Northeastern Engineering, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 743 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING , INC . 743
On the basis of the foregoing no reinstatement will be recommended for Acevedo
and Monje but it will be recommended that they be made whole from the dates of
their illegal terminations to the dates of their reinstatement or offer of reinstatement
as the case may be 31 in the manner provided above.
I have also found that Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced
its employees . In my opinion Respondent 's conduct discloses a fixed purpose to
defeat self-organization and its objectives . Because of Respondent 's unlawful conduct
and its underlying purpose I believe that the unfair labor practices proscribed by
the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the course of Respondent's conduct in the past . The preventative purposes of
the Act, in my opinion , will be thwarted unless the recommendations are coexistent
with the threat. In order therefore to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices , to minimize strife
which burdens and obstructs commerce , and thus to effectuate the policies of the
Act, I will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act 32
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Unidad General De Trabajadores De Puerto Rico is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of its employees , thereby
discouraging union activity on the part of its employees , Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging 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 within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
81 The exact dates to be determined by the parties in compliance.
32 N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426 ; N. L. R. B v. Entwistle Manna-
faoturing Co., 120 F. 2d 536 (C. A. 4).
Northeastern Engineering , Inc. and International Union of
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO. Case No.
1-CA-1773. May 100, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 21, 1955, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers 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
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report which contained support-
ing argument. The Respondent filed no exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made 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 argument, and the entire record
112 NLRB No. 96.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and addi-
tions noted below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent,
in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, dominated and interfered
with the administration of the Northeastern Advisory Committee and
contributed financial and other support to that organization. How-
ever, in agreement with the General Counsel, we do not accept the
Trial Examiner's finding that this conduct did not also violate Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner declined to find that Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) had been violated because the Respondent's conduct
was not motivated by a desire to interfere with the employees' rights
guaranteed by the Act.
It is well established that the test of interference, restraint, and
coercion does not turn on the Respondent's motive, but rather on
whether the Respondent engaged in conduct which tended to interfere
with the free exercise of employee rights under Section 7 of the Act.'
As the domination and support of the Committee necessarily inter-
fered with employees' self-organizational rights, we find that the Re-
spondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1), as well as 8 (a) (2).2
SUPPLEMENTAL CONCLUSION OF LAW
By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this 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, Northeastern
Engineering, Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of or rend-
ering financial or other support to Northeastern Advisory Committee
or any other labor organization, and from otherwise interfering with
3 A' L R B v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F 2d 811, 814 (C. A. 7) ; N L R B v.
Ind tstrsal Cotton Mills, 208 F 2d 87, 91-92 (C. A 4).
s We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Order prescribed herein to remedy the
unfair labor practices is not intended to interfere with the functioning of the Committee as
other than a labor organization Sharpies Chemicals, Inc, 100 NLRB 20, 35, enfd 209
F. 2d 645 (C. A. 6) We find merit, however, in the General Counsel's exception to the
Trial Examiner's recommendation that the Respondent be accorded the option of including
the Trial Examiner's proposed "Explanatory Statement" in the notice to be posted Such
a statement , we find , is unnecessary in order to remedy the unfair labor practices com-
mitted by the Respondent
NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING, INC. 745
the representation of employees through a labor organization of their
own choosing, free of employer domination, assistance, or support.
(b) Recognizing the Northeastern Advisory Committee, or any suc-
cessor thereto, as representative of any of its employees for the pur-
pose, in whole or in part, of treating or dealing with the Respondent
concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other terms or conditions of work.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the
Northeastern Advisory Committee as the representative of any of its
employees for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing or treating
with the Respondent concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, Hours
of employment, or other terms or conditions of work.
(b) Publish in an issue of Northeastern News Events and post at
its place of business in Manchester, New Hampshire, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix
A." I Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the First Region of the Board, shall, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof in conspicuous places, including
all places, where notices to employees are customarily posted, and
maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order as to what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
a This notice is amended by stri k ing therefrom the last paragraph entitled "Explanatory
Statement " This notice is further amended by substituting for the words "The Recom-
mendations of a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order " In the event that
this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be sub-
stituted for the woi ds "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a
Decree of the ]United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
A single issue is here presented-whether the Northeastern Advisory Committee
(herein called the Advisory Committee or the Committee ) is a labor organization
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136).1 Re-
'The case ai ises under the usual procedure of the statute Charges were filed The
Regional Director issued and served his complaint, to which Respondent filed its answer.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before this Trial Examiner on November 8 and 16,
1954, in Manchester, New Ilampshiie, at which all parties appeared and were permitted full
participation The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs which have been duly
considered . This report is based upon the entire record
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent concedes that it dominated and supported the Committee as those terms are
used in the Act. However, it denies that the Committee is a labor organization,
and if its denial is sound, its defense is complete . However, if the General Counsel's
position that the Committee is a labor organization is sustained , so also is his con-
tention that the Respondent has overstepped the prohibition in Section 8 (a) (2)
of the Act against domination or support of a "labor organization " by an employer.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Jurisdiction
No jurisdictional issue is presented . Respondent , a New Hampshire corporation,
is engaged in Manchester , New Hampshire , in the manufacture , sale, and distribu-
tion of electronic and electrical devices. During the last fiscal year, Respondent did
about $5,000 , 000 worth of business , of which 96 percent was on Government con-
tract for production of equipment for use in national defense . In the course of
its business , Respondent causes to be purchased and transported from out of the
State of New Hampshire materials in an amount in excess of $1,000 ,000 annually,
and to be sold and transported to points outside the State products exceeding $ 2,000,-
000 in value per year.
Respondent does not dispute and it is hereby found that Respondent is engaged
in interstate commerce and that the activities of Respondent as hereafter found
are intimately and substantially related to and tend to burden commerce , within the
meaning of the Act.
