O. E. Szekely and Associates, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1125 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

0. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1125
2. We have been greatly encouraged that so many of you
have voluntarily told us that you had thought this matter over
and had decided that your present and future interests lay with
your company instead of with the union. Your expressions of
friendship and confidence are greatly appreciated and we are
not going to forget about them.
Contrary to the Petitioner's argument we do not interpret either of
the above statements as being promises of benefits to employees to in-
duce them to vote against the Petitioner. We view the first statement
as a privileged statement of the Employer's opinion that no more can
be achieved through a union than can be achieved by direct dealings
with management. Further, we find that the second statement,
although somewhat vague in meaning, cannot be reasonably inter-
preted as containing a promise of benefits to those who vote against
the Petitioner; it cannot be reasonably concluded that because the
Employer will not "forget about" employee expressions of "friendship
and confidence" that the Employer will reward employees for voting
against the Petitioner.
We find, therefore, in agreement with the Regional Director that
the objections do not raise substantial or material issues with respect
to conduct affecting the results of the election, and hereby overrule
them. Accordingly, as the tally of ballots show that the Petitioner
has not secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, and
as the challenged ballots are not sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, AFL -CIO, in the election held herein, and that this
organization is not the exclusive representative of .the Employer's
employees in the appropriate unit.]
0. E. Szekely and Associates, Inc. and International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union 613
O. E. Szekely and Associates , Inc. and Independent Union of
Szekely Employees and International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-RC-8358 and 10-CA-3677.
August 23, ,X957
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 7, 1957, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
118 NLRB No. 155.
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with re-
spect thereto. He further recommended that the run-off election held
on June 4, 1956, in Case No. 10-RC-3358, be set aside. Thereafter the
Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the In-
termediate. Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the. entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, O. E. Szekely and
Associates, Inc., Commerce, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating, interfering with, or contributing support to, In-
dependent Union of Szekely Employees or any other labor organiza-
tion.
3 The General Counsel's exceptions are directed only to the apparently inadvertent omis-
sion from the "Notice to All Employees ," appended to the Intermediate Report, of a
provision requiring the Respondent to disestablish the dominated labor organization.
The exception is well taken , and we have added such a provision to Appendix A. In
the absence of exceptions thereto, and without passing on the merits , we adopt the Trial
Examiner's recommendation that the allegations of the complaint regarding the discharges
of Alfred Gary and G. W. Wilson be dismissed.
a The Respondent contends that it did not have a fair hearing because the Trial Ex-
aminer denied its motion for a further bill of particulars specifying the names of all the
supervisors who, and the approximate date on which, each took any action which allegedly
constituted domination of, or assistance to, the Independent Union . The General Counsel
had earlier supplied the Respondent with a bill of particulars which specified the names of
certain supervisors by whom, and the time limits within which, the violations alleged
were said to have been committed. We find that the Respondent was adequately advised
by the complaint and the bill of particulars as to the nature of the violation and the
manner in which it had engaged in dominating and supporting the Independent Union, and
the approximate times at which the illegal acts were committed. Accordingly, the denial
of the motion was not prejudicial . In addition, the record shows that the Respondent had
adequate opportunity for full litigation of the issues, and at no time during the hearing
did it claim surprise or ask for a postponement.
a The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to include in his findings of fact a specific
statement that Independent Union of Szekely Employees and International Association of
Machinists , AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act. We so find on the basis of the record in this consolidated proceeding.
0. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1127
(b) Recognizing Independent Union of Szekely Employees, or
any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms
and conditions of employment.
(c) Soliciting dues and members in behalf of Independent Union
of Szekely Employees or any other labor organization, interrogating
employees concerning their own or other employees' union activities
and voting intentions, threatening to withhold job or salary advance-
ments and promising to give such advancements on the basis of
union membership, keeping employees under surveillance because of
union membership and activities, urging employees to quit because
of union membership and activities, treating unions in a disparate man-
ner as to use of plant time and facilities, and otherwise interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(d) Interfering with its employees' rights to an uncoerced Board
election.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely
disestablish, Independent Union of Szekely Employees or any suc-
cessor thereto as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms
and conditions of employment.
