National Meter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1939

11 N.L.R.B. 320 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of NATIONAL METER COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1223
Case No. C-743.-Decided February 15, 1939
Meter Manufacturing Industry Interference, Restraint , and Coercion: oppo-
sition to outside union expressed through suggestion that employees elect
committee to bargain with respondent-Company-Dominated Union: employees'
collective bargaining committee initiated and sponsored by employer ; domina-
tion of and interference with formation and administration ; support; disestab-
lished , as agency for collective bargaining ; contracts invalidated-Contract:
depriving employees of right to demand written contract or closed shop with
outside union and to protest against discharge for union affiliation or activity,
invalid-Discrimination : charges of, dismissed.
Mr. Jacob Blum, for the Board.
Kotzen, Mann d Siegel, by Mr. Abraham Mann, of New York City,
for the respondent.
Mr. Robert Burstein, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1223, herein called
the Union," the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by Elinore M. Herrick, Regional Director for the Second
Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated December 20,
1937, against National Meter Company, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served
3 The Union is referred to in the original charge as United Electrical and Radio Work-
ers of America , Local 1223. Since the date of the original charge its name has been
changed to United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1223, and
it so appears in the amended charge. During the hearing the complaint was amended
by substituting the present name of the Union for the former name.
11 N. L. R. B., No. 30.
320
NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL . 321
upon the respondent, the Union, and the Collective Bargaining Com-
mittee of the Employees of National Meter Company, herein called
the Committee.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that on or about September 29, 1937, the respondent dis-
charged and refused to reinstate George Green and Alois Wiedemann
for the reason that they had joined and assisted the Union; that on
or about June 25, 1937, the respondent initiated, formed, and spon-
sored a labor organization*or plan for the purpose of dealing with its
employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, and conditions of
employment, and dominated and interfered with its administration
and contributed support to it; that the respondent attempted to
coerce its employees into signing individual contracts of employ-
ment in order to discourage membership in the Union; and that by
the afore-mentioned acts and by other acts the respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, and now is so in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing them, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent filed an answer dated December 24, 1937, denying
in substance that the respondent had engaged in or was engaging in
the alleged unfair labor practices, and requesting that the complaint
be dismissed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York City on May
23, 24, 25, and 26, 1938, before William Seagle, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved
that the complaint be conformed to the proof. The motion was
granted. At the conclusion of the Board's case and at the close of the
hearing, counsel for the respondent moved that the complaint be
dismissed on the ground that the original charge was not attached
to the complaint pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended. The motion was denied.
Article II, Section 5, of the Rules and Regulations, provides that
"a copy of the charge shall be attached to the complaint." Since the
amended charge in the instant case superseded the original charge
and inasmuch as a copy of the amended charge was attached to the
complaint, we find that the procedure adopted is in accordance with
the provision of the said Rules and Regulations. Moreover, the
respondent could not have been prejudiced by the alleged defect and
does not contend that it has thereby been prejudiced. The ruling of
the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed.
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel for the respondent also made separate motions that the
several allegations of the complaint be dismissed on the ground that
they were not sustained by the evidence. The Trial Examiner granted
the motion to dismiss the complaint in so far as it charged that the
respondent, kept under surveillance the meetings and meeting places
of members of the Union, denied the motion with respect to domina-
tion of a labor organization, and reserved ruling on the motion per-
taining to the alleged discriminatory discharges of Green and
Wiedemann.2
We have reviewed the above-mentioned rulings and all the other
rulings made by the Trial Examiner on motions and on objections to
the admission of evidence and find that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 1, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (2) of the Act but not within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices so found, and withdraw recognition from
and disestablish the Committee as a representative of its employees.
Thereafter the respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. The parties, although accorded an opportunity for
oral argument before the Board, made no request therefor. The
Board has considered all the exceptions of the respective parties to
the Intermediate Report and in so far as they are inconsistent with
the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds them to be without
merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New York corporation having its principal
office and place of business and operating its only manufacturing
plant at Brooklyn, New York.3 It is engaged in the business of
manufacturing meters and accessories for water and other liquids.
At the date of the hearing the respondent employed at its plant ap-
proximately 185 production employees.
The raw materials used by the respondent at the plant in the course
of manufacture consist of bronze ingots, molded hard rubber, cast-
2 Thereafter , in his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner granted the motion to
dismiss as to Green and Wiedemann.
8 In addition the respondent maintains and operates service or sales branches in
Boston, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, each carrying a small amount
of stock.
NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 323
iron castings, nuts, bolts, and screws. Between May 1 and Novem-
ber 1, 1937, the respondent secured raw materials aggregating
$128,540 in value, and representing 72 per cent of all such materials
used by it, from States other than the State of New York, including
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Ohio, and Illinois. During that same period finished products aggre-
gating $484,092 and constituting 89 per cent of the respondent's total
output were sold and shipped outside of the State of New York.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
' United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
1223, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Indus-
trial Organization, admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
The Collective Bargaining Committee of National Meter Company
is a labor organization of the respondent's employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The formation of the Committee; the, contracts; interference,
restraint, and coercion
In the latter part of May or early in June 1937, the Union com-
menced organizational activities among the respondent's employees
and succeeded in enrolling a number of them as members. Alexander
Whittaker, vice president of the respondent in charge of production,
soon became aware of these activities. He testified that at some time
during June a number of employees, whose names he could not recall,
complained to him that they were being threatened with violence and
loss of their jobs if they did not sign up with the Union. According
to his testimony he informed them that he could not offer them any
advice, because it was "none of [his] business." Nevertheless, shortly
thereafter, he and Norbert Kenny, the respondent's president and
treasurer, discussed the situation with officers of several other firms
in Brooklyn. Following these discussions, they went to the Brooklyn
Chamber of Commerce, of which the respondent had been a member
for many years, and conferred with Galvin, its executive vice presi-
dent, and L. L. Balleisen, industrial secretary.4 From the latter's
desk they "picked up" copies of statements purporting to set forth
the rights of employees under the Act and forms of agreements which
had been used in, other firms.
On June 22 the foremen were instructed by Whittaker to notify
the employees of a meeting to be held that afternoon. Accordingly,
* Referred to in the transcript of the hearing as L. L. Balliston, Industrial Consultant
of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce.
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at 2 o'clock, the power was shut off and the employees assembled on
the first floor. They were addressed by Kenny who read from a
statement which had previously been prepared by him and Whittaker
and was based on the statement secured from Balleisen. He called
the attention of the employees to the Act, advised them of their right
to bargain collectively, and stated that the respondent was in com-
plete agreement with the theory of collective bargaining. He pointed
out that the respondent had for many years enjoyed peaceful rela-
tions with its employees and desired them to continue. Kenny then
read :
Interruption of work or loss of time in this plant will not help
either you or the management. For that reason we are offering
the following suggestions which you are free to accept or not,
as you see fit.
We would be pleased to bargain collectively with a committee
of your fellow workers of your own choosing, provided a majority
of our employees so desire. If you elect and choose such a com-
mittee, we would be glad to negotiate and enter into a written
contract with this Committee on your behalf, and with each one
of you individually.
You are entitled, under the Law, to join a union or not as
you see fit and we may not and will not discriminate against you
on account of any union activities.
Your Company has considered this subject fully and is anxious
and willing to enter into a written contract with its employees.
We must, however, state at this time that we will not sign a con-
tract with any union or have a closed shop in this plant. We
believe a contract made with outsiders, and a closed shop, would
be against the best interest of both the Company and its
employees.
Outlining the contents of the suggested contract with a committee
of the employees, Kenny stated that it would cover rates of pay, hours
of work, "no lockouts, no strikes," and the peaceful settlement of all
disputes "by mediation between ourselves, and, if we cannot agree, by
arbitration." He commented : "This type of contract will insure last-
ing peace and eliminate industrial warfare. Industrial warfare is as
much out of date as war between nations. No one has ever won
a war and no one has ever won a strike. Both sides always lose.
Sensible people do not have to blow each other's heads off to arrive
at a fair understanding. We sincerely hope that you will give this
matter your deep consideration and we will be glad to abide by the
wish of the majority of the workers in this respect."
At the conclusion of the address the employees were invited to take
copies of the statement which had previously been mimeographed by
NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 325
the respondent, and were instructed to return to their departments and
elect representatives. Fourteen representatives, one for each depart-
ment, were elected and constituted the Committee. The record does
not disclose whether, prior to the election of the representatives, a vote
was taken to determine the reaction of all the employees to the pro-
posed plan. In the toolroom the election was prefaced by a discussion
in which some employees, headed by George Green ,5 voiced their
opposition to the plan.
A total of 2 hours' time was consumed by the meeting and the elec-
tions. The employees received full pay for such time.