B. The merits
1. Origin and structure of the Committee
In October 1953, Respondent became interested in the incentive program in op-
eration at the Lincoln Electric Company in Cleveland , Ohio (called the Lincoln
Plan). Much of its information concerning the Lincoln Plan came from a re-
port of the joint congressional committee established by the 80th Congress under
Section 401 of the Labor Management Relations Act.2 At that time, Respondent
conceived the idea of forming a committee to study the Lincoln Plan . It divided
the employees into six groups, and suggested to them that if interested in the Lincoln
Plan, they elect a nominating committee from each . This was done , and in De-
cember 1953 , the employees elected 6 persons , 1 from each group, to study the
Lincoln Plan and to consider the feasibility of adopting it at Respondent 's plant.
The persons thus elected were called the "Lincoln Committee," or alternatively
(as appears from a report they rendered the employees on January 21, 1954) the
"Incentive Plan Committee."
In January 1954, the committee members, supplied with copies of the joint con-
gressional report and of the Lincoln Plan, visited the Lincoln Electric Company in
Cleveland, accompanied by Harry A . Loebel, production officer of Respondent and
coauthor , with President Don Brous , of the incentive project.3 In the report of
January 21 , 1954, the Committee stated as its conclusion that "it would be possible
to apply an incentive plan at [Respondent 's plant]" and announced that one would
be installed on an assembly line on a current job, to be followed by its institution on
other jobs 4 Because of unforeseen difficulties Respondent decided not to institute
the plan as announced . No bonus or incentive plan has yet been instituted in the
plant, but, as hereafter appears, the matter is still under study, this time by a sub-
a The report included a description of the labor relations policies of various companies,
among them being the Lincoln Electric Company In evidence are copies of the introductory
portion of the report and of the part of the appendix thereto which describes the labor
policies of the Lincoln Electric Company Official notice is hereby taken of the entire
report as Sen. Rep 986, 80th Cong 2d Sess. ( Part I ) ( Govt Printing Off. 1948). The
extracts which are in evidence are from pages 1-6 and 132-153 of the report as officially
published
3 Loebel's testimony fixing the month of the visit as January is accepted as against that
of Industrial Relations Manager Robert A. Malone that it occurred in March ; Loebel was
a participant , and the January 21 , 1954 , report , as found below, would tend to indicate
that the Committee had by then already studied the Lincoln Plan.
6 The recoid is not explicit on whether this report followed the Cleveland visit. The
matter is hardly crucial , but the inference here drawn is that it did , since the document
purports to be a statement of the Committee 's conclusions , based upon an "earnest endeavor
to get all the facts," which presumably included those acquired in the Cleveland visit.
NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING, INC. 747
committee of 4, composed of 2 members of the Committee and 2 selectees of man-
agement, who are to report their conclusions to the regular Committee.
At some indeterminate time between January 21 and March 31, 1954, the Com-
mittee acquired its present name of Northeastern Advisory Committee. The meet-
ings, held by the Committee from March 31,5 up to the present, have been recorded
and the first of such recorded meetings, that of March 31, shows that name to be
then already in use. However, the Committee has undergone several modifications
in structure and purpose, which are reflected in the minutes. On April 19, pursuant
to plans discussed at the March 31 meeting, the Advisory Committee amalgamated
with an older group called the Booster Committee. The latter, although concerned
with social and recreational matters, had discussed the possibility of a bonus plan
with its management advisor even before Respondent broached the Lincoln Plan,
and the purpose of the amalgamation was to avoid duplication. The meeting of
April 19, at which the combined groups met for the first time (with the membership
thereby expanded from 6 to 16), is referred to in the minutes as "the first organiza-
tional meeting of the Northeastern Advisory Committee."
On June 1, pursuant to a plan presented by a subcommittee chosen at a previous
meeting, the Committee adopted a set of "objectives and functions," which will be
detailed later, and also a procedure for future election of representatives. Under that
procedure, the employees were divided into 4 instead of 6 groups, each to elect 2
representatives whose respective terms would expire on alternate half years. Election
of members was held pursuant to such procedure on October 15. On that day a total
of 8 representatives were elected, 2 from each group, their terms to expire at the
end of 6 months and a year, respectively. These eight constitute the present Advisory
Committee.6
The Committee meets regularly every 2 weeks and sometimes specially at shorter
intervals. In addition to the committee members, two or more representatives of
management attend each meeting, mainly to answer questions. Pursuant to election
by the members of the Committee, Richard A. Malone, the industrial relations
manager, acts as moderator at the meetings; in his absence, his function is performed
by his assistant, Joseph Wilk. Besides Malone or Wilk, the management repre-
sentative most frequently in attendance is Loebel, and the minutes show attendance
at various times by the Company's president, its treasurer, and its controller.
There is no question about the Committee's being completely subsidized by Re-
spondent. Respondent conducts all of the elections of the Committee. All meetings
are held in Respondent's conference room; for attending, the members are paid
their customary wages, including overtime pay for time spent during other than
regular work hours, plus a stipend of $2 for each meeting up to a maximum of $50
per year. The subcommittee of four, previously referred to, which is now studying
the question of a bonus or incentive plan, meets separately from the regular Com-
mittee and its members are paid on the same basis as for attendance at the meetings
of the Committee. Respondent denotes the services of Mr. Loebel's secretary in the
recording of the minutes of the meetings and provides space in the Northeastern News
Events, the paper or house organ of Respondent, for publicizing its activities.