(b) Post at its plant in Commerce, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 10-CA-2672
be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent
discriminatorily caused Alfred Gary to quit his employment, and dis-
criminatorily discharged G. W. Wilson.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the run-off election held on June 4,
1956, in Case No. 10-RC-3358 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that
a In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Di-
rector for the Tenth Region for the purpose of conducting a new elec-
tion at such time as the Regional Director determines that the effects
of Respondent's unfair labor practices and interference with the run-
-off election have been remedied.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT dominate, interfere with, or contribute support to
Independent Union of Szekely Employees or any other labor
organization.
WTE WILL NOT recognize Independent Union of Szekely Employ-
ees, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
.other terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT solicit dues and members in behalf of any labor
•organization; interrogate employees concerning their own or
-other employees' union activities and voting intentions; threaten
to withhold job or salary advancements or promise to give such
-advancements on the basis of union membership; keep employees
under surveillance because of union membership and activities;
urge employees to quit because of union membership and activi-
ties; treat unions in a disparate manner as to use of plant time
:and facilities; or otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' rights to an un-
coerced Board election.
WE hereby disestablish Independent Union of Szekely Employ-
ees as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of
dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and we will not recognize it or any successor thereto for any of
the above purposes.
O. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, 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.
O. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
1129
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a consolidated proceeding of an unfair labor practice case and a case
involving objections to conduct of an election. The interested parties are: O. E.
Szekely and Associates, Inc., Commerce, Georgia, herein called Respondent; Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the Machinists; Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union 613, herein
called the IBEW; 1 and Independent Union of Szekely Employees, herein called the
Independent.
Upon petition filed by the IBEW on January 9, 1956, a hearing was held in Case
No. 10-RC-3358 on January 25, 1956. The Board thereupon issued a Decision
and Direction of Election on May 1, 1956,2 and the Regional Director for the Board's
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) accordingly conducted an election on May 23,
1956, among Respondent's employees at Commerce, Georgia, with inconclusive
resu]ts.3 On June 4, 1956, the Regional Director conducted a runoff election between
the Machinists and the Independent, with the tally of ballots showing approximately
180 eligible voters, of whom 81 cast valid ballots for the Independent, 76 cast valid
ballots for the Machinists, and 21 cast challenged ballots. The challenged ballots
were accordingly sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
On June 11, 1956, the Machinists filed objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election; and on October 2, 1956, the Regional Director issued and served
upon the parties his report on election, challenged ballots, objections, and recom-
mendations to the Board. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report on objections, and on January 9, 1957, the Board issued a Supplemental
Decision, Direction and Order (117 NLRB 42). The Board sustained some chal-
lenges and overruled others and it directed, among other things, that a hearing be
held upon the Machinists' aforementioned objections if, upon opening and counting
the ballots as to which challenge was overruled, the Machinists did not receive a
majority of the votes cast. The Machinists failed to obtain a majority, the vote
being 95 for the Independent and 77 for the Machinists as shown by a revised tally
of ballots issued by the Regional Director on January 18, 1957.
On January 30, 1957, the Machinists and the Independent filed a "Joint Motion"
alleging that the Independent had voted unanimously on January 24, 1957, to
notify the Board that the Independent had no further interest in the representation
case and that the Independent membership had voted unanimously to affiliate with
the Machinists; the joint motion thereupon requested the Board to set aside the
June 4, 1956, election and direct a new election.4 By order dated February 14, 1957,
the Board recited that Respondent had filed an opposition to the aforementioned
joint motion and the Board denied said joint motion "as lacking in merit."
