Mallinckrodt Chemical Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 373 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of MALLINCKROT T CHEMICAL WORKS and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. 14-C-917.Decided August 17,1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 8, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the
American Federation of Labor and the attorney for the Board filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report; and the respondent, the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, the Independent Union of Chemical Plant
Workers, and the attorney for the Board filed briefs. On August 7,
1945, at the request of the American Federation of Labor; oral argu-
ment was held before the Board in Washington. All the parties Were
present and participated. The Board has considered the rulings made
by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial,
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case; and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint against Mallinckrodt Chemi-
cal Works, St. Louis, Missouri, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. RE ILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Robert S. Fousek , Esq., and John A. Weiss , Esq., of Kansas City , Mo., for the
Board.
George B . Logan, Esq , of 506 Olive St., St . Louis, Mo, and David Y. Caanpbell,
Esq., of 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Mo., for the Respondent.
John Gratz , Organizer , of 3969 DeTonty St., St. Louis, Mo., for the A. F. of L.
Rudolph H. Schurr, Esq , of 705 Olive St., St. Louis, Mo, for the Intervenor.
63 N. L . R. B., No. 55.
373
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On a second amended charge filed November 21, 1944, by American Federation
Hof Labor, herein referred to as the A. F. L., the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, on November 21, 1944, by its Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint against Mallinck-
rodt Chemical Works, a Missouri corporation, operating a plant at St. Louis,
Missouri, for the manufacture of fine chemicals for medicinal and other purposes,
herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices 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. On November 21, 1944, copies of the complaint, together with
copies of the second amended charge and a notice of hearing, were duly served
upon the A. F. L. and Respondent, and upon Independent Union of Chemical
Plant Workers, the union involved in the allegation of the complaint pertaining
to unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, herein
called the Independent.
Concerning unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that during April,
May, and June 1937, Respondent initiated, formed, and sponsored the Independent,
and since that time has continuously dominated and interfered with its adminis-
tration and has contributed financial and other support to it; that since April
1937, and to the date of the issuance of the complaint, Respondent has urged,
persuaded, and warned its employees to join or assist the Independent, threatened
its employees with loss of employment if they refused or failed to so join or
assist the Independent, recognized the Independent as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees for purposes of collective bargaining, and has entered into
contracts with the Independent relating to terms and conditions of employment of
its employees ; that since July 5, 1935 and to the date of the issuance of the com-
plaint, Respondent has urged, persuaded, and warned its employees riot to
affiliate with the A. F. L., has made statements detrimental to and disparaging
of the A. F. L., has interrogated members of the A. F. L. concerning their activities
on behalf of that organization, and has threatened to take economic reprisals
against its employees if they should affiliate with the A. F. L.; that on January
19, 1944, Respondent discharged and since then has refused to reinstate one
named employee and on May 19, 1944, discharged, and since then has refused
to reinstate three named employees, because all such employees so discharged had
joined and remained members of the A. F. L ; and that by the conduct above
enumerated, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
In its answer duly filed, Respondent admits those allegations of the complaint
pertaining to its corporate structure, and the extent and nature of its business ;
admits that it has recognized the Independent as bargaining agent for its em-
ployees at the St. Louis plant with certain designated exclusions ; that it has
entered into collective bargaining agreements with the Independent relating to
terms and conditions of employment ; that it discharged the three named persons
who were alleged to have been discharged on or about May 19, 1944, but for valid
-causes; and denies each and every other allegation in the complaint pertaining
to unfair labor practices and that it has engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region, hearing on the complaint was held in St. Louis, Missouri,
between December 12 and 21, inclusive, 1944, before the undersigned, R. N.
Denham, a Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the
commencement of the hearing, the Independent filed with the Trial Examiner, a
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 375
motion for leave to intervene , for the reason that its existence is in issue in this
proceeding . The motion was granted . The Board , Respondent and the Inde-
pendent were represented at the hearing by counsel and the A. F. L. by its
International Representative . All parties participated in the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
and to present evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the close of such testimony as was offered by the Board, Respondent filed
a written motion to dismiss the complaint with reference to the discharge of the
three persons alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged on May 19, 1944.
The motion was denied . At the close of all the testimony , counsel for the Board
moved to conform the complaint to the proof with reference to the correction of
names, dates , and other minor matters not going to the pertinent issues involved.
The motion was granted without objection . A motion of Respondent and the
Independent to dismiss the complaint in toto is disposed of in this report. Oral
argument to the Trial Examiner and the filing of briefs with the Trial Examiner
were waived by all parties.
On the basis of the foregoing and on the entire record , after having heard and
observed the witnesses and considered all the evidence offered and received, the
undersigned , makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, is and at all times herein material,
has been a corporation existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri,
maintaining plants, warehouses , or offices in St. Louis , Missouri ; New York City,
New York ; Jersey City , New Jersey ; Philadelphia , Pennsylvania ; and Chicago,
Illinois . Only the plant located in St. Louis, Missouri , is involved in these pro-
ceedings . At the St, Louis plant , Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of
fine chemicals for medicinal , industrial and other purposes . During the year
1943, Respondent purchased raw materials for the St . Louis plant valued at
more than $10,000,000 , of which 75 percent was shipped to points outside the
State of Missouri . Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amarican Federation of Labor and Independent Union of Chemical Plant
Workers are labor organizations admitting to membership the employees of
Respondent at the St. Louis plant.
