Meyer & Welch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1102 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (UAW-CIO), REGION 6
In the Matter Of MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
Cases Nos . 21-CA.-697 and f21-CA-789.-Decided October 19, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 28, 1950, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not discriminated against Eldon Clark as alleged
in the complaint as amended and recommended dismissal of that
allegation.' Thereafter, the Respondent and the IAM filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report 'and supporting briefs. The Re-
spondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record,
including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and
the positions of the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds,
and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
' As no exception has been taken to this finding , we will dismiss the amended complaint
insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated with respect to the terms and
conditions of employment of Eldon Clark.
91 NLRB No. 165.
1102
MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED 1103
the .case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, except as noted below.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Meyer & Welch,
Incorporated, Vernon, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with the administration of International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. of L., and International Association of Machinists,
Lodge 1186, or with the formation or administration of any other
labor organization, and from contributing support to either of the
above-named labor organizations, or to any other labor organization;
(b) Giving effect to the collective bargaining agreement, dated June
5, 1950, between the Respondent and International Association of
Machinists, Lodge 1186, or to any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof, or any other contract or agreement between the Respondent
and the said labor organization which may now be in force;
(c) Recognizing International Association of Machinists, Lodge
1186, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have been
certified as such representative by the Board ;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Union,, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
2 The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent unlawfully supported the TAM, among
other ways , by "signing a collective bargaining agreement with TAM while a proceeding
was pending before the Board to determine the collective bargaining representative."
We find it unnecessayy to determine whether the doctrine of the Midwest Piping case, 63
NLRB 1060 , is applicable here. Both before and after the charges were filed in this case,
the Respondent unlawfully supported the TAM in respects other than by executing the
contract , as detailed in the Intermediate Report. Because of such unfair labor practices,
we find that the Respondent gave further unlawful support to the TAM by entering into
the exclusive bargaining contract with an illegally supported labor organization, as the
TAM was. We therefore do not pass on the applicability of the Midwest Piping doctrine
in the instant case.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from International
Association of Machinists, Lodge 1186, as the -representative of any of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until the said
labor organization shall have been certified as such representative by
the National Labor Relations Board ;
(b) Reimburse all its 'employees whose initiation fees and member-
ship dues in International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1186, were
checked off, for the amounts thus deducted from their wages since
March 4, 1950;
(c) Post at its plant in Vernon, California, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked Appendix A.3 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
'where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, insofar
as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated with respect to the-
terms and conditions of employment of Eldon Clark, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations:
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
I In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order ," the words , "A Decree"
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED 1105,
WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all agreements and con-
tracts, supplements thereto or modifications thereof, or any super-
seding contract with INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,.
LODGE 1186.
VOTE WILL NOT interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to-
it.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,.
to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UN-
ION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IIIPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF A14IERICA, CIO (UAW-CIO), REGION 6, or any
other labor. organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ-
ities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployrnent, as authorized in Section.8 (a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL reimburse all our employees, whose initiation fees and
membership dues in INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
LODGE 1186, have been checked off, for the amounts thus deducted
from their wages.
WE WILL withhold all recognition from INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIAaTON OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 1186, as representative of any of
our employees for the purposes of collective bargaining unless and
until said organization shall have been certified as such repre-
sentative by the National Labor Relations Board.
MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
By ------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated-----------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,.
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material..
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Ralph Nutter, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the General Counsel.
Mr. Reymont Paul, of Detroit, Mich., for the Respondent.
Messrs. Robert R. Rissman (Wirin, Rissman & Okrand), C. V. O'Halloran, Don
Garriga, and Noah N. Tauscher, all of Los Angeles, Calif., for the UAW-010.
Mr. Edward M. Skagen, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the IAM.
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed in Case No. 21-CA-697 by International. Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO
(UAW-CIO), Region 6, herein called the UAW-CIO, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board,' on behalf of the Board and by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued a com-
plaint dated May 31, 1950, against Meyer & Welch, Incorporated, Vernon, Cali-
fornia, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act
as amended, Public Law 101, 80th Congress, 1st Session, herein called the Act.