Meanwhile, on July 6, 1956, the Machinists filed unfair labor practice charges
against Respondent reciting violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. This
charge was served upon Respondent on July 9, 1956. First and second amended
charges by the Machinists were thereafter filed and served. On September 12, 1956,
the Regional Director issued a complaint alleging that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1),
(2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint was served
upon Respondent and the Independent, and the Respondent thereupon filed its
answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. Respondent
filed a motion for bill of particulars and a motion to strike and its answer also
requests dismissal of the proceeding. The motion to dismiss is disposed of in accord-
ance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law hereinafter set forth.
Upon due notice and pursuant to an order consolidating the aforementioned com-
plaint and objection cases, a hearing in the consolidated proceeding was held
at Atlanta, Georgia, on February 26 and 27, 1957, before the duly designated Trial
1Although the IBEW was the petitioner in the representation case, it did not enter an
appearance in the instant hearing.
2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
s The tally of ballots showed approximately 173 eligible voters (including challenged
voters), 1 valid ballot for the IBEW, 79 valid ballots for the Independent, 70 valid ballots
for the Machinists, 6 valid ballots against the participating labor organizations, 1 chal-
lenged ballot, and 3 void ballots.
d Purporting to sign this motion in behalf of the Independent were Albert W. Roach and
Marvin Dunson, respectively designated in the motion papers as president and treasurer of
the Independent.
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner.5 The General Counsel, the Respondent, the Machinists, and the Inde-
pendent were represented by counsel and were given full opportunity to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues; the
parties were given opportunity for oral argument, which they waived, and to submit
briefs, as well.6
Upon the entire record in the case, and upon observation of the demeanor of
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with a plant located at Commerce,
Georgia, where it is engaged in the production of goods and materials directly
related to the national defense. During the 12-month period ending September 1,
1956, Respondent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $2,000,000 to
various branches of the United States military services under contracts with
responsible agencies of the United States Government.
I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONS
It is recalled that the original charges in this case were filed on July 6, 1956,
and served on July 9, 1956 . In view of Section 10 (b) of the Act, no unfair
practice findings or order may be made, and I shall not make or recommend any,
as to events antedating January 9, 1956. Any recitation of events before that date
will serve only to explain material events after that date. The principal issues in
this consolidated proceeding are whether Respondent has dominated or assisted
the Independent since January 9, 1956; whether Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged G . W. Wilson, Jr., in June 1956 and constructively discharged Alfred Gary
for discriminatory reasons in July 1956; 7 and whether the employees were otherwise
interfered with in the aforementioned runoff election held on June 4, 1956 .8
s In its aforementioned Supplemental Decision, the Board in effect approved the consoli-
dation of these matters for hearing (117 NLRB 42).
6 On March 22, 1957, after the close of the instant hearing, National Independent Union
Council submitted a motion to intervene alleging that the Independent herein "is now
affiliated" with the Council. The motion was denied.
4 The complaint was amended at the hearing by deleting an allegation of discrimination as
to Robert Carothers.
8 The Machinists objections under consideration here are :
1. The Company interfered with the free choice of a bargaining representative by
questioning various employees as to how they were going to vote during the day of
the election.
2. The Company threatened various employees that if the employees voted for the
IAM that they would be fired.
3. The Company through its agents, supervisors and others in authority spied on and
threatened IAM supporters by requiring them to remain at their work station during
the day of the election and during voting hours.
4. The Company through its agents and supervisors discriminated against supporters
of the IAM by requiring them to remain at their work station while at the same time
they permitted officers and supporters of the Independent Union of Szekely Employees
to roam the plant at will and permitted them to campaign and electioneer for the In-
dependent Union of Szekely Employees on the day of the run-.off election. -
5. The Company through its agents permitted Mr. Owen G. Thompson (a super-
visor) to walk up and down the line of voters and talk to them and was heard to say
"Allright boys vote Independent."
