
formation or administration of any labor organization of its employees, or
otherwise interfere with the representation of its employees through a labor
organization of their own choosing.
The employer will not in any manner interfere with , restrain or coerce its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from
any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act , as modified by
the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
On November 10, 1960 , the Union filed an original charge against Lincoln Bear-
ing Company in Case No . 8-CA-2289, the pertinent parts of which stated that on
or about October 25 or 26, 1960 , the employer engaged in various acts of interro-
gation , unlawful threats , and restraint and coercion of employees in violation of
Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
On November 23, 1960 , an amended charge was filed in Case No. '8-CA-2,289,
the pertinent part of which restated the 8(a )( 1) violation in the original charge.
On December 20, 1960 , the Union filed a second amended charge in Case No.
8-CA-2289, that in violation of Section 8(a)f(1) of the Act-
On or about October 25, 1960 , and on various dates since that time it [Lincoln
Bearing Company] by its officers , agents, and representatives , interrogated its
employees , in a manner constituting unlawful threat, restraint , and coercion of
its employees in violation of the Act.
On the following day, December 21, 1960 , the Regional Director notified the
Respondent that the settlement agreements in Cases Nos . 8-CA-2247 and
8-CA-2259 were set aside and that a complaint should issue in Cases Nos.
8-CA-2247, 8-CA-2259, and 8-CA-2289.
Thereafter, a consolidated complaint was issued on December 28, 1960, and an
amendment to the consolidated complaint was issued on January 12, 1961.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleged that since on or about
August 25 , 1960 , in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) the Respondent interrogated em-
ployees; exacted promises from them to vote against the Union; warned of layoffs
if the Union won the election; promised and granted wage increases and other
economic benefits to them from promises to vote against the Union and to refrain
from supporting the Union; and advised employees they would be better off joining
and supporting another labor organization selected and supported by Respondent
and solicited employees to sign authorization cards for such organization.
With particular attention to unfair labor practices on and after October 19, 1960,
the complaint alleged that in violation of Section 8(a)(1), the Respondent interro-
gated its employees ; warned of layoffs if the Union won the election ; exacted promises
to vote against the Union , and promised and granted the wage increase to one em-
ployee if he promised to vote against the Union, supported the Respondent, and
refrained from supporting the Union , or in order to induce the employee to do so.
From the foregoing, it is seen that the complaint as amended consolidates allega-
tions relating to the violations during the period covered by the settlement agree-
ment with those relating to violations occurring after the settlement agreement. The
Board will honor a settlement agreement and will not set it aside unless there is a
624067-62-vol. 133-69
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
breach of . the agreement or a subsequent independent violation of the Act by the
parties to the agreement . (Jackson Manufacturing Company, 129 NLRB 460.)
Where , after. the execution of a settlement agreement , unfair labor practices occur
which violate that agreement, the Board will go behind the agreement -and litigate
the presettlement as well as the postsettlement violations . ( Courier Post Publishing
Company, 102 NLRB 26, 28.)
Accordingly, I shall first determine whether there has been a breach of the settle-
ment agreement or an independent violation of the Act after the approval of the
agreement before considering the allegations of the complaint relating to the pre-
settlement period.
Dorothy Cole , whom I credit, testified that on the day before the election Louis
Levine whispered to her and asked if she was against the Union . She testified:
Q. Was there anything at that time about union matters?
A. No. He just asked me the question , and I misunderstood him. I thought
he said , "Are you against the Union" end I said yes, and . . . well .• .. he
called me up that evening.
Cole then testified that Louis Levine telephoned to her sister that evening who got
word to her to call Levine because Cole did not have a telephone at that time. Her
testimony continued:
Q. Did you call him back?
A. I called him back and he said that he misunderstood me when he asked
me was I for the Union, and I said no . I had misunderstood him. I admit it.
I meant to say that I was, you know , against. I got the conversation wrong.
So I called him back that I was against the Union.
Cole testified further that an hour before the election Louis Levine remarked to
her while she was-at work at the assembly table that he heard she was working for
the Union to which she replied, "No, I don 't believe that I have ever told you that."