]II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. October 1933
There is some evidence that on one occasion in October 1933, the A . F. L. dis-
tributed some handbills at the plant of the Respondent , but there is no evidence
to indicate that there was more than one such distribution or that any efforts
were made, at or about that time, to effect any organization among the em-
ployees of Respondent . At about the same time , which was at the depth of one
of the industrial depressions in the United States, Dr. A. C . Boylston , the present
head of Respondent , but then its vice president and general manager , addressed
the employees throughout the plant on the subject of spreading of work and a
plan for meeting the depressed economic conditions of the times in such manner
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as would not unnecessarily burden any of the employees and would tend to keep
all of them nr're or less consistently on the p•iv loll Two of the Boa d'S wit-
nesses tesL fi-d that they were present at the time the Boylston speeches were
made and that Dr. Boylston took that occasion to urge the employees not to join
the A . F. L. and to organize their own union. This testimony was offered with
the explanation by counsel for the Board that it was intended to provide a back-
ground reflecting the antiunion attitude of Respondent . The testimony of the
Board's witnesses concerning this incident of more than 11 years ago was in-
definite and not persuasive . The finding above set forth is based upon the
testimony of Norman Knowlton , the present Works Manager, who , as assistant
to the Works Manager at the time of the 1933 speeches , was present when they
were made , and was fully acquainted with all the circumstances that surrounded
and occasioned them . The testimony of the two Board witnesses on the details
of the speeches is not accepted as wholly credible ; and consequently , the matter
has been disregarded herein, insofar as it may have any bearing on the attitude
of Respondent toward organizational efforts by its employees in the years that
followed the passage of the Act on July 5, 1935.
B. The origin of the Independent
The first indication of an effort to organize the employees of Respondent after
the passage of the Act, came in April 1937, when the C. I. O. disfributed some
handbills at the plant. There is no evidence that this effort extended beyond
the single distribution.
At that time, there were approximately 475 employees, exclusive of supervisory
employees, on the weekly pay roll. The Company's business is carried on in more
than 100 separate buildings, ranging in size from small one story structures to
buildings that are as much as seven stories in height, and is divided into a number
of departments, each with a separate foreman and, in some instances, an assist-
ant foreman. In addition, there is a lower classification who exercise some
supervisory or directory functions. . These are variously known as "building
men", "floor men" and sometimes as "assistant foremen." They have varying
degrees of authority over groups throughout the plant, generally identified by the
floors on which they work, or by subdivisions of the buildings in single story
structures. These employees are of the nature of working foremen. They have
no direct authority to effect changes in the status of the employees, but are looked
to by the various department foremen for the maintenance of standards of opera-
tions, and, as an incident to such duties, provide a source to which the foremen
can and do go for pertinent information concerning the conduct of the operations
in their respective sections and the conduct and quality of the work of the variclis
employees. If they are to be regarded as supervisory employees, they occupy the
lowest step in the hierarchy of management. The general production operations
are under the direction of a superintendent who, in turn, is responsible to the
Works Manager. Such is the general scheme of operation at the present time.
It was substantially the same in 1937.
In 1937, Roy Parker, Dan Cleveland, and Chris Ehrhardt' were building men
or assistant foremen, each with 8 to 12 men in their respective crews. Fred Wolf
was a journeyman machinist with two helpers and one apprentice working with
him. Some contention has been made that he occupied the position of a foreman,
but it is found that he was an ordinary journeyman machinist with the usual
1 Technically , at the time in 1937 that is here pertinent , Ehrhardt had been transferred
to the narcotics department where he worked as an operator for purposes of training to
assume more important supervisory duties than he previously had. He is now a foreman.
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 377
complement of helpers and apprentices and that he had no more authority over
them than normally applies to the authority of a skilled mechanic over his helpers.
All the other employees whose names are hereinafter mentioned in connection
with the organization of the Independent were without supervisory authority of
any kind.
The distribution of the C. I. 0. leaflet in April 1937, occurred at a time when
C. I. 0. was receiving much unfavorable publicity both locally and nation-wide,
concerning its methods of operation. The possibility of a C. I. 0. organizational
campaign at the plant, in line with C. I. O.'s announced intention of organizing
the entire chemical industry, led to some apprehensions among a few of the older
employees who were fearful that the advent of the C. I. 0. in the plant would
result in strife rather than in harmony. Among themselves, they discussed the
possibilities of independent organization and, some time in the latter part of May
1937, these men, who included Robert Walbridge, a pipefitter, Fred Wolf, the
journeyman machinist, Henry Schroer, a welder, and one or two others, decided
to call together some of the men in an impromptu meeting to discuss the possi-
bility of organizing an independent union. This was done at the close of work,
the persons invited to attend being selected at random as they came out of the
gate and asked to assemble in a nearby alley. When 18 or 20 employees had
joined the group, one of them, who was a temporary night watchman and had a
master key to Respondent's buildings, suggested that they adjourn to an empty
and unused warehouse building belonging to Respondent but off its main property,
to which he had a key. He unlocked the door and admitted them. At this meet-
ing, Roy Parker, Dan Cleveland, and Chris Ehrhardt were among those asked to
attend. The general discussion was whether or not they could set up a group big
enough or strong enough to require Respondent to recognize them as an independ-
ent union. It was the decision of the meeting that they prepare some petitions
which could be signed by those employees desiring to be represented by an inde-
pendent union. These petitions were to be (and were) prepared by Walbridge's
daughter at his home that evening, and certain of the men who were present
agreed to present them the next morning to the employees as they came to work,
and ask for signatures. The necessity for competent legal advice was discussed
and the name of a lawyer was selected, from whom Fred Wolf and Henry Schroer
were to make inquiry about legal advice in the event they should succeed in
getting a substantial number of employees to indicate their desire to organize an
independent union. The next morning, Wolf, Schroer, Walbridge, and several
others were in the vicinity of the plant substantially in advance of the arrival of
the employees and placed themselves at strategic points leading to the plant,
where they solicited employees coming to work for their signatures. While these
men generally recognized that their organizational work should be carried on off
the company property and outside working hours , some solicitation went on in
the plant during that day and possibly during a few of the succeeding days, until
a substantial number, representing a majority of the employees, had affixed their
signatures to the petition. The only evidence that this solicitation came to the
attention of any foreman is in the testimony of Walter Gregory, one of the A. F. L.
supporters here, to the effect that when he attempted solicitation for the Inde-
pendent during working hours at the time of its organization , he was stopped by
his foreman.
