Metropolltan Alloys Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 966 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Metropolitan Alloys Corporation and Ronald Allen
and Metropolitan Alloys Corporation Employee
Committee, Party in Interest. Case 7-CA-13429
December 5, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
On June 10, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Max
Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in answer thereto and cross-exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent has dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of the employee
committee and has contributed financial and other
support to it, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act.
2. The record in this case shows that on March 2,
1977, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7
approved an informal settlement agreement dispos-
ing of the issues raised with respect to the termina-
tion of the Charging Party, as well as the allegations
in the amended complaint as to various independent
8(a)(l) violations. The settlement agreement also
shows that the Regional Director and the General
Counsel expressly reserved the right to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues settled in the agree-
ment at any hearing held regarding the unsettled
issues raised in the amended complaint, without
seeking any remedy for conduct expressly disposed
of through the settlement. Obviously the settlement
agreement permits the General Counsel, in this
proceeding, to introduce evidence concerning the
matters disposed of by the settlement, but the use of
such evidence is limited to that of shedding light on
the issues raised by the amended complaint. No
unfair labor practice findings can be made with
respect to allegations which have been disposed of in
the settlement agreement. However, the Administra-
tive Law Judge did not observe this distinction and,
as a result, he made rulings on the alleged 8(a)(1)
conduct covered by the settlement agreement-
233 NLRB No. 145
finding some based on the testimony and dismissing
others based on the lack of supporting evidence.
As noted, each of these alleged violations was
incorporated in the above-mentioned settlement and
fully remedied pursuant thereto.
Accordingly, we do not adopt the Administrative
Law Judge's findings of independent 8(a)(1) viola-
tions and we shall delete any reference to them in the
Order and notice. We have, however, considered
these matters to the extent that they relate to the
other violation found.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Metropolitan Alloys Corporation, Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order, as modified herein:
1. Delete paragraphs l(a) through (d) and reletter
the remaining paragraphs accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the
administration of Metropolitan Alloys Employee
Committee, or contribute other support thereto.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL completely disestablish the aforesaid
Committee as the representative of our employees
for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing
with or discussing grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of work.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming and remaining, members of
any labor organization.
METROPOLITAN ALLOYS
CORPORATION
966
METROPOLITAN ALLOYS CORPORATION
DECISION
MAX ROSENBERG, Administrative Law Judge: With all
parties represented, this proceeding was heard before me in
Detroit, Michigan, on February 14 and 15, 1977, upon a
complaint filed by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board and an answer interposed thereto
by Metropolitan Alloys Corporation, herein called Respon-
dent.' At issue is whether Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter. A
brief has been received from Respondent which has been
duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this case, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they
testified on the stand, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Michigan corporation with its office and
place of business in the city of Detroit, is, and has been, at
all times material herein, engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of zinc and aluminum castings. During the
annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent
purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to
its Detroit place of business aluminum and zinc and other
goods and materials, valued in excess of $50,000, which
were transported and delivered to its place of business in
Detroit, Michigan, directly from points located outside the
State of Michigan. The complaint alleges, the answer
admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is undisputed and I find that International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 337, herein called the Union,
and Metropolitan Alloys Employee Committee, herein
called the Committee, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that, on various dates in August
1976,2 Respondent, by and through its agents and
supervisors, violated Section 8(aX 1) of the Act by threaten-
ing its employees with discharge for engaging in protected,
concerted activities; coercively interrogating its employees
regarding their attitudes and the attitudes of their fellow
I The complaint, which issued on November 30. 1976, is based on a
charge in Case 7-CA-13429 which was filed on October 18, 1976, and
served on October 19, 1976, and a charge in Case 7-CA-13311, which was
filed and served on August 31, 1976.