Upon a charge filed on June 2, 1950, in Case No. 21-CA-7S9, by International
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein called UAW-
AFL, the Regional Director issued, on June 7, 1950, a consolidation of charges
and amendment to complaint. Sair order, in substance, amended the caption
to read as appears above and inserted the title of UAW-AFL in certain allega-
tions of the original complaint. The charges, the complaint, the order of con-
solidation and amendment to the complaint, and a notice of hearing were duly
served upon all the parties involved.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleges, in
substance, that the Respondent: (1) since January 1950, has prevented its em-
ployees from exercising a free choice of union affiliation by various coercive
act and conduct designed to discourage membership in UAW-CIO and UAW-
AFL and to encourage membership in IAM and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.,
herein called the Teamsters; (2) in February 1950, entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with IAM at a time when it was not the freely chosen
representative of the respondent's employee; (3) dominated, supported, and
assisted IAN and Teamsters; (4) discriminated in regard to the tenure and
conditions of employment of its employees generally, and of Eldon Clark in par-
ticular; and (5) by these acts has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
The Respondent duly filed an answer and an amendment of answer, in which
it admitted certain allegations as to the nature of its business but denied the
commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, from June 27
to June 30, 1950, inclusive, before the undersigned duly designated Trial Exam-
iner. The General Counsel, the respondent, UAW-CIO, and IAM were rep-
resented by counsel. All parties except UAW-AFL participated in the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. During the course
of the hearing motions were denied, made by the Respondent and IAN, to dis-
miss the complaint in whole or in part. Ruling was reserved upon similar mo-
. tions made by the same parties at the conclusion of the hearing. They are
disposed of by the rulings, findings, conclusions, and recommendations appear-
ing below. At the close of the hearing General Counsel argued orally, on the
record ; other parties waived the opportunity. A brief has been received from
counsel for the Respondent, and a memorandum of citations from General
Counsel.
1 The representative of the General Counsel at the hearing is herein referred to as
Goveral Counsel , the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
MEYER & WELCH, ' INCORPORATED 1107
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Meyer & Welch, Incorporated, is a California corporation engaged in recondi-
tioning Ford automobile parts. It holds several franchises granted by the Fordi
Motor Company covering all or parts of California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyo-
wing, and Arizona. The respondent's plant and main office is at Vernon, Cali-
fornia. It has a warehouse and distribution plant at Salt Lake City, Utah.
The Respondent's trucks deliver reconditioned parts to Ford dealers in Oregon,.
Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona, as well as in California.
During 1949 the Respondent bought Ford parts, materials, and supplies from
the Ford Motor Company assembly plant at Long Beach, California, valued at
more than $1,000,000. Such parts and materials were shipped from the Ford.
Motor Company in Michigan to the Respondent's Vernon plant.
During the same year the Respondent made sales of more than $2,000,000,
shipping materials, equipment, and supplies valued at more than $400,000 to
points outside the State of California.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement:
Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6; International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, A. F. of L.; International Association of Ma-
chinists , Lodge 1186; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,.
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., are all labor organizations
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The setting
The UAW-CIO lost a consent election held at the Respondent's plant in May
1949, and in January 1950, there was no collective bargaining agent for the
production force of about 250 employees. In January President Lewis W. Welch,
,having been informed by his branch manager that the Respondent's products:
were being boycotted in that area, went to Oakland to see E. H. Vernon, a
representative of an IAM local. Vernon told him that mechanics refused to>
work upon Meyer & Welch products because his employees were not "unionized."
Welch promptly invited Vernon to come to the plant and organize them. The
oral invitation was confirmed by letter.
Vernon delayed coming to the plant for several days. 'Early in February W
Teamsters' dues collector : came to Welch's office. Welch told him of his boycott
difficulties. The Teamsters' representative said that if his union was permitted
to organize the employees it would try to lift the boycott. Welch agreed and,
as he testified, "turned the place over" to the Teamsters, under circumstances
described more fully below. This organization signed up about 180 employees
and Welch thereupon gave it a check for $1,500.
Welch then notified the IAM, through his Oakland management , that at
majority of his employees had joined the Teamsters, and asked that the boy-
Welch testified that his drivers "belonged" to the Teamsters.
917572-51-vol. 91-71
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cott be lifted. On February 10 Vernon and other IAM representatives called
upon Welch, pointing out that the Teamsters, in effect, did not control the boycott.
He turned the plant over to them that day and the following Monday. Despite
protests from the UAW-CIO, Welch permitted representatives of the Teamsters
and IAM to conduct elections during working hours at the plant on February 15,
and thereafter signed a contract with IAM.