2. The avowed aims and functions of the Advisory Committee
Loebel testified and it is hereby found that "at the time of its inception, [the]
primary purpose [of the Committee] was to establish an incentive plan for
[Respondent] and study the Lincoln Incentive Plan as being an outstanding example
of incentive plans today." The record establishes and it is also found that the
Committee took on additional objectives and functions thereafter, particularly after
the "first organizational meeting" of April 19. The minutes show that up to June 1,
the functions of the Committee were under discussion as an open issue. At the
meeting of June 1, the Committee, as noted, adopted a proposed plan for future
election of members and in the same action, unanimously taken, adopted a proposed
set of "Objectives and Functions" as follows:
1. To promote good relations and better understanding between management
and employees
II. To do so by open and frank discussion of the following:
1. Grievances
2. Wage and Salary Policies
5 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1954 unless otherwise indicated
6 The Booster Committee reverted exclusively to its old function of handling social and
recreational matters. The Advisory Committee has no part or responsibility in such
function
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Profits
4. Sales Plans
5. Bonus Plans
6. Merit Ratings
7. General Company Policies
8. Safety
9. Attitudes
10. Production Plans
III. To personally communicate decisions and discussion of the Advisory
Group to all employees
IV. All of the above in order to and with a view to achieving Northeastern's
goal of Producing More and More for Less and Less.7
These purposes were publicized in the Northeastern News Events in connection with
an announcement of the elections to be held October 15. A notice posted by
Respondent describing the procedure for that election stated in part that "The Board
U. e. The Committee] will consider every phase of the company's activities and will
not be confined to production or personnel problems."
3. The role of the members of the Advisory Committee as representatives
of the employees
The role contemplated and performed by the members of the Committee from the
outset has been that of spokesmen and representatives of the employees in the groups
from which they were elected. In making their trip to Cleveland, "they went out,"
Industrial Relations Manager Malone testified, "as representatives of their fellow
employees." Management has on occasions brought home to the members and
the employees the former's responsibilities as representatives of their employee con-
stituents. Thus, at the meeting of June 1, at which the objectives and functions above-
described were adopted, Mr. Loebel stated that the Committee and the employees
"should work to build up the . . . Committee so it will really represent the em-
ployees in the plant and means something to both employees and management." On
June 28, the Committee voted to omit their names from the minutes of the meetings.
At the next meeting, they rescinded this action upon being read a memorandum from
Mr. Loebel, in which he stated in part:
You must remember that being elected to the Committee makes you represent a
group of employees. They look to you to pass on information to them about
the company and its activities. They also consider you as their personal am-
bassador to the management and expect that their views will be presented at the
meetings.
At a later meeting, President Brous read to the Committee an anonymous letter from
an employee commenting among other things on Respondent's policy on reduction in
force. After indicating the erroneous character of the comment, President Brous
stated that "in the future such criticisms . should be brought forth to manage-
ment through the Advisory Committee members" and that "he hoped the employees
would allow their committee members to represent them in such comments to manage-
ment." In the previously described announcement of the October elections appear-
ing in the Northeastern News Events, the hope was expressed that "the best qualified as
well as the most interested employees will be elected to serve as your committee
representatives."
4. Functioning of the Committee: the matters discussed at its meetings
The minutes of the 17 meetings held from March 31 to October 25, inclusive, show
that in addition to matters of structure and composition, the discussions covered a range
of subjects substantially in keeping with the items listed in the Objectives and Func-
tions adopted June 1. Industrial Relations Manager Malone testified, and it is
hereby found, that 50 percent of the meetings was devoted to answering questions
concerning "where the company was going . . . what their production plans were
., what the sales organization was, whether there was any new business in the
offing, what [Respondent] was doing in the way of profits for the business," and an
additional 5 percent in the preliminary evaluation or screening of suggestions sub-
mitted under the awards program. The questions of the committee members reveal
an interest in management problems showing marked self-identification with the wel-
fare of the enterprise.
7 The italicized portion represents Respondent's slogan, and is reproduced as it appears
in the original
NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING, INC . 749
The range of the questions and the matters discussed were not limited to produc-
tion and sales; they reflect a substantial portion of time devoted to the discussion
of working conditions and grievances. Discussion of one or more matters falling
within these categories, some substantial and others minor, took place in 14 of the
meetings as follows:
DISCUSSION OF WORKING CONDITIONS
Subject Meetings
A. Bonus
1. Generally ------------------------- June 14, 28; September 20.
2. Proposal for inclusion of office help in
incentive plan---------------------- October 25.
B. Wage Increase
1. Policy ---------------------------- June 1.
2. Possibility of general raise in near
future ---------------------------- September 20.
C. Vacations ---------------------------- June 1.
D. Job evaluation and merit rating [discussed as
an adjunct to any incentive plan which might
thereafter be adopted] ------------------ May 3, 17; June 14; August 9,
23; September 20; October 4.
E. Lay-off
1. Possibility thereof------------------ May 17; October 4.
2. Policy in respect thereto------------- August 16; October 25.
It is not certain whether Respondent, as it seemed to do at the hearing, resists
characterization of the matters listed below as "grievances " Since their subject mat-
ter was working conditions, for purposes of resolution of the basic issue, it is of no
serious moment whether they were also grievances. However, on their face they were
matters, some of them being referred to in the minutes as "complaints," which the
employees raised for the purpose of explanation or betterment. It is difficult to
conceive what else the Committee had in mind when it included discussion of
"grievances" among its objectives, or when, even earlier, in an article appearing in
Respondent's publication, it assured the employees of the intention of its members
to "clear up any grievances which they are acquainted with," and that "no grievance
is being steered away from the ears or top management." It is found that the
matters in question were grievances. West Texas Utilities Co. v N. L. R. B., 206
F. 2d 442, 446-7 (C. A., D. C.), cert. denied 346 U. S. 855.
DISCUSSION OF GRIEVANCES
1. Non-conformity of a particular employ-
ee's job classification to his actual duties------ August 23; September 7.
2. Allotment of overtime within the Main-
tenance Department----------------------- August 23; September 7.
3. Necessity for certain employees punching
time clocks------------------------------ April 5.
4. "Complaints . . . concerning soap con-
tainers for wash rooms"-------------------- May 3, 17.