At the hearing, the parties entered into an informal settlement agreement
disposing of the issues raised in Case 7-CA-13311 wherein the General
Counsel alleged that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX3) of the Act by
terminating the employment of Charging Party Ronald Allen on August 13,
1976. Thereupon, that case was severed from Case 7-CA-13429.
employees toward, sympathy for, and adherence to, the
Union; threatening its employees with reprisals because of
their activities on behalf of the Union; and, promulgating a
rule prohibiting its truck drivers from entering Respon-
dent's plant for the purpose of preventing them from, and
in retaliation for, engaging in activities on behalf of the
Union and other protected, concerted activities. The
complaint further alleges that, on various dates in August,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of the statute by
dominating and interfering with the administration of the
Committee, and contributing financial and other support
to it. Respondent denies the commission of any labor
practices proscribed by the Act.
Ronald Allen testified without contradiction, and I find,
that on July I he obtained a job as a furnace operator with
Respondent and toiled in this capacity until he left
Respondent's employ on August 13. As he was leaving
work on the afternoon of July 26, he and two other
employees were met at the plant gate by Robert Spencer
and Frank Walker. Spencer and Walker introduced
themselves as business agents of the Union. Spencer
inquired whether the men desired to read some campaign
literature concerning the purposes and objectives of the
Union. Spencer also distributed to them union authoriza-
tion cards and advised the employees that, if they were
interested in joining that labor organization, they should
contact him at a later date. At this juncture, Shorty Jones, a
foreman on the day shift, approached the gathering and
Spencer proffered the literature and a designation card to
him. Jones declined the offer, stating that he "was part of
management."
Allen further testified and I find that, at lunchtime on or
about August 2, he observed Spencer leaving Respondent's
plant. In the company of two other employees, Allen met
with Spencer at the loading dock. Spencer asked the
employees if they knew the whereabouts of the Spilmans,3
and was told that the Spilmans were at lunch. Spencer then
informed the men that he had come to the plant "to talk to
them [the Spilmans] about possibly becoming our bargain-
ing agent." A short time later, Superintendent Joel Gordon
joined the group and, according to Allen's undenied
testimony, Spencer introduced himself to Gordon as a
business agent of the Union. Ordering the employees to
return to their jobs, Gordon "told Spencer that he
[Gordon] knew he [Spencer] had a job to do, and that we
would do our jobs." Spencer queried Gordon as to what
time the Spilmans would return to the plant and, when
Gordon expressed ignorance as to this matter, Spencer told
Gordon that, "whenever they came back, he would be
waiting outside the gate for them." Spencer stationed
himself at the gate for approximately 2 hours, and then left.
Shortly thereafter, the Spilmans entered the facility and
proceeded to their office, accompanied by Gordon.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1976.
3 In its answer to the complaint, Respondent admitted that Emil Spilman
was the president of Respondent, that Gilbert Spilman and Murray Spilman
both were vice presidents, and that these individuals were supervisors within
the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. The answer also admitted that Joel
Gordon, the plant superintendent, and John Thomas Mahon, a foreman,
were statutory supervisors. I so find.
967
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After a brief stay in the office, the Spilmans, Gordon,
and Jeffrey Spilman, Murray's son, approached the
employees in their work area. Jeffrey Spilman distributed
to Allen and the other men copies of a contract which had
previously been executed by the Committee and Respon-
dent. Jeffrey instructed the employees to read the docu-
ment. While Allen was doing so, President Emil Spilman
came up to him and said "that if we struck or put up a
picket line, that he would hire some people to break it,
because we would be violating the present contract. He
told us that if we joined the Teamsters Union, they
wouldn't be in our best interest. We would end up paying
more money to the Teamsters Union. He also mentioned
that people would get fired if they walked out and
picketed." After his conversation with Allen, Emil Spilman
delivered a similar caution to the other workers. Allen
further testified that, prior to this incident of August 2, he
had never seen the agreement; had not been apprised of its
existence when he was hired on July 1; was never told that
a Committee had theretofore been elected to represent the
employees; and had never paid any dues to support the
Committee. 4
With respect to the contract to which Allen adverted in
his testimony, employee Howard Bailey's testimony is
undisputed and I find that Respondent sponsored a pre-
Christmas party in its lunchroom on December 24, 1974,
which was attended by the employees as well as the
Spilmans and Superintendent Gordon. When the work
complement had finished eating and drinking, Murray
Spilman produced a contract covering terms and condi-
tions of employment at the plant which he read to the
assemblage. He then remarked that "we were getting ready
to form a Committee that was just like a Union."