6. The Company through its agents permitted Mr. C. H. Ensley (private secretary to
the works manager, Mr. R. P. Jerge) to walk up and down the line and tell the em-
ployees that his vote had been challenged by the LAM.
n
* *
a a a
*8. Vernon Seaboat, officer of the Independent Union of Szekely Employees, was per-
mitted to move in and out of the voting line during the voting period and was telling
everybody to vote Independent. He was further permitted to go to the voting booths
while the employees were voting.
9. The observer for the Independent Union of Szekely Employees, Ben F. Allen, was
permitted, during the day of the election, to roam the plant and campaign and elec-
O. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1131
Respondent operated a plant with approximately 200 employees in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; by gradual moves in December 1955 and January and February 1956,
Respondent transferred its operations to Commerce, Georgia. In anticipation of
such move, Respondent had recruited about 40 employees in the Commerce area
for several weeks' training in Philadelphia during October and November 1955.
Upon removal of operations to Commerce, and apart from management and super-
visory personnel, the Commerce plant was staffed almost entirely by residents of
the Commerce area .9 The Commerce plant has substantially the same number of
employees as did the Philadelphia plant.
While located in Philadlephia, Respondent had recognized the Independent Union
of Szekely Employees as exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's produc-
tion and maintenance employees and they had a contract covering such employees
from March 1953 until March 1955. On January 18, 1955, Respondent and said
Independent at Philadelphia entered into a new agreement to expire January 17, 1957.
John Darsay, Respondent's secretary and office manager, testified that there "was
never any break in the continuity of the relationship of the company to the Inde-
pendent Union of Szekely Employees." Darsay also testified that "we have been
so advised by our retained counsel that contracts are suspended with such litigation
as has been in effect here. We have been recognizing the Independent in the way
of dealing with grievances which they brought to our attention." Darsay further
testified:
Q. (By Trial Examiner Winkler.) The complaint in this matter was issued
September 12, 1956. Prior to September 12, 1956, were you performing the
terms of this contract in Commerce?-A. Every term we were called upon to
perform, we have performed. We recognize the Independent and grievances.
We have had no issue made with us about non-performance.
Q. When did you say this contract was suspended?-A. I didn't say it was
suspended, sir. I say we had advice from our legal counsel, pending litigation,
the matter of dealing with a representative under a contract is in a state of
suspense.
Q. When you say litigation, you refer to the complaint in this case?-A. No,
I didn't have in mind the complaint. See, they started this election litigation
simultaneous with the move down here. This transcript portions of which you
have received in evidence goes into all these questions you're asking me, whether
the Independent was a continuous unit or not. That was made the identical
issue you're interrogating me about in that proceeding. Since that date, these
things have mushroomed one after another, with the two elections. Conse-
quently, the only opportunity we have had to deal with the Independent since
we have been down have been the occasions when they brought grievances
to us.
Independent Shop Steward G. B. Hawks testified that he has no knowledge of any
contract in Commerce between Respondent and the Independent.
Supervisory Status of Richard Wainford
The complaint specifically names Chief Inspector Richard Wainford as well as
other alleged supervisors as having participated in specified items of unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint. Respondent denies the supervisory status of
Wainford and further asserts that the Board, in its Decision and Direction of Election
issued May 1, 1956, determined that Wainford was not a supervisor. At Re-
spondent's request in this connection, certain portions of the transcript of the
original representation hearing dealing with this matter were made part of the
tioneer for the Independent Union of Szekely Employees and went up to an IAM
supporter and laughed at him and said "Now that you are tied down I am going
through the plant and campaign for the Independent Union of Szekely Employees."
The Regional Director recommended dismissal of objection No. 7, not stated above ;
such objection is not involved here as no exception to the recommended dismissal was filed.
6 Superintendent Frank Falcone testified that only 8 or 9 rank-and-file employees from
the regular Philadelphia personnel moved with the plant to Georgia and that only 3 of
them remained with Respondent by February 27, 1957, the hearing date in this matter.