5. "Complaint . . . concerning the hot water
situation in both buildings"---------------- May 3, 17.
6. "No soap in the dispenser in the Ladies
Room downstairs"------------------------ August 9.
7. Safety and Fire Hazards--------------- June 28; October 4.
8. Elimination of 5-minute "wash up" time
before end of shift------------------------ May 17.
9. Concern of some women employees over
"Men going Radiosonde line"--------------- May 17.
10. Vacation pay: reason for greater allot-
ment to salaried as against hourly rated em-
ployees---------------------------------- June 14.
11. Request for smocks or coveralls to pro-
tect girls' clothes-------------------------- May 17.
12. Request for procurement of clocks for
certain departments------------------------ June 1, 14, 28.
13. Request for lifting of smoking restriction
in one of the buildings--------------------- September 20; October 4.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the interest of perspective, it must again be mentioned that for every instance
in which there was discussion of working conditions there was also discussion of
other matters relating to management problems of sales and production, material
waste, and the like. Thus, even at a meeting such as that held May 17, where the
minutes show discussion of seven items relating to working conditions, they also
reflect discussion of production and sales Further, at a meeting such as that held
October 4, as against an inquiry concerning fire hazards and layoffs and a discussion
of merit ratings, the bulk of the inquiries is shown to concern the prospects of
Respondent's obtaining contracts in the future, the possibility of beginning work
on a new contract, the supply of materials therefor, and production methods.
The record discloses no actual negotiation between management and the Com-
mittee, in the sense of mutual trading of concessions; nor does it show any demand
made by the Committee either in the sense of a "forcible request," as Industrial
Relations Manager Malone defined a demand, or even a benign one; the desire for
information concerning the subject raised or for an explanation or betterment of the
condition complained of, as above indicated, is merely implicit in the nature of the
inquiry or complaint. All matters raised were given consideration by management
with varying results. A few matters, minor in import, were acted upon favorably.
The others were followed up by a report of what investigation showed, in manage-
ment's view, to be the true situation, or left open for additional consideration or
discussion. Chief among the latter were the scheme of job evaluations or merit
ratings for use in conjunction with any bonus or incentive plan which might be
adopted, and, indeed, the plan itself.
5. Analysis and conclusion
Before proceeding to the conclusion, it should be noted further that there is no
proof that the Advisory Committee was set up with any intention of evading the
law or making it a substitute for collective bargaining. The General Counsel under-
took and soon abandoned a line of inquiry looking toward a coincidence in timing
between the formation of the Committee and organizational efforts of the Charging
Union (under the body of doctrine holding such timing to be a hallmark of illicit
intent).8 No such proof developed, and it is here found that the Committee was
set up in an honest effort to help realize Respondent's goal of "Producing More and
More for Less and Less."
This presents the issue, decisive here, of whether the Committee, as the organiza-
tion established and maintained for that purpose, entered a field which identifies it
as a "labor organization," as that term is used in the statute, thereby bringing
Respondent's admitted domination or support of the Committee within the reach
of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, which, in relevant part, provides that:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to dominate or interfere
with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute
financial or other support to it: .. .
Section 2 (5) of the Act provides:
The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any
agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees
participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with
employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or conditions of work.
A fair appraisal of the record, it is here concluded, is that the Committee, properly
described, lends itself to the following paraphrase of the quoted definition: The Com-
mittee is an organization, also an employee representation committee, in which
employees, through election of representatives, participate,9 and which, avowedly
and as it actually functions, exists for the purpose, in part, of discussing with Re-
spondent, an employer, grievances and conditions of work, including wage and
salary policies, bonus plans, merit ratings, and safety.
The words of the description, it will be noted, vary in significant part from those
in the definition in that where "dealing" appears in the latter, "discussing" is used
in the former. If the one is sufficient to constitute the other, the definition is met,
and the inquiry, it would follow, need go no farther. Seemingly, Respondent con-
e Cf. The Nubone Co, 62 NLRB 321, 325, enfd per curtain 155 F. 2d 523 (C. A. 3).
Rehrig-Pacalc Co , 99 NLRB 163, 164; H H. Thayer Co., 99 NLRB 1122, 1181, enfd. 213
F. 2d 748 (C. A 1), cert denied 348 U. S. 883
9 Florida Telephone Corp., 88 NLRB 1429, 1430.
NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING, INC. 751
curs, for its brief defines the issue as being "framed around the meaning of the
phrase which exists for the purpose . . . of dealing with employers concerning
[the matters stated in the definition]."
In approaching this question, it should be noted, as the legislative history of the
Act shows, that the term "labor organization" was designedly used "very broadly"
to embrace groups which are not "labor organization" or "unions" as that term is
popularly understood, such as loosely formed "employee representation committees"
or "plans " Yet these typified in large part the employer-dominated bodies, called
"company unions," which Congress viewed as hostile to the guarantees of Section 7 of
the Act and with which it sought to cope through the proscription in the Act against
employer domination and support of labor organizations. 10
Congress therefore formulated a broad definition to bring within the sweep of
that prohibition activities of employers in respect to groups which in large part
typified the means through which employers conducted the practice it was out-
lawing. As the Senate Committee explained in its report on the bill which became
the National Labor Relations Act: 11
The term "labor organization" is phrased very broadly in order that the in-
dependence of action guaranteed by Section 7 of the bill and protected by Sec-
tion 8 shall extend to all organizations of employees that deal with employers
in regard to "grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or conditions of work." This definition includes employee-representation
committees and plans in order that the employers' activities in connection there-
with shall be equally subject to the application of Section 8.
The Board pointed out in an early case: 12
It is obvious that the term "labor organization" is not used in its ordinary
meaning but in a special and technical sense solely for the purpose of statutory
draftsmanship and to make the prohibition of Section 8, subdivision (2), all
inclusive.