All of the issues raised by the pleadings stem from the conduct of Welch and
other company officials following his admitted invitation to the IAM that it
organize his employees. The record is barren of any evidence that, before
Welch's invitation,, any employee desired to be. represented by the IAM or that
this organization had ever attempted to organize the plant.
B. Assistance to the Teamsters
According to Welch's own testimony he told the Teamsters' representative
on February 2• that the UAW-CIO had lost previous Board elections and that
he "was welcome" to come in and organize the employees. On the same day
or soon after, Welch had some nine employees, including Anthony Bauman,
selected from plant departments and convened in his office to meet the Teamsters'
official. Welch told the employees, according to his own testimony, that "It
looks like we was going to have to get into a union in order to stay in business."
He also told them that he had gone as far as he was going in "dumping money"
into the business, and that it was up to the employees to "make up their minds"
whether they wanted to go into the Teamsters' In Welch's presence the Team-
sters told the employees that if they joined his organization the boycott would
be lifted, gave them authorization cards, and instructed them to get as many
signed as possible. Thereafter the cards were distributed and signatures solicited
during working hours. Welch candidly admitted that "the whole shebang was
on company time."
,On February 6 two Teamsters' representatives came to the plant. Welch
"turned the place.over to them," he testified. He had all employees assembled
in one department. In the presence of several company officials and introduced
by its secretary, a Teamsters' representative told the audience that if they did
not join his organization the plant would be closed. During the meeting Welch
came in, to respond to a query raised by one employee, and according to his
own testimony told them that although he "hated to see any of them being
forced into a union . . . it had become necessary for them to join some kind -
of a union." One employee asked if they could vote for the UAW-CIO. Welch
replied, "Why vote for C. I. 0.? They don't have the boycott on us."'
A day or two after this meeting the Teamsters' representatives came to Welch
with about 180 signed cards. According to Welch's testimony, since his em-
ployees "were being forced into a union, it wasn't their own wish" he agreed to
pay their initiation fees, and gave the Teamsters a check for $1,500.
C. Assistance and support to JAM
1. In organizing
By letter of February 6 the UAW-CIO formally requested recognition by the
Respondent and voiced its trust that "Management will not enter into any
Agreement with any other labor organization . . . until the issue of the bar-
It is reasonably inferred from the context that welch meant the Teamsters, although
he testified that he said "the union ." Only the Teamsters ' representative was present
besides the employees and supervisors on this occasion.
4 Welch denied giving this advice. The finding rests upon the more credible testimony
of employees present.
MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED 1109
gaining agent is determined." On February 7 the UAW-CIO informed the Re-
spondent that it had learned of the Teamsters' visit of the preceding day, and
requested a similar opportunity to have access to the plant. Sometime during
the afternoon of February 10-after having given the run of the plant to !AM
officials-Welch told the UAW-CIO representative that he. could come to the
plant the following Monday, February 13, half an hour before closing time.
On Friday morning, February 10, Vernon and 4 other IAM officials called
on Welch who, according to his testimony, "turned the place over to them."
Since only a small shift was working that day, the same IAM officials returned
the following Monday, and all employees were again assembled by management.
In the presence of several supervisors Vernon told the employees that it was
the IAM, not the Teamsters, which had "put on" the boycott, and that Welch had
asked him to come down. Employees were also told by Vernon that if they
joined the IAM the boycott would be lifted and they would have 'their jobs.
IAM application cards were then distributed to the employees.
Pursuant to permission granted by Welch the preceding Friday, two,UAW-CIO
officials came to the plant late the same Monday afternoon. The spokesman
told the assembled employees, among other things, that no Board election could
be held until after May 18, 1950, because of the Act, but that his organization
would welcome an election conducted by any unbiased outside agency.
2. In elections of February 15
Although Welch's testimony on the point is more confused and less candid
than on general matters, he said he told his personnel manager, Vernard Kennan,
on February 13 that a vote should be taken athong the employees to see which
union the "people wanted," and that he gave instructions that "it was up to the
union to handle it, because the company didn't want anything to do with it."
Welch's testimony that he talked with CIO officials and that they agreed to the
election is not accepted as reasonable of belief. More credible evidence estab-
lishes that the UAW-CIO vigorously opposed such an election and that its
officials took no part in its conduct. It was stipulated by the parties at the
hearing and is found that the IAM prepared and mimeographed ballots upon
which appeared boxes for "Yes" or "No" votes upon the single question :
Do you wish to be represented jointly by the
MACHINISTS and TEAMSTERS UNION?