The Board's aforementioned Decision and Direction of Election states that only six
Philadelphia employees were transferred to Commerce and that some of those were no
longer employed as of January 25, 1956.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record in the instant case. The representation hearing, it is recalled, was held on
January 25, 1956.
The Board's aforementioned Decision states in pertinent respects: "Inspector
Class A: Although this employee may ultimately be made a supervisor, the record
shows that he does not presently possess any supervisory authority. We shall include
him in the unit." The transcript in the representation case shows, as Respondent
asserts here, that Wainford was the "Inspector, Class A" under consideration.
The Board's determination as to Wainford's nonsupervisory status was based on
the testimony of Respondent's General Manager Edward Stachel, and it was also
on the basis of Stachel's testimony that the parties took their respective positions as
to Wainford's employee status at the original representation hearing. Stachel testi-
fied that Theodore Ruckert was the chief inspector and that Wainford was a class
A inspector, Stachel further testified in that proceeding that the chief inspector,
and not Wainford, responsibly directed the activities of employees; that employees
assisted Wainford, but only with the chief inspector's authorization; that the chief
inspector, and not Wainford, had authority to excuse employees from work; and that
the chief inspector, and not Wainford, had authority to hire, fire, discipline, grant
wage increases, or effectively recommend such action. Stachel further testified on
January 25, 1956, that he anticipated and "hope[d]" that Wainford would become
a supervisor "one of these days very soon."
Whatever Wainford's responsibility, authority, and title may have been when Stachel
testified in January 1956, the record shows that Wainford was chief inspector in
February 1956. It is undenied here that Russell Porter applied for employment
in February 1956; that Personnel Manager Charlton Tooke thereupon referred
Porter for an interview with Wainford and introduced Wainford as chief inspector
to Porter; that Wainford informed Porter at the time that he, Wainford, was chief
inspector and had replaced the individual who had come from Philadelphia as chief
inspector; that Wainford discussed Porter's experience and qualifications with
Porter on that occasion and then endorsed Porter's application and advised him
to report for work on or about the next Wednesday. It is also undenied that Wain-
ford also interviewed Porter's brother, William, for a job in June or July 1956 and
advised William that he was the chief inspector; and that Wainford hired William on
that occasion. The record further shows that since February 1956 Wainford has
authorized employees to be absent from work and has signed their gate passes per-
mitting them to leave the plant premises.
The Board's determination as to Wainford necessarily relates to his status as
of the date of Stachel's testimony; and the effect of such determination after January
25 depends solely on no material change in Wainford's functions and authority since
that date. But, as shown above, there has been such change, of which Respondent
has been fully aware; for it is Respondent who fixes Wainford's job content. I find
that Wainford was chief inspector in February and at all times since then and that
the chief inspector, on the basis of Stachel's testimony, is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. Whether or not Wainford be chief inspector, I further find
that Wainford possesses and has exercised supervisory authority at all times since
February 1956 and that Respondent is accordingly responsible for all his material
conduct during such period.
Events Between January 10, 1956, and the First Election
Alvin C. Kneeland was an employee of Respondent in Philadelphia and was
president of the Independent Union there. So far as the record shows, Kneeland
was not employed by Respondent in the Commerce plant.
Sometime between January 10 and January 20, 1956, Kneeland approached em-
ployee Julius McElreath during McElreath's working time at the Commerce plant.
Kneeland informed McElreath on this mentioned occasion in January that he,
Kneeland, "came down to organize a union, company union" and he requested
McElreath to help Kneeland in soliciting employees to join the Independent. When
McElreath replied that he did not "know too much about that," Kneeland inquired
whether Respondent had paid McElreath and employee Albert Roach their trans-
portation costs from Respondent's Philadelphia plant to the new Commerce plant.