This brings into proper perspective a number of considerations strongly urged
by Respondent in resisting the conclusion that the Committee's discussion with it of
grievances and working conditions constituted "dealing." These considerations in-
clude the loose and informal structure of the Committee, the unilateral action of
Respondent in respect to any matters discussed, and the absence of actual or at-
tempted negotiations of wages or working terms or of any demands made by the
Committee upon Respondent. Far from distinguishing this Committee from groups
held by Board and court to be "labor organizations," they actually serve as identifying
characteristics of those bodies. Illustrative but by no means exhaustive are the cases
listed in the footnote below.13
The cases cited are all instances in which loosely constituted groups or commit-
tees, some of them, indeed, bearing the name, like the organization in controversy,
"Advisory Committee" were established, with intention or purpose ranging from the
licit to the illicit, to discuss with the employer wide ranges of topics of mutual interest.
To the extent that the discussions included subjects embraced within the statutory
definition, it was held that they existed "for the purpose . . . in part of dealing"
concerning them and, in consequence, were "labor organizations." This is not to say
that the discussions were invariably fruitless or perennial preludes to inaction any
more than the discussions here considered.14 The decisive consideration was that
matters normally the subjects of collective bargaining were discussed between man-
10 Characteristics of Company Unions 1935, Dept of Labor Bull No 634 (1937), pp
130-139 , Trends in Collective Bargaining, Twentieth Century Fund, Report of Labor
Committee (1945) under discussion of "company unions" (p. 31) ; Collective Bargaining
Through Employee Representation, Natl Indl Conf Bd. (1933) pp. 1-2.
11 Sen Rep No 573 on S 1958 (74th Cong , 1st Sess ) p 7.
13 lnternational Harvester Co , 2 NLRB 310, 353
131V 1 R B v Jos II Matthews & Co , 156 F 2d 706, 707 (C. A 3) enfg as mod. 63
NLRB 273. 11'i ought Icon Range Co, 77 NLRB 487, 488; Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc, 80
NLRB 1208, 1209, 1216 , Florida Telephone Co , 88 NLRB 1429, 1430 , N L R B v General
Shoe Coil) . 192 F 2d 504, 306 (C A 6) enfg 90 NLRB 1330, cert denied 343 U. S 904;
Indiana Metal Products Corp v AT L R B , 202 F 2d 613, 620-621 (C A 7), enfg 100
NLRB 1040 Ed Taussig, 108 NLRP, 470, Standard Coil Products Co, Inc, 110 NLRB
412, Stow llfannfactuiing Co, 103 NLRB 1280, 1297, enfd 217 F 2d 900 (C A 2)
14 As noted, a few of the complaints or iequests here under review were favorably acted
upon, but even where otlienuse, the matters were considered and investigated by manage-
ment and a report made to the Committee.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agement and the organization. Illustrative are the following extracts from several
decisions:
By the Third Circuit in the Jas. H. Matthews case:
The minutes of its meetings show that the Junior Board discussed 15 such mat-
ters as the rates of pay, hours of employment, retirement plan, profit sharing
system, wage raises, vacation pay, working hour schedules, Saturday work, pay-
day change. [ 156 F. 2d 706 at 7071
The Seventh Circuit in the Indiana Metal Products case:
Manager Schroeder's initial notice stated that the Advisory Committee was for
the purpose of discussing "grievances, seniority, promotions, insurance, em-
ployee welfare," and "working conditions." It is without dispute that repre-
sentatives of the employees met from time to time with company officials and
discussed questions affecting wages, hours of employment and working condi-
tions. [202 F. 2d 613 at 621 ]
By the Board in Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.:
The Leadership Council was the medium for discussion and consideration of
such problems as a sick benefit and accident insurance plan, a reduction of force
program, and "other conditions of work," subjects within the area of collective
bagaining. [80 NLRB 1208 at 1209]
The Sixth Circuit in the General Shoe case:
Minutes of the Advisory Committee's meetings reveal that a wide variety of
topics concerning the employees, including wages and rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, conditions of work, efficiency of production, and recreational activi-
ties were discussed. [192 F. 2d 504 at 506]
In this frame of reference, it becomes quite unimportant that the Committee did
not engage in the kind of pursuit which is the badge of conventional trade union
activity, such as the negotiation of contracts for working terms and (if requests
fail) the making of demands for improved conditions, supported by the group
strength and combined resources of the employees acting through their organiza-
tion. From the explanation of the Senate committee of the purpose of Congress in
"very broadly" defining a labor organization, it would follow that it had no intention
of giving a rigid interpretation to the term "dealing." The "dealing" engaged in
by the employee representation committees or plans which, as the Senate committee
explained, Congress brought into its definition for the purpose of an all pervasive
application of Section 8, as a rule consisted of little more than "mere discussion."
Such shop organizations enabled employees to learn the whys and wherefores of
certain management policies, they enabled employers to learn firsthand some
things which were on employees' minds. Some company unions handled griev-
ances and might even examine wage schedules and company working rules. In
general, however, meetings between management and employee committees
merely discussed, they did not determine or negotiate.16
It has been judicially noted that the fact that such dealings seldom progress from
discussion to negotiations is but a mark of impotence induced by the very fact of
employer domination, with which Congress sought to cope. The Third Circuit
stated in the Jas. H. Matthews case (p. 707) :
Respondent says that this Junior Board did not deal, it only recommended and
that final decision is with management. Final decision is always with manage-
ment, although when a claim is made by a well organized, good sized union,
management is doubtless more strongly influenced in its decision than it would
be by a recommendation of a board which it has itself selected and which has
been provided with no fighting arms.