The following day, June 23, Whittaker called a meeting of the com-
mitteemen. The negotiations were perfunctory. The committeemen
requested a wage increase but it was refused. Shortly after the meet-
ing Whittaker and Kenny prepared a contract, using the form secured
from Balleisen "as a guide," and presented it to the Committee. It was
rejected for the reason that it did not grant any wage increase and
contained nothing of benefit to the employees. Within a few days a
second contract was prepared providing for a week's vacation with
pay and a wage increase of 5 cents an hour. This contract was signed
by the Committee and copies of it were distributed among the indi-
vidual employees for their signature.
The contract purported to be an agreement between the respondent,
"and the duly elected collective bargaining committee consisting of
the employees of said corporation . . .," but it was expressly intended
for individual signature by the employees. In addition to the above
provisions and provisions for maximum hours and overtime, the con-
tract provided that the respondent would not lock out any of its
employees because of any dispute arising thereunder. The employees
in turn agreed not to go out on strike during the period of the contract,
to July 1, 1942. A system of arbitration was included with the proviso
that the discharge of any employee and "the propositions and ques-
tions of a closed shop and signing of an agreement with any union"
were not subject to arbitration. Paragraph "Sixth," which prescribed
the rights of the employees, read as follows :
Any Employee has the right to join any union of his own choos-
ing, or to refrain from joining any union. The Employees, or any
of them, shall not and have not the right to demand a closed shop
or a signed agreement by his Employer with any union. This
does not in any way restrain the Employees from having a union
representing them or advising them in collective bargaining, and
the Employer has the absolute and unqualified right to hire or
discharge any employee or employees for any reason, or for no
reason, and regardless of his or their affiliation or non-affiliation
c See Infra , Section III, B.
164275-39-vol x1-22
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with any union. The Employer agrees that no Employee will be
discharged because of legitimate union activities or affiliation
with any union .. .
The circulation of the contract among the employees began about
June 28 and within a week all but four of the employees had signed it.
Those who did not sign were not given its benefits. Thus George
Green, who at first refused to sign the contract, did not immediately
receive any raise in pay. However, when he finally signed it on July
12, he was given the wage increase as of June 30, the effective date
of such increase.
The Committee had no rights or duties under the contract and
engaged in little activity after the signatures on the contracts were
obtained, although Whittaker testified that individual commit-
teemen came to him regarding problems involving their particular
departments.
On one occasion the employees of the toolroom delegated George
Green to confer with Smith, the foreman of that department, in an
attempt to obtain the removal of Carl Eckhardt 6 as committeeman.
Smith consulted Whittaker who stated that he had no objection to
the selection of another committeeman in Eckhardt's place and that
it was up to the employees themselves. Smith, however, suggested to
Green that the election be postponed until his (Smith's) return from
vacation which he was about to take, on the ground that he did not
wish the temporary foreman to be unduly "burdened." By the time
Smith returned the opposition to Eckhardt had apparently died down
and nothing was done.
As far as the record shows, the Committee met only twice during the
period between the signing of the contract and the date of the hearing.
On both occasions, it was summoned by Whittaker. The first meeting
was called in the fall of 1937 to permit Eckhardt and Saake, two em-
ployees of the toolroom, to clear themselves of charges of being labor
spies and the second one, in December 1937, when the complaint in
the present proceeding was served upon the respondent.
The sequence of events and the methods used by the respondent as
outlined above have all the earmarks of the system of anti-union cam-
paigns considered and condemned by the Board in a number of cases.7
The evidence clearly establishes that the respondent's course of con-
duct, following the Union's attempt to organize, was calculated to
6 Eckhardt had been under investigation by the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee
as a labor spy but was exonerated.
7 Matter of The Jacobs Bros Co ., Inc. and United Electrical and Radio Workers of
America, Local No. 1226, and cases there cited , 5 N. L R. B. 620 ; Matter of Federal
Carton Corporation and New York Printing Pressmen 's Union No 51, 5 N. L R B. 879;
Matter of David E. Kennedy, Inc. and Isidore Greenberg, 6 N. L R. B. 699 ; Matter of
Fanny Farmer Candy Shops , Inc. and Committee for Industrial Organization, 10 ,
N L. R. B. 288
1
NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 327
circumvent the Act by discouraging organizational activities, initiat-
ing the respondent's own form of collective bargaining, and imposing
a contract which did not result from the processes of collective bar-
gaining. The entire plan was devised by the respondent after con-
sultation with Balleisen. Through the speech read by Kenny on June
22 the respondent abundantly indicated its hostility to unions. Under
no possible interpretation can this speech be deemed an unbiased pres-
entation of the rights guaranteed employees under the Act. The
statements that under the Act the employees were free to join a union
and the respondent was required to confer with representatives of a
majority of its employees are rendered meaningless by the assertion
that the respondent will not sign a contract with any union or have a
closed shop at the plant. The bare right to join a union is obviously
of little value without the possibility of a contract which normally
constitutes the primary goal of union membership and activity; nor
can collective bargaining as contemplated by the Act take place when
the employer sets forth such a bar. In effect the employees were told
that there would be no collective bargaining except through a com-
mittee of the employees and pursuant to the plan offered by Kenny.