Sometime between the IAM meeting of February 13 and the election on
February 15, all employees were, again assembled by management to hear repre-
sentatives of the Teamsters and IAM. They told the employees that their dif-
ferences were dissolved, an election would be held at which votes could be cast
for both, and that later the two unions would decide upon individual classi-
fications and memberships. They called for a hand vote. Employees protested
against this procedure, and a "secret ballot" election was decided upon.
Soon after noon on February 15 all employees were gathered by the plant loud-
speaker system. In the presence of supervisors, ballots described above were
distributed by IAM and Teamsters' representatives, and employees voted. Ap-
parently the results of this balloting were inconclusive. About 64 votes were for
JAM alone, 43 for IAM and Teamsters combined, and 38 voted "No." According
to Welch's testimony the Teamsters' representative came to him and told him
"they were out of the picture and conceded to the IAM."
Shortly after this election a number of employees were selected by manage-
ment and called to the office of Production Manager Jess Wilcox. When these
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
selected employees were convened Wilcox told them, "Mr. Bauman wants te.
talk to you people." (Bauman has previously been identified as one of the em-
ployees selected by management to solicit for the Teamsters.) Bauman told
the employees that the matter must be settled that afternoon, declaring that:
"I have seen the bulletin that Mr. Welch has ready to post on the clock closing
the plant if this isn't settled this afternoon." When one of the employees asked
if they could vote for the CIO on the next ballot Bauman said they could, but
added, "I happen to know that if the TAM doesn't get in, the plant will close."
When asked if the CIO knew of the next election Bauman replied, "I don't
know and don't care." As the employees started to leave the office, Plant Manager
Weidauer halted them and asked Bauman, "You have made it quite clear to
these people they are to go back to their departments and tell exactly what you
told them?"'
Late that. afternoon a second election was held, in the presence of an TAM
representative. No UAW-CIO representative was present. Bauman distributed
ballots prepared by the Respondent upon which appeared only:
Please check which Union you prefer :
IAM---------- CIO----------
The votes were counted in the sales office, in Plant Manager Weidauer's
presence. According to Welch, in a report thereafter made to the Regional
Office, 109 voted for TAM and 79 for the CIO.
3. In recognizing TAM as sole bargaining agent
According to the date appearing on the document, also on February 15 Welch
and a business representative of TAM signed a "Statement of Bargaining Agency,"
in which Welch stated that he had checked the "Authorization Cards" whereby
his employees had selected TAM to represent them and agreed to recognize this
organization as the "sole representative and bargaining agent" of the employees.
This document and others were sent to the Regional Office on March 24, 1950.
There is no credible evidence that on February 15 either Welch or any TAM
representative had checked any TAM authorization cards.
On February 16 Welch posted a bulletin informing employees that "as far
as Meyer & Welch is concerned," TAM was their bargaining agent.
4. In coercing authorizations for dues deductions
About a week after the elections four TAM representatives returned to the
plant, were installed for several hours in management offices, and with the coer-
cive assistance of officals and supervisors obtained employees' signatures to
authorizations for dues deductions from their pay.
According to Weidauer's own testimony, upon instructions from the per-
sonnel manager he had two production managers send employees in groups to
Wilcox's office, where TAM representatives were waiting. Credible evidence
establishes that in the presence of management officials some employees were
5 Welch admitted that he "thought" he told Bauman the first election was inconclusive,
that it "was no secret to anybody " that the plant "would be closed down if this thing
wasn 't settled ," and that "there may have been a bulletin " to that effect . Because of
these admissions the Trial Examiner does not accept as true his denial that he showed or
discussed this bulletin with Bauman.
" Weidauer denied "ever" making this remark . Bauman was not called as a witness.
The finding rests upon the more credible testimony of employee Ellis, one of the employees
called to the office by Wilcox , and the probabilities inherent in the situation admittedly
created by management alone.
MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED
told by IAM representatives that they must sign then or be fined later. It is
undisputed that in one group of employees thus sent to, this office two deaf mutes
were included, that Wilcox told the union representative to "Fix these guys up"
and then himself transmitted the message to them in sign language.