The attorney selected by the group at the initial meeting in the old warehouse
was Wilder Lucas, Esq., the Austrian Consul in St. Louis, who was mentioned
by one of the men as being familiar with labor organizational matters. On the
evening of May 26, 1937, Schroer and Wolf met Lucas at his office and were
advised as to how properly to proceed. On this advice, they had printed some
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ballots fflr and against organizing an independent, and membership application
cards, for which they paid from personal funds, and passed the word on to their
collaborators that a mass meeting of the employees was indicated. In line with
this, Walbridge had his daughter type notices of a mass meeting to be held at a
local hall on the following Friday, May 28. Wolf opened the mass meeting which
was attended by 175 or more employees, explained generally what they had been
discussing, and suggested the desirability of an independent union as opposed to
the C I. 0 One of the girls employed in the plant, who had some knowledge of
shorthand, acted as recorder for the meeting. The record made by her is in
evidence. After Wolf had finished his announcement, he turned the meeting
over to Schroer, who thereafter conducted it. The balloting for or against the
proposition reflected an almost unanimous vote for an independent union. Tem-
porary representatives in the various departments were elected to solicit member-
ships among their fellow workers, and a committee of eight or ten was designated
to accompany Wolf and Schroer to Lucas' office and take whatever steps might
be necessary to conclude the organization of the Independent. The next evening,
this group, which included Ehrhardt, Cleveland, Parker, Schroer, Walbridge, and
four 'or five other employees, called on Lucas at his office and announced their
readiness to set up the organization of the Independent. Lucas' first inquiry
was whether there was anyone in the group who acted in a supervisory capacity
at the plant, or in any other manner had a position of authority of any kind.
He stated that if there were any such, they should not participate and should
leave the meeting. Following this announcement, Cleveland, Ehrhardt, and
Parker left, and thereafter had no official or other active part in any of the activ-
ities of the Independent. From this point forward, none of the foremen, assistant
foremen, or those who are identified as building men, or floormen, at any time
held any offices in the Independent or were active in its affairs, although some of
them did maintain their memberships as weekly-paid employees.
Following his first meeting with the special group, Lucas prepared a constitution
and bylaws which he delivered to Wolf and Schroer. They, in turn, submitted it
to a mass meeting of the employees which was held within a few days. Meanwhile,
solicitations for further members continued. Instructions had been issued by the
leaders, on advice of Lucas, to refrain from soliciting on company time, but
notwithstanding this, there was some such solicitation, although there is no
showing that this was with the knowledge or consent of the foremen or higher
supervisors.
By July 9, 1937, the Independent represented 325 employees on the weekly pay
roll. Its organization had been completed, its officers elected and its negotiating
committee designated . On that date, the committee met with Boylston, W. N.
Stull , vice president and works manager, ' N. P. Knowlton , plant manager, and
E. Ehrhardt, personnel manager. The representatives of the Independent were
Richard Halterman, president, Robert Walbridge, vice president, Henry Schroer,
secretary, Harold Pinkerton, treasurer, and 12 others who appeared as representa-
tives from the various departments . This was the first meeting of officials of
the Independent with management . Boylston addressed some remarks to the
general subject of the relations between the company and its employees, and
recognized the Independent as the representative of the employees , upon its
representation of 325 membership at the time . In connection with this , Schroer
offered the records'of the Independent for inspection in support of its claim to
recognition , but this was rejected by Boylston as unnecessary . After Boylston
had concluded his remarks , Schroer presented the demands of the Union, which
had been agreed upon at a meeting of the representatives held the night before.
These demands, in written form, included certain wage adjustments , equalizing
I
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 379
overtime , the designation of Memorial Day as a paid holiday, the designation by
Respondent of a representative or representatives to hear all complaints, and
some other minor matters , among which was a demand for bulletin boards for
the posting of notices and bulletins of the Independent . Some of the demands were
conceded by Boylston , with approval of the other officials present, during the
course of the meeting . Others he deferred acting upon until he could confer with
Respondent 's attorney . They also discussed , at the instance of Schroer, the
question of the eligibility of the employees classed as "Building men", in the
following colloquy :
Mr. ScHRoEe.. Another thing , doctor, we would like to know is, if those
men who are classed as building men, like a fellow has charge of Building
No. 2 or Building No. 3, would they be eligible to belong to the Union or not?
Mr. BOYLSTON . I think that is up to you . Do they have the power to
discharge men?
Mr. STULL. No sir. Only through recommendation , and then even the
foremen can 't discharge a man.
Mr. BOYLSTON. Then I think that they would be eligible . I think it says
that anyone who had the authority to hire and fire employees , is the way the
law reads , isn't it?
Mr. ScHRomt Yes sir. That is correct.
Mr. BoYLsioN . Then I should think they would be eligible.
Mr. KNOWLTON . Is it specifically stated in your constitution that building
men are ineligible?
Mr. SOHROER. No sir. Just foremen and assistant foremen . Those build-
ing men direct other men and work under the jurisdiction of other men,
and they don 't have the authority to hire and fire. But their verdict on a
man would go a long way with the foreman.
Mr. BOYLSTON . Have you an attorney who is helping you or advising you?
Mr SciiRoER . Yes sir. We had several of them at this meeting, and he
asked us to replace them at the present time until we found out just the
way they were with the Company . And we had three of them at this
meeting that we replaced.
The subject of a signed contract was also brought up. Boylston agreed to
execute such a contract if they could agree on the terms and if the Independent's
attorney advised them to have one.
At a follow-up meeting on July 26 , 1937, agreement was reached on a wage
increase of 2y2 -cents per hour for graded employees and an increase in the
rates for bonus employees , together with certain increases for other classes of
workers. Memorial Day was added as a paid holiday . Time and a half was
agreed upon for all work in excess of 8 hours in any one shift, and for any work
performed after 12 o 'clock noon on Saturdays as well as work on Sundays or
unpaid holidays . A premium of 5 percent was agreed upon for night -shift work,
equitable distribution of over-time work was clarified , and a commitment was
made that the Company would continue the provisions for health, safety, acci-
dent compensation , pay while on jury duty , employees ' relief, vacation plans,
retirement income, savings plan, and life insurance , which had theretofore been in
force, These agreements were not embodied in a formal contract but were posted
by Respondent as a memorandum of the items agreed upon with the Independent.