McElreath advised Kneeland that he and Roach had not received such monies,
whereupon Kneeland asked McElreath to accompany him to where Roach was lo-
cated elsewhere in the plant. McElreath's foreman was "pretty close" at the time
and when McElreath advised Kneeland that he, McElreath, had been in-
structed "to stay on the job," Kneeland said, "That's Okay. Ain't a soul going to
say nothing to you. Come on over here. It's all right." Then leaving McElreath's
job site, they walked over to Roach. (Kneeland, apparently, had discussed the same
matter separately with Roach that same day, and Roach and McElreath also had
0. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1133
discussed it together.) Kneeland informed both Roach and McElreath that he
would obtain their expense money for them if they signed Independent cards, and
he also requested their assistance in soliciting other employees; he gave cards to
each of them, for themselves and for other employees. There is a little confusion
in the record as to whether McElreath signed a card at that specific time and as
to whether Kneeland then obtained approximately $100 expense money for them
or obtained it later that day; in any event, Kneeland gave them the money that day;
and Roach, at least, signed a card at the time and obtained signatures from two other
employees on Independent cards given to him by Kneeland and which he then re-
turned to Kneeland. Foreman Bill Franks, Roach's supervisor, approached Roach,
McElreath, and Kneeland during one of these conversations among the three men
during working hours. Franks asked them "what the commotion was"; Kneeland
replied that it was "union business" for the "old man [Szekely]" and that "it's
.all right" with Szekely, whereupon Franks walked away.
Foreman Sam Wiley, several days before the first election, called employee Robert
Smith into the boilerroom during working hours. According to Smith's undenied
testimony, Wiley told Smith, "This is a hard matter to try to discuss with anybody,
but at the present time . the Independent Union would be the best for the
Company," that he (Wiley) "wasn't telling [Smith] which way to vote, but to give
the Independent Union a chance and [President] 0. E. Szekely." The next day,
Wiley asked Smith how Smith "felt about the Union."
Events Between the Two Elections
On May 24, 1956, the day after the first election and 11 days before the runoff
election on June 4, Production Manager Robert Jerge posted the following notice
to the employees:
Considerable assembling and congregating has been noticed during working
hours. All employees are advised that no campaigning, no electioneering, nor
any other activity is to take place during working hours other than actual pro-
duction. The only exception is in case of emergency.
Anyone apprehended breaking this rule will be summarily discharged.
Several days before the second election, employees were instructed to shut down
their machines and assemble during working hours to hear a speech by Respondent's
President 0. E. Szekely. According to the undenied testimony of Alfred Gary,
Szekely stated he was pleased with the plant's progress; that "we'd had a little inter-
ference with outside unions, but I think that's all just about settled now, and if you
people will bear with me, I'll go along with you"; that he had given bonuses to
employees in Philadelphia and, without making promises, he "would do everything
I can . if you will go along and keep production up"; and "there's only one
union , the Independent Union. I ain't telling you people how to vote, but I think
we can run our business in here without any other interference." According to
the undenied testimony of Albert Roach, Szekely also stated on this occasion that
"if you got this outside union [the Machinists] in, it would be like being married
to it, and if you got the Independent Union in, he [Szekely] wouldn't ask for any
dues." At the conclusion of his remarks, Szekely called upon Independent President
Wilbanks for "a few words," whereupon Wilbanks announced an Independent meet-
ing to be held at the Women's Club after work that same afternoon.
During working hours during this same period before the second election, it is un-
denied that Foreman John Brown asked Silas Wilbanks if Wilbanks wanted to pay
his union dues; asked Clarence Simms if Simms "was ready to pay" his dues in the
Independent Union, which dues Brown advised Simms were "25 cents for the rest
of the month"; asked Carl Sharp how Sharp felt about this election and if he
knew how another employee (James Riley) felt; asked Jesse Childs if Childs "wanted
to join the Independent," stating that "you're privileged to join or not to join if you
want to, anything you want to do"; asked Childs again about joining the Independ-
ent, stating that it was "a quarter to join," 10 and thereupon accepted a quarter from
Childs; asked William Cheek to join the Independent; asked William Smith if Smith
had paid his union dues; with pad and pencil in hand, asked Arthur McGinnis whether
McGinnis wanted to pay dues in the Independent and stated "they were going to
get ahead of the IAM Union" and that McGinnis did not have "long to think" about
joining the Independent, whereupon McGinnis told Brown that "since you put it
that way, I'll give you a quarter," which he did.