Some employees refused to sign when first sent to the office, and were ordered
hack by their foremen. After having twice been sent to the IAM representative
and twice refusing to sign , employee Ellis was told by her foreman (Al Schlager)
that if she joined he might be able to get a raise for her.. She thereupon returned
and signed the deduction slip. Having refused to sign on the first occasion,
employee Duncan was again sent to the office by Foreman Tracy Lus. This time
Duncan signed, being informed by the IAM representative that only 6 employees
had not already signed. Employees Barnett, Jenkins, Harris, and Tipton were
likewise sent back to the IAM representative by supervision.
Credible evidence establishes that the Respondent began deducting IAM dues
and fees from employees' pay during the first week of March 1950. No con-
clusive evidence was submitted to show precisely how many employees have been
subjected to those dues deductions. IAM counsel stated that his calculations
showed that as of June 23, 1950, 231 of 243 employees were having dues de-
ducted, while counsel for 'the Respondent said his examination of company records
showed 199 such deductions.
Despite protests from UAW-CIO and from employees themselves, it is plain
from the statement of IAM counsel that the Respondent continued to deduct
IAM dues. On March 22 a UAW-CIO official sent a written protest on this
matter to Welch. Welch replied by asking "Since when do you think you are
running Meyer & Welch, Inc?" Petitions bearing signatures of about 50 em-
ployees requesting cessation of such deductions were admittedly received by
Welch, who said he did not recall giving any instructions to "personnel" about
them.
4. In signing a collective bargaining agreement
Despite the fact that Welch was well aware that on February 7, 1950, the
UAW-CIO had filed with the Regional Office a petition for certification (Case
No. 21-RC-1154), and on the following day its first charges of unfair labor prac-
tices (in Case No. 21-CA-697), and despite Welch's admitted receipt of a letter
from UAW-CIO, dated March 3, 1950, claiming some representation among the
employees, Welch entered into an exclusive collective bargaining agreement
with IAM dated June 5, 1950.
Although the contract contains .a "union shop" clause, by agreement it does
not become operative until a Board election on the point is held. There is no
evidence that any employee has been discriminated against, as to employment,
on the basis of this pending provision.
D. Alleged discrimination as to Eldon Clark
Employee Eldon Clark circulated the petitions, above referred to, protesting
the checkoff of IAM dues. It is undisputed that Welch called him to his office
and asked if he had passed them around, and that Clark admitted the fact.
Welch accused Clark of forgery, declared he would "get" him, and then told
him to "get the hell" out of the office.
According to Clark's testimony, sometime in the fall of 1949 he had been
told by Wilcox that when the next opening occurred he would be promoted to
lead man. Also according to his testimony, early in May an opening appeared.
but employee Elmer Miller was given the job. Upon this paucity of evidence
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rests General Counsel's claim that Clark was discriminatorily denied promotion.
Wilcox, on the contrary, denied that he ever promised Clark a lead man's job.
He further testified, without rebuttal from Clark, that the latter actually func-
tioned as lead man for a period early in 1950 but had to be reprimanded for
getting involved in disputes with other employees. The Respondent's records
show and Clark admitted that Elmer Miller had greater seniority at the plant
than Clark.
While the issue is not free of doubt, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds
that a preponderance of evidence fails to sustain the allegation of the complaint
as to any discrimination against Clark. It is found, however, that Welch's threat
to "get" Clark, for circulating the petitions, was plainly coercive, and constituted
interference with rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
E. Allegations involving UAW-AFL
Two days after issuance of the original complaint based upon charges filed
by UAW-CIO, a similar charge was filed by UAW-AFL. As noted heretofore,
the complaint was thereafter amended to include UAW-AFL where UAW-CIO
was mentioned. It appears needless to the Trial Examiner to set out in detail
these amended allegations. No evidence relating to any UAW-AFL activity
was adduced by General Counsel, except the one letter received by Welch and
previously noted, until a motion was made by counsel for IAM to dismiss all
allegations relating to UA`V-AFL. General Counsel then called one UAW-AFL
representative, who testified that on February 10 he distributed handbills out-
side the plant and that he saw Welch. There is no credible evidence that the
respondent engaged in any conduct for the specific purpose of discouraging
membership in the UAW-AFL.
It is apparent to the Trial Examiner, by the timing of its charge, that
UAW-AFL was either unaware until issuance of the complaint of any unfair
labor practices of the Respondent, or considered them of insufficient importance
to warrant filing charges.
Under the circumstances revealed by the record, the Trial Examiner hereby
grants the motion renewed by counsel for IAM at the close of the hearing to
dismiss all allegations of the complaint relating specifically to UAW-AFL.