This organizational history fails to disclose interference by Respondent at the
inception of the Independent . It arose from a spontaneous effort of the em-
ployees to effect it medium of collective bargaining which they would control free
from the influences of C. I. O.
'380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The history of the Independent
For the next 2 years, the Independent followed a somewhat colorless existence,
handling such grievances as arose and maintaining its organization, but engaging
in no outstanding activity to create a sustained employee interest, until the
election of 1939, when Joe Duepner was elected president and Robert Walbridge
continued as vice-president. Duepner immediately began an energetic campaign
to revive interest in the Independent. He set regular dates for meetings with
representatives of Respondent for purposes of considering grievances, initiated
various intra-mural social activities such as picnics, parties, etc., and aggressively
prosecuted all matters representing demands of the employees for betterment
of their working conditions. Under Duepner's leadership, the Independent
became an active, aggressive, and militant representative of the rights of the
employees. Interest in the Independent was revived among the employees, and
on November 22, 1939, the first formal written agreement between the Independent
and Respondent was executed. This contract has no fixed termination date but
may be terminated by either party on 60 days' written notice. With some interim
amendments, it is still in effect.
In 1939, Duepner originated the first union picnic. The business houses, mer-
chants, and suppliers of the Company in the neighborhood of the plant were
solicited for contributions of cash or merchandise for attendance prizes to be
awarded at the picnic. The cash was used to purchase articles of furniture,
radios, victrolas, and other prizes to be awarded by lot to ticket holders. At the
first picnic, Respondent made a contribution of $50. This was only one of a
number of similar contributions made by merchants and suppliers and repre-
sented a small portion of the total received. The main source of income was
from the sale of raffle tickets on which the various prizes were awarded at the
picnic. These raffle tickets were generally offered throughout the plant for some
time before each picnic and were purchased by employees, foremen, supervisors,
and officials, indiscriminately.
Thereafter, the picnic became an annual event, but, when the Independent
approached Respondent for a contribution to the attendance prize fund in 1940,
and Respondent agreed to repeat its contribution of $50, it was asked to make
the check payable to a designated furniture house in St. Louis from whom some
of the prizes were being purchased. The same procedure was followed in 1941
and 1942. In 1943, the Independent requested Respondent, instead of making
a $50 contribution, to buy 50 raffle books at $1 each (these books contained 12
tickets each) and to divide the tickets equally among the employees of the
Respondent who were then in the service. In 1944, the Respondent purchased
o raffle book for each man in the service, of whom there were approximately 250.
By this time, most of the prizes were in terms of War Bonds. While this was
being done by the Respondent, similar contributions were being solicited and
received from the various merchants and business houses in St. Louis. Some
contributions were made in merchandise, others in money, and apparently some
of Respondent's contributions were household- packages of its products which are
useful for domestic purposes.
While the Independent collects annual dues of $1.20 from each of its members
at the beginning of the calendar year, the picnics provide a substantial sources
of revenue ranging from $400.00 to $800.00, derived from the sale of soft drinks,
beer, sandwiches and other refreshments and from the raffle tickets. Respondent
habitually has also permitted the use of one of its trucks, whose driver donates
his time, for hauling the supplies to the picnic ground. This, together with its
contributions above outlined, constituted the, sole financial aid and support of
the Independent that is charged to Respondent.
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 381
In numerous cases where there has been substantial evidence of other support
or domination of a rising independent union, the Board has given weight to
contributions by the employer to the union's social functions. In this case, how-
ever, there is a different situation. The contributions did not begin until the
Independent was three years old and had established itself as a free and untram-
meled bargaining agent. Further, the contributions were not the outstanding
support that meant success or failure of the picnic. They were only a small part
of the total contributions received from a number of sources each year. This
is not "support" as contemplated in the Act, unless it can be coupled with other
acts that substantially interfered with the free administration of the Independent.
Contributions of this kind are common and fall into the same category as advertis-
ing space in local programs, or "yearbooks," which is bought by merchants and
others as a courtesy and not for its advertising value.
From 1939 to 1943, Duepner continued as president of the Independent and
supplied it with an administration which was aggressive and beneficial to the
employees, without necessarily being antagonistic to Respondent. In 1943, the
Personnel Manager of Respondent died, and Duepner was promoted from his
employment in the plant, to a job in the office of the Traffic Manager, and after
a short time, to the position of Personnel Manager, which office he still occupies.
In the election of early 1943, following Duepner's promotion, Robert Walbridge,
who had been vice president under Duepner, was elected president. He was
reelected in 1944, and is at this time the president of the Independent, and, like
Duepner, continues to give the Independent an aggressive administration based
entirely upon the welfare of the employees. Walbridge's administration of the
affairs of the Independent can well be illustrated by the following, concerning
a colloquy between himself and Knowlton, the Works Manager, on the day follow-
ing his election as President in 1943.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Knowlton about you being
elected president of the Independent?
A. No-can I answer that question my own way?
Trial Examiner DENHAM : Yes. Do it briefly.
The WITNESS : I did. I was outside of the Employment Office and had
just been elected President of the Independent Union. Mr. Knowlton run
right into me, because it was impossible probably to avoid it. He was coming
out of the alley and I come out of the door. He looked at me and said
"I heard you were elected President of the Union. Congratulations. What
is your platform?" I said "Mr. Knowlton, I have been fair with the company
and with the employees. If the member is entitled to justice, I will fight you
until hell freezes over. If the member is wrong, I am willing to compromise."
The conversation did not last more than two or three minutes.