Chief Inspector Wainford told Carl Sharp during this period, "If you vote for .
the [Machinists] Union, if you are not skilled you cannot hold your job.
10 Independent Steward Hawks. testified that monthly Independent dues were $1.
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There'll be a man standing in back of you , and if you can't qualify and turn out the
work, you won't be here." Also, during this period, Wainford summoned Russell
Porter to his , Wainford 's, desk and Porter testified without denial to what followed:
Q. Did Mr. Wainford have a desk in the department ?-A. Yes, sir. He's
head of our department . He asked me how I felt about this union deal, and I
told him , I said, "I haven 't made up my mind," and he said, "Are you going
to join the Independent Union." I told him, "I thought this was supposed to
be a secret election or ballot. I didn't feel it right to join a union until after
the election was over and one side won ." He talked to me, I guess , thirty
minutes.
Q. What else did he talk about?-A. He told me the advantages and disad-
vantages of the unions. He said that the outside unions, if they come in here,
we would have to pay heavy dues. He said any time they could bring a load of
men from some other plant and come in there and take my job, and he said as
long as you have an Independent Union, you don't have to pay these heavy
dues, you can have your own men here, you can rule yourselves and won't be
ruled by outside forces, and he asked me to join the Independent Union. He
said it was the only union there was, and I told him I would think about it,
and I'd let him know later on, and that's all he said to me at that time. This-
,I don't remember the exact words of the conversation-quite a bit took place.
He had quite a bit to say about the Independent and against the outside unions,
as he called it. Later on that afternoon-
Q. The same day?-A. Same day. I believe it was right after noon, I was
talking to Mr. Borders again. He asked me if I was going to sign the card.
Q. For what?-A. Independent Union, and I told him I hadn't made up my
mind yet, and we was standing in the gauge-kind of closed off place by tables
inside the inspection department . We were standing there talking . Mr. Wain-
ford come over again and was talking to both of us, and he said we ought to
give the old man a chance, and he talked some more on the disadvantages of
the outside union, what they could do and what they would do. I said I still
hadn't made up my mind about it. He said, "I'll tell you I'm just going to lay
my cards on the table. I want this Independent Union to go in. I'm a company
man." He said, "I can't fire you if you don't join this Independent Union
and do like I want you to. I can do this though ." He said, "You can sit
right over at that table and not ever get a raise." At that time, I was wanting
to get in the welding shop.
Q. He knew that?-A. Yes. I submitted the request to him and asked Bill
Franks about it. He said this helio are welding would work perfectly in with
magnaflux. He said, "If you join this union and go along with me on this,
I'll guarantee you will get into the shop like you want." He said, "If you don't,
you can expect to sit over there at $1.25 an hour the rest of the time you're here."
He said, "I ain't threatening you. I ain't that foolish ," he said, "But that's the
way it lays," and I told him I would think about. I thought I'd go along
with him. Then, I went up to the welding shop which was part of my job.
I asked two welders, Jim Tanksley and Cliff Gurley, and I told them what he
said and the statement he made to me, and I asked them, being older men,
I asked them what I should do. They said they thought I should join, I didn't
have to vote that way, but join it , and I could save my job . I went back to
Mr. Borders . He said, "Ready to sign the card?" I said "Yes, I 'll give you a
quarter." He signed the card for me and handed it to me.