To contend, therefore, that "mere discussion" takes the Committee out of the
category of a "labor organization" is to say that Congress used the process of defini-
tion to remove from the ambit of Section 8 (a) (2) that which, in explaining the
definition, it was at pains to make clear it was acting to bring in. It seems clear,
therefore, that Congress in using the term "dealing" did not intend to limit its mean-
15 All emphasis in the quoted extracts is supplied unless otherwise indicated.
is Froin the Twentieth Century Fund op cat p. 31 See also Dept. of Labor Bull. No
634, supra, at p 144 ; Natl Indl Conf lid , op cat , ebid , 12-13.
NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING, INC. 753
ing to actual negotiation or bargaining in the formal sense. As the Board explained
in the Wrought Iron Range case (77 NLRB 487 at 489) :
Although the Advisory Committee has not formally bargained with the Em-
ployer, the Board has held in numerous instances that neither a collective bar-
gaining agreement nor actual bargaining with an employer is necessary to a
finding that an organization that has discussed labor relations problems with the
employer is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.6
'See Piecisron Castings Company, Inc, 30 NLRB 212, J N Greer Company, 52
NLRI; 1341 , The Xubone Company, Inc, 62 NLRB 322, Wyman Gordon Company,
62 NLRB 561 , Jas II Matthcus if Co , 63 NLRB 272 ; of Republic Di ill if Tool Com-
pany, 65 ALRL' 955, wherein the Board found that a dominated organization known
as the "General Assembly" Ras not a labor organization in the absence of discussion
between repiesentrtives of inanagement and niembeis of the oiganization
The same view is expressed by the courts in the Matthews, General Shoe, and
Indiana Metal cases, above cited, the Seventh Circuit in the case last cited specifi-
cally noting the fact here underlying that, "the legislative history shows that the
definition of the term `labor organization' [in Section 2 (5)] was purposely phrased
very broadly."
But, if contrary to what above appears, "dealing" requires interpretation as "col-
lective bargaining," the same conclusion would follow. Mere discussion or exchange
of information, while not the sum of the bargaining process, is not a stranger to it.
Indeed, it is one of its parts Mutual interchange of views and information, which
Respondent insists is all its discussions with the Committee entailed, is a helpful
and frequently essential preliminary to the negotiating phase It is thus a respected
yeoman of the collective-bargaining process itself The Senate report, above cited,
noted that "democratic collective bargaining means the exchange of ideas no less
than the exchange of services, goods or money" (p. 5). The literature in the field
recognizes the importance of mutual interchange of information as a preliminary
or adjunct to the negotiatory process:
Under working harmony relationships, there are often "prenegotiations" in the
day to day interactions of company and union officials. Through increased
communications with one another, the parties find that they are clearing away
some of the bargaining issues before them and are thus testing solutions to their
problems in advance of formal negotiations.'?
The importance which the Board and the courts attach to the information gathering
phase of the bargaining process is exemplified by the line of authority which holds
that the duty to bargain encompasses the obligation to furnish the other party, on
request, such informational data and records as are relevant to the negotiations.18
Discussion and exchange of views and information being thus a phase of the bar-
gaining process, the discussions here under review constituted "dealing" even if the
term be construed to mean collective bargaining.
Further relevant to the question of congressional intent is this: the body of
precedent above cited includes determinations preceding the passage, in 1947, of
the amendments to the Act Notable among them are the Matthews opinion of
the Third Circuit and the cases cited by the Board in the footnote from the extract
in the Wrought Iron Range case, above quoted. The 80th Congress, which, in
1947, passed the Taft-Hartley law embodying amendments to the Act, did so after
months of comprehensive hearings on the Board's operations; Congress was thus
presumptively aware of the Board's interpretation of the Section 2 (5) definition of
a "labor organization" as applied to the antidomination and support provision of
then Section 8 (2). Such aspects of the administration of these provisions with
which it disagreed, Congress made the subject of remedial legislation in the 1947
1711aibison and Coleman, Goals and Strategy in Collective Bargaining, Industrial Re-
lations Center of the University of Chicago (1951) p 74; "[Thel machinery [for the
cication of the tiade union iigiceirent] should piovide above all things for a contact of
the parties most concerned for the purpose of deliberation and discussion"; Hoxie, Trade
Unionism in the United States (1936) p 266, see also Nall Planng Assn, Causes of
Industrial Peace Under Collective Bargaining (1953) pp. 90-91; Dunlop, Collective Bar-
gaining Principles and Cases (1949) p. 67
is N L R B v Leland Gi ffoi d Co , 200 F 2d 620, 624 (C A 1) , N L R. B v Yaiaman
d Erbe, 187 F 2d 947 (C. A 2) , N L R B. v Jacobs Mfg Co, 196 F. 2d 680 (C A 2) ,
Trutitt Manufacturing Co, 110 NLRB 856.
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amendments.19 Congress prescribed no changes in the Board's and the court's in-
terpretation of the provisions as they concern the matter here in issue; it reenacted
Section 2 (5) and 8 (2) [now 8 (a) (2)] without relevant change. "Under these
circumstances it is a fair assumption that by reenacting without pertinent modification
the provision[s] with which we here deal, Congress accepted the construction placed
thereon by the Board and approved by the Courts." N. L. R. B. v. Gullett Gin Co.,
Inc, 340 U. S. 361, 366.
The conclusion derived from the above is that the discussions between Respondent
and the Committee of grievances and working terms as disclosed by this record con-
stituted "dealing" in respect to them. It follows that the Committee is a labor organ-
ization, and that Respondent, in maintaining and subsidizing it, as it concedes, domi-
nated and supported it within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
Before proceeding to the other phases of the case, it is appropriate to comment
on the additional reasons advanced by Respondent in opposition to the conclusion
here reached. Respondent urges, in essence, that while the portions of the minutes
showing discussion of working conditions if "standing alone, might support the
allegations of the complaint," they do not do so when taken in context with what it
claims to be Respondent's sole purpose in establishing the Committee. That purpose,
says Respondent, was to have the Committee assist in setting up an incentive program
patterned after the Lincoln Plan, such an incentive piogram, Respondent explains,
"includes every facet of the employer-employee relationship," working conditions
no less than production and sales problems, hence, the discussions of these matters
"which standing alone might support ... the complaint," must be viewed as part of
Respondent's whole program to set up an incentive plan; all of this, Respondent
argues, taken in connection with the Committee's loose organizational structure, its
failure to negotiate, and management's unilateral decisions in respect to all matters
discussed, "lend support to the premise that the Committee is not a `labor organiza-
tion' but a group of employees working with management on an incentive program."