Walbridge is a pipe fitter whose duties are primarily confined, at the present
time, to a portion of the plant devoted to operations for the account of the United
States Government. His activities take him throughout this portion of the plant
and frequently to the storeroom and to other points where supplies and equip-
ment are obtained and processed for use in his particular work. In addition, as
President of the Independent and the person who actively handles and disposes
of grievances, he also has permission and occasion to visit all the other parts of
the plant to confer with the departmental representatives of the Independent
and with individuals who may be asserting grievances. In the main, this is
done on company time and with the permission of Respondent, as a recognized
factor in the administration of the Independent's function as exclusive bargain-
ing representative. There was considerable testimony about his being in depart-
ments of the plant other than his own when he apparently was not engaged on
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR.D\
company business. Walbridge admitted that he frequently visited other parts of
the plant and stated that such visits were in connection with his administrative
duties as head of the Independent. There is no evidence that such was not the
case. He also admitted that notwithstanding a rule against union activities
during working hours, he had, on occasion, spoken to new employees about
becoming members, but not in the presence of the supervisors. Such testimony
as would tend,to indicate knowledge by foremen or other supervisors of Wal-
bridge's activities, on analysis, develops the fact that in every instance referred
to, Walbridge was, in fact, engaged,on what apparently was legitimate Inde-
pendent business. On the other hand, there are certain activities of the Inde-
pendent that are countenanced. These are the annual dues collection drive that
takes place between December 1 and February 1 each year, and the sale of raffle
tickets preceding each annual picnic.
It was shown that since August 1943, the A. F. L. has carried on a campaign
for members in the plant and that some former active Independent members
are its leaders. While some of the A. F. L. witnesses attempted to show that
none of the A. F. L. solicitation has been done on company time, there is suffi-
cient other credible testimony to show that such is not a fact and that both
organizations lose no opportunity, on or off company time, to advance their
respective causes. Both use the bulletin boards and neither of them strictly
observes the rule. These violations are not unknown to the supervisory staff,
but the violations appear to be winked at so long as they do not interfere with
the employees' performance of their respective jobs. There is no evidence of
connivance by supervisors in the activities of either side, and likewise, there is
no evidence that the supervisory staff,has made a serious effort to police them.
D. The status of the Independent
If the Independent appears to have enjoyed the favor of Respondent, it is
the natural outgrowth of its origin and history. Until recently, its position
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees has not been chal-
lenged by any other organization. It has held the field alone and apparently
has filled all the requirements of a bargaining representative. Having originated
in a spontaneous movement among the employees, most of whom were well known
-to the management, it has functioned for 6 or 7 years without interference
from or domination by Respondent, during which time, it has aggressively
represented the employees, protected their rights and urged improvements in
their working conditions, but has done so in a manner that has been on a cordial
basis of mutual understanding on both sides. Under such circumstances, it is
-understandable that Respondent's attitude would reflect approval of the Inde-
pendent as a bargaining representative for its employees and as a medium for
maintaining morale ; but in the absence of a showing that this adherence of the
employees to the Independent has been induced by domination, interference, or
support of the Respondent, and is not the result of their freely exercised desires,
no finding of an unfair labor practice may be bottomed on the lone fact that
the employer approves of the way the Independent conducts itself.2
In view of the foregoing, it is found that at no time has Respondent in any
manner dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the
Independent or has contributed financial or other support to it within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
2 During the hearing, the Independent offered proof of its bargaining history with Re-
spondent to show its representative character and the numerous advantages it had ob-
tained for the employees during the past several years. Extensive proof of such matters
was rejected but was set out in a detailed offer of proof submitted in writing, rejected by
the Trial Examiner and filed as a rejected exhibit.
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS
Termination of employment of George E. McKee
383.
George McKee was first employed by Respondent in April 1937, as a chemical
operator in a department of which Robert O'Brien was foreman and Roland
Aubuchon was assistant foreman. Dan Cleveland was the "building man" for
McKee's group In 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942, McKee was the representative
for the independent in his department. In this capacity he conducted such
union business as was a part of his duties, collected dues during the December-
January periods, solicited memberships from new employees, and sold or dis-
tributed raffle tickets for the annual picnics. Some of this was done in working
hours but not in the presence, or, so far as the record discloses , with the knowl-
edge or consent of his immediate superiors. It is to be noted, however, that.
McKee was then employed on night shifts where he had little or no supervision.
In August 1943, the A. F. L. began efforts to organize the employees at the
plant. The most ardent of its converts were some of those who, like McKee,
had previously taken active parts in the affairs of the Independent. This was
especially so in the Mill Room group where the organizational activities of
A. F. L. centered. These men wore their A. F. L buttons, made no secret of
their new affiliation and actively advocated membership in A. F. L. as against
membership in the Independent. Except as to those named in this complaint,
there is no intimation that A. F. L. membership had any adverse effect on their
employment conditions.
McKee, who was employed in another department, became a member of the
A. F. L. shortly after the activity started and became Recording Secretary of the
local a that was set up for Respondent's employees. As in the case of the other
active mnembers, his affiliation with A F. L was well known to Respondent.
Up to the latter part of September or early October 1943, McKee had been
employed as all operator of centrifuge machines on the night shift with little
supervision, since there is a single night superintendent to oversee the night shift
operations of the entire plant. It is conceded that the centrifugal driers, which
rotate at extiemely high speeds, require constant attention and may endanger
life and property if the material in them should shift into uneven distribution
O'Brien, his foreman, made a practice of visiting the plant occasionally at night.
On several such night visits, O'Brien had found McKee away from his machine
but with the machine operating unattended He reprimanded McKee on the
first such occasion and obtained his promise not to repeat his dereliction. In
September 1943, he again discovered the same situation and again reprimanded
McKee At about the same time, O'Brien received complaints from the night
superintendent that McKee wandered over the plant during,woikmg hours, and,
on the basis of what he had seen, together with the night superintendent's com-
plaint, transfei red McKee to day shift woik. On the day shift, lIcKee continued
his custoia of wandering away fi oin his place of work and loitering and smoking
in or near other buildings where he had no business O'Brien reprimanded him
for this and obtained his promise not to repeat it. In November and December
1943. McKee developed the custom of going to the cafeteria during each morning
and afternoon work period, where he would meet one of the young women
emplo3 ces and spend 15 to 30 minutes with her. This was brought to the attention
of Knowlton, the Works Manager, by the woman in charge of the cafeteria.