Following this announcement, Murray Spilman distributed
ballots to the employees which already contained the
names of employees M. J. Scott, Willie Crews, and Joe
Kirshin. Murray explained that the purpose of the ballots
was to have the men select two employees as Committee
members, and he informed them that only senior employ-
ees had been nominated by Respondent because it
"wanted the older guys, the older employees - they would
be more capable of dealing with the company. They would
know more about talking to the company than the younger
guys." As a result of the balloting, either Murray or Gilbert
Spilman proclaimed that Scott and Crews had been
elected. According to Bailey's uncontroverted testimony,
"everybody had voted for Willie Crews and M. J. Scott
because we was told to do so. That is who they preferred."
When the meeting ended, Crews and Scott, as Committee-
men, were asked to and did sign the contract which
Respondent had drafted. Murray Spilman then obtained
the signatures of Bailey and Kirshin. It is Bailey's undenied
testimony, and I find, that he had never seen this
agreement prior to December 24, 1974, and that the
employees were never afforded an opportunity to ratify or
reject its contents.
Bailey further testified without contradiction, and I find,
that, in either July or August, he learned that the Union
had embarked upon an organizational campaign at the
4 Allen filed a written grievance with Respondent following his
termination on August 13 to protest this personnel action. The grievance
found its way into the Spilmans' wastepaper basket.
plant when one of the employees solicited his signature on
a union authorization card. At this time, only M. J. Scott
remained a member of the Committee. As he was
preparing to leave work on a date in late July, Bailey
received a visit from Respondent's President Emil Spilman.
In Bailey's words, "He [Emil Spilman] came up to me and
he asked me would I care to take the [Crews] position as
one of the committee men, and he told me I could move up
with the company by taking this position."
Events abided until August 9, when a notice appeared on
the plant bulletin boards announcing that "The Manage-
ment" had scheduled a meeting for August 13 at which an
election was programmed for the employees to select a
successor to Crews as a member of the Committee. The
meeting convened on the morning of August 13 with
approximately 20 employees in attendance. Respondent
was represented by Murray Spilman, Gilbert Spilman,
Jeffrey Spilman, and its counsel, Marvin Breskin. At the
outset, Murray Spilman stated that Attorney Breskin
would conduct the balloting to install a new committee-
man, and Breskin thereupon instructed the men as to how
they should cast their vote. Before the ballots were passed
out by the Spilmans and Attorney Breskin, John Dixon, the
acting foreman on the night shift, told the employees that
"by me [Bailey] having more seniority than the rest of the
employees, that everybody should elect me." After he
received and marked his ballot, Ronald Allen turned to
Attorney Breskin and asked "if we were voting for a
committee man, whether we were in fact voting for a
bargaining agent, and he said yes, and then I asked him did
that bargaining agent mean that they were voting for a
Union, and he said yes. I then asked him about the
constitution and by-laws for the Union. I asked him where
they were. He said, 'Well, we are working on it.' " Allen
inquired whether the employees were permitted to vote for
a labor organization other than the Committee if they so
desired, and Breskin answered in the affirmative. However,
Allen received a negative response when he questioned
Breskin as to whether the employees could cast a write-in
vote for their own bargaining agent. At the conclusion of
their conversation, Breskin advised Allen to "Just vote for
one of the employees listed on the ballot." Breskin
thereupon drew Allen aside and "said that it really wasn't a
Union. It was more of a contract that was designed to keep
out a Union."