The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the suggested plan
indicate the extent to which the will of the respondent had been im-
posed on its employees. Although Kenny, in his address, stated that
the adoption of the plan was subject to approval by a majority of the
employees, there was no method provided to ascertain such approval.
Moreover, at the conclusion of the address, he instructed the employees
to return to their departments and elect representatives. It is apparent
from the record that the contract which was thereafter signed by the
Committee and the individual employees was not a result of the proc-
esses of collective bargaining contemplated by the Act. The Com-
mittee's acquiescence without protest to a form of contract which, as
we find hereafter, deprived the employees of the rights guaranteed
under the Act confirms our conclusion that it did no more than go
through the form of bargaining and that it acted as a tool of the re-
spondent rather than as the representative of the employees.8 The
domination of the Committee by the respondent thereafter is attested
to by the incident relating to the attempted removal of Eckhardt as
committeeman. Smith testified that the employees in the toolrooin
department could have elected another representative without asking
his permission. It is significant, however, that the employees felt
compelled to consult him and that he requested them to postpone the
election until his return from vacation.
8 See Matter of David F Kennedy, Inc and Isidore Greenberg, 6 N L R B. 699;
Matter of Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc. and Committee for Industrial Organization,
10 N. L R . B. 288.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contract signed by the Committee and the individual employees
also bears a close resemblance to other contracts considered by us in
a number of cases.9 We have held these contracts to be invalid on the
ground that they constitute anti-union or "yellow dog" contracts and
discourage membership in a labor organization. Despite the lip-
service rendered by the terms of the contract to the right of an em-
ployee to join any union of his own choosing, the agreement deprives
the employees of fundamental rights inherent in union affiliation and
activity. The employees relinquish the right to protest against the re-
spondent's exercise of its most powerful anti-union weapon, discharge
for union affiliation or activity, and the right to demand a signed
agreement or a closed shop with any union. The burdens of the
contract are such as to leave no practical field of activity open to the
Union.
We find that the respondent, by its activities described above, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; has dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Collective
Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Com-
pany, and has contributed support to it; and by such conduct has dis-
couraged union membership. We further find that the contracts
described above are invalid and of no effect.
B. The alleged discriminatory discharges of Green and Wiedemann
George Green and Alois Wiedemann began work for the respond-
ent on January 28 and April 19, 1937, respectively. They were both
employed in the toolroom as tool makers and worked for the most
part on fixtures and drill jigs. During the course of their employ-
ment they had each received two increases in wages, one on June 2
and another at the time of the signing of the contract.
Green joined the Union in about the middle of June, and was the
most active employee in its organizational efforts. He succeeded in
signing up a large number of employees, was opposed to the election
of a committeeman in his department, and refused to sign the con-
tract until July 12. Although his organizational activity ceased on
about July 5, he continued to wear his union button thereafter.
On one occasion Smith said to him, "George, if I was you, I would
not wear the button."
Wiedemann also joined the Union in the middle of June, and was
active in soliciting members, although not to the same extent as
Green. He wore his union button only for a couple of weeks. He
was on vacation when the contracts were first distributed for signa-
ture by the employees. He signed one, however, upon his return on
9 See cases cited in footnote 7.
NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL . 329
about July 12. He testified that his union activity continued
thereafter and that he signed up a few employees in the Union.
Both Green and Wiedemann testified that after they joined the
Union they were singled out and "picked on" by Smith. Green
testified that before he had joined the Union he never experienced
any difficulties with Smith because of his work but that thereafter
Smith repeatedly found fault with him. Green admitted that he
occasionally made mistakes in his work but asserted that they were
not serious and were frequently made by other employees. Smith,
however, testified that the only occasion on which he criticized
Green's work was when Green had to go over a jig which he was
assigned to make four successive times before it finally passed inspec-
tion. Smith further testified that he thereafter assigned Green to
simpler work consisting of roughing tools and had no further occa-
sion to criticize his work. Both Green and Wiedemann testified that
they were upbraided for using a certain type of tool in measur-
ing their work. According to Smith's testimony, these particular
tools or blocks were to be used only in connection with the most accu-
rate work and most employees had to be cautioned in this respect.