Knowlton verified the report by personal investigation and -passed it on to
O'Brien through Vieth, the Superintendent. O'Brien reprimanded McKee for
a International Chemical WTorkers Union, A F L.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this and later learned that McKee habitually left his post for these visits without
notifying his floor man.'
McKee admitted that he had been reprimanded at least once by O'Brien for
being away from his job , and that he had been reprimanded by the Superintendent
for loitering with a group of others in the cafeteria , but attempted to justify his
absences from his machine by stating that he frequently had to go to other
buildings for materials or to move containers . While this may be a fact , it does
not account for his general course of conduct . It is found that he was frequently
away from his job on matters not pertaining to his work and that he was re-
peatedly reprimanded for such absences. While there is some inference in
McKee's testimony that some of his absences from his machine were while he was
engaging in activity on behalf of A. F. L., there is no indication that his super-
visors knew this'
The incident that gave rise to the termination of McKee's employment occurred
on January 18, 1944. According to McKee, at noon he had given two A. F. L.
cards to an employee in another department with the understanding that the
recipient would have them signed and McKee would come back and get them dur-
ing the afternoon . He further testified that, on his way to his usual mid -after-
noon visit to the cafeteria , he went to the department where he was to pick up
the signed cards, spoke to the person to whom he had given them earlier in the
day, learned they had not yet been signed , left, all in a space of a minute or so,
with the word that he would see him the next day , and returned to his work. The
next morning, the foreman of the department McKee had visited, complained to
O'Brien about McKee coming to his department and interfering with the work,
and stated he had reported the matter to the Plant Superintendent . O'Brien
verified this with the Plant Superintendent and then spoke to McKee about
"bumming" in the other buildings , telling him that he had broken many rules and
had been warned about it repeatedly , and that if he did so again, he would be
discharged . About an hour and a half later , as O'Brien was going to lunch, McKee
stopped him , stated that he seemed to be getting into constant trouble, that he
thought the company wanted to get rid of him, and that he had decided to aslt for
his check , but that he would stay if he could be transferred back to the night
shift. O'Brien told'him he had a man on the night shift job, but would think it
over. After some consideration during the noon hour, O'Brien resolved against
retaining McKee and conferred with Knowlton about it. Knowlton advised
O'Brien to let McKee go, whereupon O'Brien arranged for his check to be de-
livered to Duepner and notified McKee that he had decided to give him his check
as requested . McKee then left, after the usual exit interview with Personnel
Manager Duepner , from whom he received his pay through that day.
In talking with Duepner, McKee asked for a certificate of availability but was
told to go to the U. S. E. S. office. He did so. The clerk at U . S. E. S. telephoned
Duepner and asked if the company would give McKee a release ; Duepner replied
' The cafeteria at Respondent 's plant is open during certain periods in the morning hours
of employment and in the midafternoon , to permit the employees to purchase soft drinks,
candy , ice cream , and other similar refreshments For this purpose , the employees are per-
mitted to go to the cafeteria , with the approval of their respective floor men , and to spend
the, amount of time reasonably necessary to make their purchases , consume them , and re-
turn to their jobs . Loitering and smoking in the cafeteria on these occasions are pro-
hibited, as is sitting at the tables . During the noon hour , when meals are being served,
smoking in the cafeteria is allowed
3 McKee further testified that prior to his transfer from night to day shift , O'Brien had
offered him the choice of two foreman ' s jobs if he would change but that he turned them
clown. O ' Brien denied this with explanations . O'Brien's explanations are accepted and
McKee's testimony is not credited on this point.
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 385
that the company did not give releases to men who had quit. He then asked
Duepner whether the company would take McKee back and was told they had
trouble with McKee and were unwilling to take him back. He was then given
his certificate and shortly thereafter secured employment elsewhere.'
In the entire McKee incident, there is no showifig that O'Brien or any other
representative of management associated his final dereliction with A. F. L. activi-
ties. His history of rules violations in spite of repeated reprimands and warnings,
shows him as an unsatisfactory and undependable worker .7 His own testimony
confirms that he asked for his check when reprimanded by O'Brien on January 19.
He invited the action taken by O'Brien. His termination clearly was a "quit" and
was not induced by undeserved reprimands or discriminatQry treatment. It is
found that the termination of McKee's employment with Respondent was brought
about by his voluntary quitting; that the refusal of Respondent to rehire him
was based upon his unsatisfactory work history with Respondent; and that
neither was motivated in any way by his activities on behalf of the A. F. of L. or
any other labor organization.
l1he discharges of Price, Poe, and Held
The "millroom" is, in fact, a four story building in which 30 to 35 people are
employed, of whom approximately one half are women, all under the supervision
of Foreman Vornberg and George Rapp, his assistant. While there have, in the
past, been some women employed in this department, expansion of Respondent's
operations in 1942 and 1943 brought about a substantial increase in female
employment, with the result that in February and March 1943, the force was
increased to its present size, with replacements thereafter as normal turnover
required.
The women were distributed to all floors of the building although most of
them appear to have been stationed on the first floor where the work was of an
unskilled character and consisted mainly of handling barreled material in and
out. The third and fourth floors appear to have been devoted to processing
procedures.
The dressing room facilities for all the "millroom" women were located on
the third floor and consisted of a small room equipped with lockers, a wash basin
and two benches, each large enough to accommodate two people. These facilities
admittedly were insufficient to accommodate the approximately 15 women in the
millroom, and their limitations gave rise to no small amount of friction between
those who reached the dressing room first and the others who had to wait until
`the first comers had finished their toilets. Obviously, those employed on the
third floor, being nearest at hand when the work day ends, have a substantial
advantage in this regard, and consistently have availed themselves of it, while
those on the lower floors have been compelled to wait their turns.