When the ballots were counted, Attorney Breskin
proclaimed that Bailey had been elected as a member of
the Committee. Bailey testified, and I find, that, sometime
after the election, he telephoned Gilbert Spilman and told
[Gilbert] that I had heard that they were trying to get a
Union into the shop, and he asked me by whom, and I said
I don't know who, but I heard it." Rounding out Bailey's
testimony, he related that no grievances had ever been
formally processed under the contract between Respon-
dent and the Committee and, prior to the election of
members of August 13, no meetings of the Committee had
ever been held.
Willie Crews testimonially recounted, and I find, that he
had attended the meeting held on December 24, 1974,
968
METROPOLITAN ALLOYS CORPORATION
when he was elected a committeeman. He averred that he
had never seen the contract which Respondent had
presented to the committeemen and employees prior to
that date, and that the contents of the document had never
been subjected to a ratification vote. Moreover, Crews
stated that no meetings between the Committee and
Respondent had ever been scheduled or held during his
stint as a member of the Committee. Finally, employee
Ewald Clem testified, and I find, that, prior to August 13,
he had never seen the contract which was circulated at the
meeting on that date, nor had he previously heard of it. He
further testified that he had never filed a grievance under
the agreement because he was unaware that he could do so,
and that he had never paid any dues to support his
membership in the Committee.
On the basis of the foregoing uncontradicted testimony,5
I find that, on December 24, 1974, Respondent sponsored a
pre-Christmas party for its employees which was attended
by the Spilmans and Superintendent Joel Gordon. When
the festivities were over, Murray Spilman produced a
collective-bargaining agreement which had previously been
drafted by Respondent and contained items relating to
wages, hours, grievances, and other terms and conditions
of employment. Murray Spilman read the document to the
assembled employees, which the latter had never seen
before and had never ratified, and then stated that "we
were getting ready to form a committee that was just like a
Union," an entity which had not therefore existed. He
thereupon proceeded to hand out ballots which already
contained the names of employees M. J. Scott, Willie
Crews, and Joe Kirshin, and informed the men that an
election would be conducted to select two employees to
serve as members of the newly created Committee. Before
the vote was taken, Murray Spilman announced that
Respondent preferred the choice of "older employees"
because "they would be more capable of dealing with the
company. They would know more about talking to the
company than the younger guys." He also instructed the
voters that Respondent desired the selection of M. J. Scott
and Willie Crews. When the votes were tallied, Murray
Spilman pronounced Scott and Crews the victors, where-
upon the new committee members signed the contract on
behalf of the Committee. 6
I have heretofore found that, on July 26, the Union
launched an organizational campaign to enlist the collec-
tive support of Respondent's employees as their bargaining
agent, and that this endeavor came to the attention of
Respondent's officials on or shortly after this date.
Determined to thwart the Union's efforts in this regard,
Respondent undertook to dust off the dormant Committee
and revitalize it. Accordingly, on August 9, Respondent
posted notices on its bulletin boards announcing that a
meeting would be held on August 13 to elect a successor to
Committeeman Willie Crews who had left Respondent's
5 Respondent failed to summon any witnesses in this proceeding to
defend its cause.
6 While the events which occurred on December 24, 1974, relative to the
formation of the Committee by Respondent cannot be utilized to predicate
a finding that the statute has been violated by Respondent because of the
strictures of Sec. IO(b) of the Act, such anterior events may be used to shed
light on the true character of matters occurring within the limitations'
period. See Herbert D. Young, d'b;' Murfreesboro Pure Milk Co., 127
tsLRB 1101, 1102, fn. 3 (1960).
employ on June 15, 1975.7 Meanwhile, in late July,
Respondent's president, Emil Spilman, approached em-
ployee Howard Bailey and inquired whether the latter
would care to replace Crews as one of the committeemen.
As an enticement, Emil Spilman promised that Bailey
"could move up with the company by taking this position."