Respondent compares the committee members to a gioup of "expert engineers"
whom Respondent could with impunity have hired without constituting them a "labor
organization"; the members of the Committee, Respondent urges, were "representa-
tives" of the employees only in the sense that they weie conversant with employee
attitudes, but that basically, in working on the incentive plan, they were employees
whose aptitudes were being used by Respondent on a special assignment for which
they were being paid their regular wage.
The last phase of the argument merits initial attention because of its novelty.
Respondent would undoubtedly have been at liberty to select a group of employees
to assist it on whatever project of management it saw fit. In the discharge of that
assignment, their obligation of fealty would have been to Respondent alone. Such,
however, was not their function as elected representatives of the employees. Loebel,
in his memorandum urging them to reverse their decision to omit their names from
the minutes of the meetings, aptly put it on the basis of their fiduciary responsibility
to the employees, who "consider you as their personal ambassador to the manage-
ment." Accordingly, while Respondent was free to hire and pay employees for
services rendered to it, maintenance and subsidization of employee representatives
concerned with discussion of the working relationship falls outside that kind of
privilege under the statute, for the congressional policy underlying Section 8 (a) (2)
is that in the formulation of the terms of the job, those who purport to speak for
the employees, may not, for that purpose be made the hirelings of the employer.
That portion of Respondent's argument which predicates immunity upon the
assertion that all discussion was but an incident of a common quest for a suitable
incentive plan assumes, without saying why, that an incentive plan falls outside the
range of subjects embraced within the statutory definition of a labor organization.
Even if the assumption were valid, the record would not support Respondent's minor
premise that formulation of an incentive plan was the be-all and end-all of the
Committee's existence. That was undoubtedly its reason for being during the initial
period of its identification as the Lincoln Committee or the Incentive Plan Com-
mittee; but after its reconstitution on April 19, it took on a wide set of objectives
of which discussion of "bonus plans" was but a part; and the latter item has been
relegated for special study by a subcommittee. Applicable here is the doctrine, like-
wise embodied in the cases previously cited, that where an organization is formed for
a purpose not embraced within the statutory definition but in its functioning, treats
with management concerning matters encompassed within it, it is to that extent a
1011lustiative was the provision, inseited in Section 10 (c), prescribing application of
the same standards to unaffiliated as to nationally affiliated organizations in administering
Section 8 (a) (2).
NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING, INC. 755
"labor organization," thereby bringing the employer's conduct in dominating and
supporting it within the reach of Section 8 (a) (2).20
Respondent in insisting that formulation of an incentive plan is the Committee's
sole purpose would seem unwittingly to be doing an injustice to its own position.
Since an incentive plan is concerned with premium pay for added effort, it is in it-
self a species of "wage" and certainly a "condition of work." As such it is an ap-
propriate subject for bargaining. John W. Bolton ct Son, 91 NLRB 989, 998.
The matter of job evaluations and ratings, which took up so much of the discussions.
is a recognized subject of arbitration between management and labor; 21 indeed,
an employer, as part of his bargaining obligation with an undominated union, must
discuss and disclose the bases for rating elements under an incentive plan. N L. R. B.
v. Otis Elevator Co, 208 F. 2d 160 (C A. 2). If, therefore, formulation of an
incentive plan pervades the whole of the Committee's operating horizon, no scope
is left within that vista for its functioning legitimately on any basis. But the rec-
ord shows that the Committee's purposes encompass a variety of objectives, some
within and some outside the definition of a labor organization; concerning the lat-
ter, Respondent should be free to treat with the Committee, if it is not done to veil
activities or purposes concerned with the terms or conditions of the job. While
acceptance of Respondent's factual position would defeat that privilege, this nettle
need not here be grasped, since the record establishes, contrary to Respondent's as-
sertion, that dealing concerning an incentive plan is but one of the purposes of the
Committee
One aspect of the record not adverted to by the parties presents a technical prob-
lem concerning the scope of the finding here to be made. Of the two charges filed
by the Charging Union before the complaint issued, only the later, filed and served
September 16, 1954, alleged the type of violation embodied in the complaint.
This, under the 6-month limitation proviso in Section 10 (b) of the Act, precludes
predicating an unfair labor practice finding on conduct preceding March 16.
1954.22 Since the Committee was formed before that date, the 6-month proviso
would rule out "interference with the formation" (as opposed to the administration)
of the Committee as among the violations found. Further, since the complaint
alleges April 19 as the date of commencement of the violation, the finding here
made will adopt that date. All events preceding that date have been here con-
sidered only for the function they serve in appraising the significance of events
thereafter 23 It is accordingly found that on and after April 19, 1954, Respond-
ent dominated and mterfeted with the administration of the Northeastern Advisory
Committee and contributed financial and other support to it
The complaint alleges that Respondent's violation of Section 8 (a) (2) also
constituted mterfetence with the employees' statutory rights in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act It is here that Respondent's good faith is of the utmost
relevancy. No other unfair labor practices were committed, and, as has been
previously found, there was no motive to contrive a substitute for genuine collec-
tive bargaining or otherwise to interfere with the employees' rights as guaranteed
by the statute, except to the extent that such interference inheres in the nature of
the conduct found to have offended the statute. It is accordingly concluded that
the record does not warrant predicating a finding of a violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) upon the naked 8 (a) (2) violation here found.