This arrangement appears to have worked fairly well as to the first of the
women employees who were hired in February and March 1943, and the rela-
tionship among them remained pleasant and with no more than the normal
number of differences, until the employment of Jewel Price in July. Almost
from the beginning of her employment, Price was either unable or unwilling to
fit into the group. Clearly she was not "accepted " An atmosphere of antagonism
' In November 1943, McKee applied for a post on the St Louis Fire Department and took
the necessary examinations. On January 2, 1944, he was notified lie had successfully
passed the examinations, but he was not called to duty until June 1944. He is presently
employed there.
' The writer has not attempted to detail his entire history in this regard. Numerous
other incidents appear in the record.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
developed from these conditions which resulted in a number of controversies be-
tween Price and the other women, and one or two slapping episodes in which
Price appears to have been the aggressor.
In the early part of her employment, Price was stationed on the first floor
and was adversely affected by the dressing room congestion. Because of this,
as well as her non-friendly relations with the others, she did not use the dress-
ing room but changed her clothes in the hall. Later, when she was transferred
to the third floor, Price aggressively used the advantages of her proximity to
the dressing room to insure getting to it first. This did not improve her relations
with the others.
Gladys Poe, who was first employed in July 1943, and Marguerite Held, who
was first employed in May 1943, were employed on the third floor during the sum-
mer months of 1943, and for several months after July. maintained friendly rela-
tions with the older employees who had begun work earlier in the year.
On December 2, 1943, Price signed an authorization card for A. F. L. and
obtained a button bearing the legend, "Join the A. F. L.", which she wore at
her work. At about this time, transfers in the work locations of the women in the
"`millroom" resulted in putting Price on the third floor to replace Elizabeth
Murphy, who, in turn, went to the first floor. This threw Price, Poe and Held
together and shortly thereafter, for some undisclosed reason, both Poe and Held
stopped associating with the older women and confined their associations mainly
to Price. Price's unpopularity with the other women had not changed and this
new association with her broke down the women employees into two cliques, one
composed of Price, Poe and Held, and the other of the remaining women in the
"millroom," with the exception of one of two who maintained friendly relations
with all their coworkers and took sides with neither group. Held signed an
authorization card for the A. F L. on February 2, 1944, and Poe signed her
authorization card on March 2, 1944, but there is no evidence that either Price,
Poe or Held engaged in union activities at the plant, or that the affiliation of -
either Poe or Held was known in the plant. Price was the only one who con-
sistently wore an A. F L. button. Poe borrowed a button from one of the men and
wore it for 2 days, and Held did nothing to disclose her affiliation. Price testi-
fied that so long as she worked at the plant, she did not know whether Held
was affiliated with the A. F. L.
By the early part of 1944, Price, being stationed. on the third floor, regularly
used the facilities of the dressing room, and by leaving her work promptly when the
signal was sounded, or possibly a little before, generally succeeded in being among
the first to enter it In this, she was joined by Poe and Held, so that consistently
they were occupying almost all the available bench space when Elizabeth Murphy;'
who appears to have been a leading element in the older group, reached the
dressing room together with the others who were employed on the lower floors.
The persistent preempting of the facilities by Price, Poe and Held aggravated
the tension between the two cliques to the extent that, on the afternoon of
May 18, 1944, when the late comers came in and found the bench space occupied
by Price, Poe, Held and one other woman, Elizabeth Schultz, one of the late
corners, addressed some uncomplimentary remarks to Price. Price replied by
striking Schultz and otherwise man-handling her In a short time, several other
melees developed between the partisans, in which Murphy and one or two of
the others were involved in a lesser degree. As soon as she could disengage
herself fconi Price, Schultz left the dressing room in search of Rapp, the assistant
foreman As Schultz was leaving, Price called out to the others to remember that
it was Schultz who had started the fight. At this point, Murphy protested that
Price had started the fight, whereupon Price attacked Murphy and general fight-
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 387
ing continued until Rapp, who had been summoned by Schultz from the lower
floor, interfered and sent the girls home
While Price, Poe and Held had affiliated with A. F. L. and none of their
opponents appear to have done so, there is nothing in the record to indicate
that the division of the women workers into the two groups was based upon
their affiliations with either the Independent or the A. F. L. It was wholly a
matter of personalities centering around Price and her two associates and the
fact that these three, as a group, indulged in numerous infractions of the rules
which most of the others were required to observe. When the women reported
for work on the morning following the dressing room fight only three or four
went to their respective stations. The rest remained outside the office of Foreman
Vornberg, protesting that unless something were done to "iron out" the situation
with reference to the Price-Poe-Held group, none of them would return to their
jobs. By this time, Rapp had reported the incident of the night before to Vorn-
berg. He, in turn, reported to Vieth, the superintendent, that the women were
outside his office and refused to return to their work until the matter had been
straightened out. Vieth directed Vornberg to order the women back to work with
the promise that an investigation would be made. Upon receiving this assurance
from Vornberg, they returned to their respective jobs.
During the morning, Knowlton and Vieth questioned Vornberg, Rapp, and the
matron in charge of the dressing room, concerning the fight incident and other
matters pertaining to the general conduct of Price, Poe, and Held. They were
advised that the three women had been the center of unrest for some time ;
that they refused to abide by some of the regulations that had been put into effect,
particularly the staggered hours for use of the cafeteria at lunch time; that Price
had been a troublemaker and had engaged in other fights where she had been
the aggressor ; that she had been guilty of sleeping on the job on several occasions,
and generally did not conform to the rules of the shop Concerning Poe and
Held, it was reported that while their conduct had not been as flagrant in its
disregard of the general rules, the three women usually acted in concert and
would have to be dealt with as a group. The problem presented to Knowlton and
Vieth by the protest of the other women in the miliroom was, in effect , simply
that the larger gi oup refused to work further with the Price-Poe-Held group
Normally, in such a case, the matter would be solved by placing the subject of
the protest in another department. Knowlton made no effort to do this, for, he
testified, he would have discharged them even without the fight incident, on the
basis of their conduct as reported by Vornberg, Rapp and the matron. It was this
fact, according to Knowlton, that, led Respondent to discharge them without
calling them in to hear their side of the fight incident.