I have found that a meeting of employees was held on
August 13 as scheduled, with the Spilmans and their
counsel, Marvin Breskin, representing Respondent. When
the session opened, Murray Spilman advised that Attorney
Breskin would supervise the balloting. Before the vote was
taken, Acting Foreman Dixon told the men that, because
Bailey was the most senior employee, "everybody should
elect [Bailey]."s After he marked his ballot, Ronald Allen
asked Attorney Breskin whether the men could choose a
labor organization other than the Committee to represent
them. While Breskin replied that such a choice was
permissible, he added that the employees were debarred
from casting a write-in vote for their own bargaining agent.
At the conclusion of their conversation, Breskin informed
Allen privately that the election was being conducted
essentially to obtain a contract "that was designed to keep
out a Union" and not to select one.
In sum, I find that, commencing on August 2 and
continuing to date, Respondent has dominated and
interfered with the administration of the Committee, and
has contributed financial and other support to it. By the
foregoing conduct, I conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.9
I also find that, sometime after the election of Bailey as a
Committeeman on August 13, Respondent's Vice President
Gilbert Spilman coercively interrogated Bailey concerning
the identity of the employees who championed the Union's
cause in its organizational drive at the plant. By so doing, I
conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
I find that, on August 2, Respondent's President Emil
Spilman threatened employee Ronald Allen and other
employees that they would be discharged if they engaged in
a lawful work stoppage against Respondent, or if they
participated in a strike in contravention of a no-strike
clause embodied in the contract which Respondent had
drafted for and foisted upon the dominated Committee. By
this conduct, I conclude that Respondent contravened the
provisions of Section 8(aXl) of the statute.
Finally, I find that, on August 2, Respondent's president,
Emil Spilman, threatened Ronald Allen and other employ-
ees with reprisals if they engaged in activities on behalf of
the Union. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that
Respondent additionally violated Section 8(aXI) of the
Act.
As the record fails to support the General Counsel's
assertions that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by Vice
President Gilbert Spilman's telephoning of employees at
7 So far as appears on this record, no meetings of the Committee were
held with management from the date of its establishment on December 24,
1974, until August 13, 1975.
s Contrary to Dixon's assertion, Bailey had less seniority than other
employees at the plant.
I American Manufacrturing Company. Inc., 196 NLRB 248 (1972);
NationalCash Register Company, 167 NLRB 1047 (1967).
969
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their homes on August 3 to interrogate them concerning
their attitudes toward, sympathies for, and adherence to
the Union, and those of their fellow employees; by
promulgating a rule on August 5 prohibiting its truckdri-
vers from entering the plant for the purpose of preventing
them from, and in retaliation for, engaging in activities on
behalf of the Union and other protected, concerted
activities; and, during the week of August 9, by Foreman
John Thomas Mahon's coercive interrogation of Respon-
dent's employees concerning their union activities, I shall
dismiss these allegations from the complaint.
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with Respondent's operations described in
section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
v. THE REMEDY
I have found that Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the statute. I shall
therefore order that Respondent cease and desist there-
from.
I have also found that, commencing on August 2, 1976,
Respondent dominated and interfered with the administra-
tion of the Committee, and contributed other support
thereto, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. I
shall therefore recommend that Respondent completely
disestablish the Committee as the representative of any of
its employees for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
dealing with or discussing grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of work.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions, and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union and the Committee are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the administra-
tion of the Committee, and contributing other support
thereto, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX2)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
ORDER '0
The Respondent, Metropolitan Alloys Corporation,
Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their
attitudes toward, sympathy for, and adherence to the
Union.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they leave
work and engage in a lawful work stoppage.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge if they partici-
pate in a strike in contravention of a no-strike clause
embodied in the contract which it drafted for and foisted
upon the dominated Committee.
(d) Threatening employees with reprisals for engaging in
activities on behalf of the Union.
(e) Dominating and interfering with the administration
of the Committee, or contributing other support thereto.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Completely disestablish the Committee as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose, in
whole or in part, of dealing with or discussing grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of work.
(b) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
iI In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
970
METROPOLITAN ALLOYS CORPORATION
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found herein.
971