He asked her , "Are you still with us, then?" And she replied , "Yes."
. Rose Slumski, whom I credit , testified that during the week of the election she was
called to the office where Louis Levine showed her a sample ballot and asked her if
she-had seen that before . She replied - that she had when they voted at General
Electric where she was working. Levine asked her how she had voted there and she
told him she did not vote as she was undecided and did not put "Yes" or "No" on
the ballot . Levine then told her that if she did not put anything down it would be
a vote for the Union.
Ellen A . Houser , whom I credit,' testified that on the day before the election Louis
Levine asked her in the shop if.she was still voting "No" to the Union and she replied
in the - affirmative. -
On the basis of the foregoing credited testimony of Cole , Slumski , and Houser I
find that the Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees by its
president , - Levine, interrogating them as to whether they were prounion or anti-
union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It undoubtedly was calculated to
have an effect on the employees in the exercise of their free choice in the election and
was designed to influence votes against the Union. Such conduct by the Respond-
ent constituted a repudiation of the Respondent's agreement not to interfere with the
representation of its employees through a labor organization of their own choosing
nor in any manner to interfere with, restrain , or coerce its employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
the aforesaid Union or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining , or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from
any or all such activity, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
The General Counsel also called as a witness Dewey Pack who testified that on
October 19 , 1960, he was called to the office where Earl Levine complained that the
night shift was not getting out enough work . According to Pack , he answered by
saying that he had been promised a raise more than 4 months ago and had not re-
ceived it; that Louis Levine then wanted to know how much Pack was paid and Pack
replied $1 .60 per hour, and that 'others hired later than Pack were receiving $1.70
per hour . Pack continued to testify that after Louis Levine - verified the $1.60
amount he told Pack he would get $1 .70 per hour starting then and it would be
retroactive from May or June . Pack testified that Earl Levine spoke up and said,
LINCOLN BEARING , COMPANY 1075
"Maybe we had better wait until we have had the election." Pack testified further
that he was then told by Earl Levine that after the election he would pay him the
probable amount of $60 all in one check. Pack testified that Louis Levine then,asked
Pack if he was going to vote for the Union and Pack replied he would vote for the
Company.
Earl Levine testified from the company records that Dewey Pack started at $1.50
per hour during the week of April 22, 1960, and in the week ending June 3, 1960,
was raised to $1.60 per hour,and in the week ending October 14, 1960, received a
10-cent raise to $1.70 per hour.
Thus there is a conflict between Pack's testimony that he was promised an in-
crease of 10 cents per hour on October 19, 1960, retroactive to May or June 1960,
and it would be payable in one check after the election, and the testimony of Earl
Levine testifying from the company payroll records that Pack was raised from $1.60
to $1.70 per hour in the week ending October 14, 1960, and that he got his raise
sometime during that week which brought Pack up to the $1.70 rate paid to the other
three employees who were doing the same kind of work (running grinders) that
Pack was doing. I credit Earl Levine's testimony and reject Pack's testimony on
that issue. Having discredited Pack's testimony in part I discredit all of his
testimony.
Robert Thomas, called by the General Counsel, testified that about 4 days before
the election Louis Levine called him into the office and questioned him as to whether
he was going to vote for OF against the Union. Thomas told him that he had not
made up his mind but would let him know a few days later. Thomas continued
to testify that Louis Levine said he would like to know by the next morning. Thomas
continued to testifiy that the next morning about 8:30 Louis Levine came to the
machine where Thomas was working and asked him if he had, made up his mind,
patted him on the shoulder, told him about a raise, and "then he gave me a raise."
Thomas testified that Levine gave him his raise and then he told Levine that he
had not made up his mind yet as to which way he was, going to•,vote whereupon
Levine directed an obscene remark to him and walked away. Thomas further testi-
fied on cross-examination that he received two pay increases before the election and
the first increase was a couple of days before the election.