It THE REMEDY
Because, as already noted, the record discloses no motivation to interfere with
the employees' guaranteed freedoms, the injunctive order recommended will be
limited to the particular violation found and to any interference with employee
rights which inheres in the character of the conduct found to constitute the viola-
tion.24 The conventional language of the order thus applicable is that Respondent
not dominate or support the Committee or any other labor organization of its
20 See, in addition, Aerovox Corp. v. N L R B, 211 F 2d 640 (C A, D C.) enfg 102
NLRB 1526. 1533
211iaumback, Clifford, Aibitration of Job Evaluation Disputes State Univ. of Iowa,
Bureau of Labor and Management, College of Commerce, Research Series, No S (1954).
22 Cf N L R B. v Dimon Coil Co, 201 F 2d 484, 491 (C. A 2)
"N L R B v Clausen, 188 F 2d 439, 443 (C. A 3) ; Banner Die Fixture Company,
109 NLRB 1401 (Sept 17, 19,54)
24 N. L R B v Express Publishing Co , 312 U. S 426, 435-6 ; cf N L. R B. v. Jas.
H Matthews & Co , supra, at p. 710
369028-56-vol. 112- 49
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees and that it withdraw recognition from and "completely disestablish"
the Committee as representative of its employees for the purpose in whole or in part
of dealing in respect to any of the matters encompassed in the statutory definition
of a "labor organization."
Since, in Respondent 's view, it never "established " the Committee for such pur-
pose, an explanatory comment concerning what is expected is here appropriate.
Such an order does not compel the dissolution of the Committee ; it means severance
by Respondent from the Committee of the kind of relationship which gives the latter
identity as a labor organization . This means termination of all "dealing " between
Respondent and the Committee concerning terms or condition of the job or treating
with it as representative of the employees at all as long as it continues to hold itself
out as existing for the purpose in whole or in part of discussing such matters with
Respondent. Such dealing , under the statute, is reserved for representatives of
employees , who are free of domination or support by the employer.
On the other hand , nothing in the Act forbids and hence , the order would not
enjoin dealing in subjects concerned with management problems and falling outside
the statutory definition , such as production , elimination of waste, sales policies,
contract prospects , etc., if not engaged in to accomplish the forbidden by indirection.
Of some assistance here may be the Board 's statement in one of the earlier cases
involving labor-management committees established pursuant to the war production
program of World War II , but whose activities spilled over into a field reserved to
representatives free of employer domination or support: 25
The respondent contends that the Committee is . . . a labor-management com-
mittee patterned after a plan suggested by the War Production Board , and that
disestablishment of the Committee would interfere with the War Production
Board's program of promoting the formation of labor-management committees.
It is not our intention to interfere with the program of the War Produc-
tion Board or with the legitimate functions of labor-management committees.
Our finding that the Committee is a labor organization does not mean
that all labor -management committees are labor organizations , and our Order
herein will prohibit only the Committee 's functioning as a labor organization,
within the meaning of the Act, and not its functioning as a labor-management
committee , within the meaning of the War Production Board's program.
The notices to be posted may , if Respondent desires it , include a clarifying state-
ment for the employees ' benefit which has here been formulated and is contained in
Appendix A of this report. Since the Committee 's activities were publicized in
Respondent 's paper , Northeastern News Events , it will be recommended that in
addition to being posted on bulletin boards , the notices be published in an issue of
that publication 26
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record, the Trial
Examiner arrives at the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Northeastern Advisory Committee is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of that Committee and
rendering financial and other support to it , Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ig in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (2) of the Act.
3. The unfair labor practice in question affects commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7 ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
25 J. IV Greer, 52 NLRB 1341, 1348
26 Southland Mfg Co., 94 NLRB 813, 817 , enfd 201 F. 2d 244 ( C. A 4) ; International
Typographical Union , 86 NLRB 951 , 963, enfd sub nom A. N P. A. v. N L R. B . 193
F. 2d 782 ( C A. 7), cert denied stub non ? I T U v N L R B ., 344 U S . 812, Meier &
Frank, 89 NLRB 1016 , 1021 , Tomlinson of High Point, Inc., 74 NLRB 681, 691; Mylan
Mfg Co , 70 NLRB 574, 582
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Relations Act, we
hereby notify our employees that:
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 757
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the administration of, render finan-
cial or other support to, Northeastern Advisory Committee or any other labor or-
ganization, or otherwise interfere with representation by our employees through
a representative of their own choosing free of employer domination, assistance,
or support.
WE hereby withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish North-
eastern Advisory Committee as representative of any of our employees for the
purpose of dealing or treating with us concerning grievances, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of work, and we will not
recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the foregoing purposes.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Our employees are advised that it was found that management's discussion
with the Committee of grievances and working terms, including such subjects as
wage and salary policies, bonus or incentive plans, merit ratings, and job classi-
fications, rendered the Committee a labor organization as the statute defines
that term. This makes management's participation in the affairs of and support
to the Committee not permissible under the National Labor Relations Act. We
may not treat or deal and will therefore discontinue dealing or treating with
the Committee concerning such matters in the future, nor may we participate
in the affairs of or support or assist any group or organization which exists for
the purpose, in whole or in part of dealing with us concerning grievances or
terms or conditions of work. This does not preclude mutual discussion between
us and the Committee concerning such purely management problems as produc-
tion, sales policies, contract prospects, and other subjects, completely dissociated
from grievances, wages, rates of pay, bonus or incentive plans, or other terms
or conditions of work.
NORTHEASTERN ENGINEERING, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The B . F. Goodrich Company and Gas, Oil Tank Drivers and Help-
ers, Local Union 922, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, Pe-
titioner . Case No. 5-RC-1614. May 13,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon ,a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William C. Humphrey, Sr.,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
112 NLRB No. 98.