F. Conclusions
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by the following conduct the
Respondent supported and assisted Teamsters: (a) Selecting and permitting
employees, including Anthony Bauman, to solicit signatures to Teamsters' cards
during working hours; (b) Welch's statement to these selected employees, in
effect, that if employees did not join Teamsters he would close the plant ;
(c) Welch's statement to all employees on February 6, in the presence of
Teamster's representative, that they. must join a union ; and (d) payment to
Teamsters of $1500.
By the following conduct the' Respondent supported and assisted IAM: (a)
urging and inviting IAM to organize the plant; (b) "turning the place over" to
JAM representatives on February 10 and 13; (c) permitting and not disavowing
statements by IAM representatives to employees gathered by the Respondent to
the effect that their jobs depended upon their joining IAM; (d) permitting dis-
tribution of IAM cards during working hours; (e) permitting IAM to conduct
an election at the plant on February 15; (f) permitting and instructing Bauman
to tell employees that, in effect, the plant would be closed if they did not vote
MEYER & WELCH, INCORPORATED 1113
for IADI; (g) posting a notice on February 16 recognizing IAII as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees; (li) coercing employees into signing
dues deduction authorizations; (i) promising wage increases if such authoriza-
tions were signed ; and (j) signing a collective bargaining agreement with IAM
while a proceeding was pending before the Board to determine the collective
bargaining representative.'
By the above-described conduct the Respondent encouraged membership in
Teamsters and IAM discouraged membership in UAW-CIO, and interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act e
The Trial Examiner further finds that the agreement entered into between
the Respondent and JAM and the contractual relationship existing thereunder,
has been and is a means of utilizing an employer-assisted organization to frus-
trate the exercise by the Respondent's employees of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The Trial Examiner is of the opinion that while the evidence plainly estab-
lishes flagrant interference with the administration of, assistance to, and support
of IAM and Teamsters by the Respondent, its conduct falls short of domination
of either organization. The remedy to be recommended, therefore, will be in
consonance with Board policy set forth in Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670:
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has interfered with the administration
of Teamsters and JAM and has assisted and contributed financial and other
support thereto. The effects and consequences of the Respondent's interference
with and support of IAM, as well as its continued recognition of IAM as the
bargaining representative of its employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to
the free exercise by its employees of their rights to self-organization and to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. It will there-
fore be recommended that the Respondent withhold recognition of JAM and
refrain from dealing with it unless and until it shall have been certified by the
Board as. the collective bargaining representative of its employees.
See Sun Oil Company, 89 NLRB 833.
Much of the conduct above described is alleged in the complaint as discrimination "in
regard to tenure and conditions of employment" and therefore in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act . Except in the case of Eldon Clark , above described , there is no
evidence that any employee was discriminated against. Since it appears to the Trial
Examiner , having found violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 2), that ample remedy exists
under Board policy approved by the courts for reimbursing employees for IAM dues
coercively deducted from their pay, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed
as to 8 ( a) (3) allegations.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has been found that the agreement entered into between the Respondent
and IAM has been a means whereby the Respondent has utilized an employer-
assisted labor organization to frustrate self-organization and defeat genuine
collective bargaining by its employees. Under these circumstances any con-
tinuation, renewal, or modification of the current agreement would perpetuate
the conditions which have deprived employees of the rights guaranteed them by
the Act and would render ineffectual other portions of these remedial recom-
mendations. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease giving
effect to any agreement between it and IAM, or to any modification or extension
thereof. Nothing in these recommendations should be taken, however, to re-
quire the Respondent to vary those wage, hour, and other substantive features
of its relations with the employees themselves, if any, which the Respondent
established in performance of the agreement as extended, renewed, modified, sup-
plemented, or superseded.
The Trial Examiner is also of the opinion that, under the circumstances of
this case, the Respondent should, as a means of restoring the status quo and
remedying the unfair labor practices found, reimburse each employee for the
:amount of fees and dues which the Respondent has checked off his wages and
paid over to IAM, less any amount already returned to him by IAM. It will be
so recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6; International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, A. F. of L.; International Association
of Machinists, Lodge 1186; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with the administration of International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L. and
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1186, and by contributing sup-
port thereto, the Respondent has engaged, in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and has not dominated the formation or
administration of Teamsters or IAM within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2)
of the Act.
(Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]