Green and Wiedemann advanced as further evidence of Smith's bias
towards them the circumstance that after they had joined the Union
he transferred Wiedemann, who had theretofore been working next
to Green, to the other side of the room. Smith testified that he did
so because they were continually talking to each other, although he
admitted that there was no rule prohibiting employees from talking
occasionally.
Shortly after the middle of September 1937, Smith informed
Macllwaine, the respondent's production engineer, that there was a
lack of work in the toolroom. After conferring with Whittaker,
Macllwaine instructed Smith to lay off two men in his department.
Smith thereupon on September 28, 1937, laid off Green and Wiede-
mann. On the same day 14 other employees were laid off in the rest
of the plant. Further lay-offs occurred thereafter, so that by Janu-
ary 11, 1938, a total of 97 employees had been laid off in the entire
plant, 7 of them from the toolroom. By the date of the hearing none
of the employees laid off in the toolroom had been recalled; nor
were any new employees hired to take their places.
The testimony is uncontradicted that beginning in September 1937,
production in the toolroom as well as in the rest of the plant was
reduced due to business conditions, and that the reduction in pro-
duction made feasible certain lay-offs on September 28. Smith testi-
fied that Green and Wiedemann were selected for lay-off in the tool-
room because they were less competent than other employees doing
the same type of work. He stated in this regard that Green, having
proved unsuccessful as a tool maker, had previously been assigned
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to simpler work roughing tools and that Wiedemann's work as a
tool maker was not sufficiently accurate.
Of the 13 men who were retained in the toolroom at the time
Green and Wiedemann were laid off, all except 2, Klosterman and
Pittner, had greater seniority, 7 having been in the respondent's
employ for over 15 years and the remaining 4 since late in 1936.
Whittaker testified that although seniority was always considered
in making lay-offs, the determinative factor was efficiency considered
in the light of the nature of the work available. Pittner, who began
work on September 15, 1937, performed special gauge and die work,
which was entirely different from the work performed by either
Green or Wiedemann, and the record shows that neither Green nor
Wiedemann was capable of performing the work done by Pittner.
Klosterman, who was employed on May 12, 1937, did general machine
work and according to Smith was a particularly competent employee.
That neither Green nor Wiedemann was as qualified as Klosterman
to do the machine repair work did not appear to be contested. In-
deed, Green had seldom done any repair work and could not repair
special machines.
Under all the circumstances, we conclude that it has not been suffi-
ciently established that the respondent discriminated in regard to hire
or tenure of employment of Green or Wiedemann. The allegations
of the complaint with regard to Green and Wiedemann will, therefore,
be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III A, above, occurring in connection with its operations described
in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Collective Bargaining
Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company, and has
contributed support to it. Such an organization cannot, in view of
the circumstances, operate as a true representative of the respondent's
employees. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to withdraw
recognition from it and to disestablish it as representative of any of
the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the re-
spondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or conditions of work.
NATIONAL METER COMPANY ET AL. 331
Having found that the contracts signed by the Committee and the
individual employees are invalid and of no effect, we will order the
respondent to cease giving any effect to them. We will also order the
respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the_ exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local 1223, and the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Em-
ployees of National Meter Company are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees
of National Meter Company, and by contributing support to it, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (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 (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 meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
National Meter Company, Brooklyn, New York, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Col-
lective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter
Company, or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing support to the
Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter
Company or any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to the contracts made with the Collective Bar-
gaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company and
to the individual contracts made with its employees;
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Collective Bargaining Com-
mittee of the Employees of National Meter Company as a representa-
tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and completely dis-
establish the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Employees of
National Meter Company as such representative;
(b) Personally inform in writing each of its employees who has
entered into the individual contract of employment, that the obtain-
ing of such contract by the respondent constituted an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
that therefore the respondent is obliged to discontinue such contract
as a term or condition of employment and to desist from in any man-
ner enforcing or attempting to enforce such contract, and that said
contract is void and of no effect;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist
in the manner aforesaid; (2) that the respondent withdraws and will
refrain from all recognition of the Collective Bargaining Committee
of the Employees of National Meter Company as a representative of
any of its employees and completely disestablishes it as such repre-
sentative; and (3) that the contract made with the Collective Bar-
gaining Committee of the Employees of National Meter Company
and the individual contracts made with its employees are void and of
no effect;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER oRDFnED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1