As has been stated, there is no evidence to indicate that anyone in manage-
ment knew, or surmised, or had any basis for surmising, that Poe and Held
were members of the A F. L. The only basis for identifying Price with the
A F L. was the fact that, for several months prior to her discharge she had
worn an A F L. button. However, aside from some remarks by one or two of
the building men or working crew leaders who evidenced antipathy for the A F. L,
none of whom was more than technically supervisory and all of whom legiti-
mately were members of the Independent, there is nothing in the record to indi-
cate that anyone identified with management in a position of responsibility.
entertained any opposition to, or animosity for the A F. L which would justify
an inference that disciplinary action, ostensibly for infractions of the rules, actu-
ally was motivated by antipathy for the A. F. L There is evidence to show that
Rapp, an hourly-paid employee, notwithstanding that he is assistant foreman, and
some of the others in similar positions who had been members of the Independent
662514-46-vol. 63-26
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
since its inception, and most of whom had been without supervisory authority in
the early history of that organization, had continued to maintain their member-
ships in it, primarily to preserve certain sick benefits the Independent accords
its members. But there is no substantial and credible evidence that Rapp or any
of the other building men or assistant foremen who were clearly supervisors
exercising a supervisor's influence, were active on behalf of the Independent or
that they engaged in any conduct designed to discourage membership in the
A. F. L.5
,Since there is no showing that the A. F. L. affiliation of any of the three was a
factor in bringing about the discharges, or that such affiliation was even known
to supervision, except as to Price, Respondent is not required to justify either
the discharges or its procedure in connection therewith. In the absence of the
"discrimination for union activities" element, it was no more than an adminis-
trative matter concerning unsatisfactory inter-employee relations, which was
disposed of by the dismissal of P-rice, Poe, and Held. This is a discretionary
privilege of employers under such circumstances.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is found that the discharges of Price, Poe, and
Held were brought about by their unwillingness to observe the rules of Re-
spondent for the conduct of its employees, and because of their inability to work
harmoniously with the other employees with whom they were brought in contact,
8 The scattered bits of testimony concerning remarks by fioormen, building men, assist-
ant foremen or foremen are not persuasive to the writer as evidence of interference,
restraint or coercion in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
McKee testified that every few days he had cons erlations with O'Brien about the
A. F. L. and that O'Brien's stock rejoinder was, in substance that be would not want
to be there when A. F. L. came in; that be did not want to be dictated to by an outside
organization . As between O'Brien and McKee, the former is the more credible . O'Brien
did not deny A. F., L. was mentioned in conversations with McKee but stated that, on
the basis of instructions issued in the early days of the Independent, he had maintained
a neutral position and never said anything more to McKee on the subject than that
whether he belonged to A. F. L was his own business. O'Brien is credited as to this.
McKee also testified that on some occasions, Roland Aubuchon, his floorman who had
been promoted from operator to floorman in April or May 1943, would remark that he
could not see what they could expect to get out of the A F. L. These conversations,
while not placed definitely, must have occurred in the fall of 1943. During the entire
time, Aubuchon was and still is a member of the Independent and until approximately 6
months previous, had been a co-worker with McKee. The statements were not denied.
Albert Rahmeier is working leadman on the yard crew, and an ardent supporter of
the Independent. He has carried the title of assistant foreman since February 14,
1943 but his duties have not changed. He and his crew get their orders from the yard
superintendent. Such orders do not go through Rahmeier. His time is spent at physical
work He has no authority. Rahmeier is an employee of 10 years standing, age about
50, based on the writer's observation. His support of the Independent is traditional
and on many occasions, A. F. L. supporters would bait him about it. He freely advo-
cated the Independent as against A. F. L. in the recent contest by A. F. L. for mem-
berships, but his position in the plant is not such that anything he said could fairly be
attributed to Respondent.
Price attributed certain statements to Rapp which the latter denied, and also one
statement to Vornberg, the foreman of the mill room, that while she was not compelled
to join the Independent, she should do so to hold her job. Vornberg, who is over 70 and
was unable to appear, did not deny this. On the basis of Price's general testimony,
and her obvious inclination to color it, Rapp's denial is accepted The testimony con-
cerning Vornherg is not disregarded but, in the general setting, sufficient weight cannot
be attributed to it to make it the basis of an unfair labor practice finding.
With any background of managerial antagonism to A F. L. or with a showing of dis-
criminatory treatment, all the foregoing would go to fill out the pattern, but in the
absence of such showing, these isolated instances, all of questionable quality, are not
regarded as substantial and credible evidence sufficient to support a charge that Re-
sponent, because of them, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 389
and the unwillingness of the other women in the millroom to continue to work
with them ; that such condition had no relation to the union affiliations of any
of the parties involved, and that the discharges were not motivated by any
intent or desire to discourage membership in the A. F. L. or encourage member-
ship in the Independent, but were solely and wholly based upon the good of
Respondent's organization as a whole. In effecting the discharges on May 19,
1944, of Jewel Price, Gladys Poe, and Marguerite Held, Respondent has engaged
in no unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, or
at all.
In the light of all the foregoing facts, the undersigned is unable to find any
evidence in the record that Respondent has, in any regard, engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned reaches the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Independent Union of Chemical Plant Workers, unaffiliated, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.'
4. Respondent has engaged in no unfair labor practice within the meaning of
the Act
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire
record herein, the undersigned recommends:
1. That the complaint herein be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective July 12, 1944, as amended,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in writ-
ing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon together with the original and four copies of a brief in
support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Boards request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
R. N. DENHAM,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 8, 1945.