Earl Levine testified from the original payroll records of the Respondent that
Thomas received two increases in pay: one in the week ending September 2, 1960,
when he was raised from $1.35 an hour to $1.50 per hour and the next raise was in
the week ending November 18, 1960, when he received an increase from $1.50 to
$1.60 per hour. I credit the testimony of Earl Levine'based as it is upon the un-
challenged company payroll records and I discredit the testimony of Thomas whose
testimony to me is incredible that he was given two raises within a couple of days
before the election. Accordingly, I discredit Thomas' entire testimony.
Raymond Brown was called as a witness by the General Counsel but in my opinion
Brown failed to corroborate Thomas' testimony relating to the conversation in-
cluding the obscene remarks directed to Thomas by Louis Levine. Brown fixed the
date of such conversation which he purportedly witnessed as being the day following
a day when Levine spoke to Thomas about a Teamsters card. Brown testified
that the conversation between him and Levine about the Teamsters card occurred
between September and October and it was on the day following that conversation
that Levine and Thomas spoke together. Brown was asked if he meant it could be
either in September or October and he answered, "It is between September and
October." He was then asked if it was his testimony that it must be in either
September or October and he answered, "No, I would say it is between September
and October."
Brown's testimony is discredited entirely by me. I can base no finding on such
sheer nonsense as fixing a date as between September and October. '
Thus, of the six witnesses called with respect to unfair labor practices alleged to
have occurred subsequent to October 19, 1960, I have credited the testimony of
Cole, Slumski, and Houser and discredited the testimony of Pack, Thomas, and
Brown.
Having found that the Respondent, as found above, on the credited testimony of
Cole, Slumski, and Houser, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) after October 19,. 1960, on which date the settle-
ment agreement was approved by the Regional, Director, I shall now turn to the
allegations in the complaint relating to the presettlement period.
The Respondent has admitted the allegation contained in paragraph SA(6) with
the explanation that in latter August or early September of 1960, after two or more
labor organizations were trying to - organize' the plant, the Respondent did obtain
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cards from the Teamsters Union and did have the cards signed by employees in the
plant; and 2 or 3 days after the Respondent 's lawyer advised that such procedure
was an error, Louis Levine then destroyed the cards in the presence of those who
had signed them.
On the credited testimony of Inez Manns, Dorothy Cole, Floydia Thomas, Joseph
Jackson, Felix Marbury, and Henry Reynolds I find the following:
In early September 1960, Louis Levine asked employee Inez Manns if she was
sorry that she had signed the Teamsters card and when she told him she had not
made up her mind he replied that if she had not made up her mind by the time she
left to have her baby she would never come back to work again; and that 2 or 3
weeks later, about October 15, Louis Levine demanded immediate repayment of a
personal loan he had made to her stating that he wanted it back because he knew
she was not on his side.
Employee Dorothy Cole was interrogated by Louis Levine and Earl Levine 2
weeks before the election as to whether she was prounion or antiunion , and was told
they would like to know who was going to vote "yes" and who was going to vote
"no."
Employee Floydia Thomas was asked by Louis Levine about August 25, 1960,
if she would like to join the Teamsters Union which he was "going to organize" and
later, 2 weeks before the election, he asked her how she was going to vote.
In early September 1960, Louis Levine asked employee Joseph Jackson if he was
"with him" and Jackson answered that he was. Leviile then promised him an in-
crease in pay effective the following week and a steady job as long as he wanted it.
Employee Felix Marbury was asked by Louis Levine during the first week in
September if he would like to join the Teamsters Union.
On or about September 13, 1960, Louis Levine asked employee Henry Reynolds
to promise to vote against the Union. When Reynolds replied that he would,
Levine asked him if he would swear to it on the Bible. Levine told him he would
receive an increase in pay and said he expected to give all the employees a pay
increase.
Such instances of soliciting signed cards for a favored union , interrogation , threats
of loss of employment , exertion of financial pressure, promise of benefits in the
form of pay increases and continued employment , and the exaction of a promise
to support the Company as against the Union constitute interference , restraint, and
coercion by the Respondent violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The record shows that from the latter part of August 1960 up to within 1 hour
before the election on October 27, 1960, the Respondents' attempts to defeat the
Union , were continuous and part of an integral pattern which interfered with,
restrained, and coerced the employees in the rights guaranteed to them by 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 con-
nection with the Respondents ' operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]