Q. Did you give him the quarter ?-A. Yes. I didn 't sign it; he signed it for
me, and that was the end of it.
Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Wainford after that?-A. No. Later that
afternoon , he asked me about it, did I join, and I said , "Yes," and he said,
"Glad you're going along with me" and that's it.
Porter received his transfer after the runoff election.
During a conversation begun when Gary asked Wainford 's opinion about the
probable outcome of the runoff election , Wainford told Gary, according to Gary's
undenied testimony , that "we was jumping the gun a little, jumping the old man
[Szekely ] a little too early, to give him [Szekely ] a chance to get established in
Georgia" and that "they had an independent union up in Philadelphia which was
a good one, and . . . it would be all right here."
Also between the two election dates, Foreman Brown sent employee William
Smith to Superintendent Falcone's office . Falcone told Smith it had been reported
that Smith was distributing union badges and he asked whether Smith had been
O. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1135
doing so . Smith denied it. Later that day, Falcone removed Smith from his then
setup functions and put him on the lathe in order , as Falcone told Smith , to keep
Smith "confined to the lathe and keep out of trouble."
The Runoff Election
Alfred Gary was one of the Machinists foremost adherents , as mentioned here-
inafter, and he was a Machinist observer at the second election . Gary was an
assistant setup man at the time and he was engaged in such duties on the morning
of election , which was scheduled to be held in the afternoon . At about 8 : 30 that
morning, Superintendent Falcone instructed one Jarrett , a setup man , to put Gary
on a lathe because "there had been rumors coming in the office on [Gary], and
[Falcone ] wanted [Gary] tied down for that day ." Gary worked at the lathe until
shortly before the election that afternoon . The next day , Gary was returned to
his setup duties.
Robert Carothers and Robert Smith were active Machinists members. Foreman
Wiley kept them under his personal surveillance during working hours the entire
day of the election ; he followed them in the plant wherever they went, even into
the "bathroom." That same day, Wiley had Carothers running an air hose out
of the spray painting department , something which had not been done before.
Wiley told employee Walter Smith of the paint department not to mention it, but
that "Carothers is an IAM man , and I want to keep him from walking around over
the plant."
While the men were lining up in the voting line and while the voting was in
progress , Foreman Brown stood for approximately 15 or 20 minutes not more than
5 feet from where the line was forming . Foreman Brown , it is recalled, had
been very active in soliciting dues and members for the Independent . Although
the record does not disclose what Brown said on this occasion , the record shows
that Brown spoke to the men "getting in line."
Employee Seaboat , a milling machine operator, was active in the plant in behalf
of the Independent . On occasions before the first election and in the period
between the two elections he would shut down his machine , even leave his
department, and go about the shop talking to various employees from 1 to 3 hours
at a time . While the employees were lined ul? and voting was underway, Seaboat
walked up and down and in and out the voting line and he told the employees,
"Boys, let's put this company union in."
After the Runoff Election
In June 1956, shortly after the runoff election , Szekely met in Respondent 's offices
with Independent officers and stewards and the Independent 's attorney, James Wood.
This meeting was requested by Wood to enable Szekely to meet "the men of the
Independent Union ." Independent President Wilbanks introduced the Independent
officers to Szekely , whereupon Szekely congratulated them on the outcome of the
election . Then , according to the undenied testimony of Independent Shop Steward
G. B. Hawks, Szekely told the men , "I want us to make this organization so damn
strong that no outside organization will try to get in here . If you got any men in
your organization not one hundred percent behind , either you got any men that
joins in trying to undermine it-out ." Szekely also announced that he had granted
some raises "on recommendation."
Employee Albert Roach had been active in behalf of the Machinists ' organiza-
tional drive and he had accompanied a Board field investigator to assist the in-
vestigator in locating the residences of several individuals during the investigation
of the present case . On or about August 1 , 1956 , according to Roach's undenied
testimony, Foreman Bill Franks told Roach in the plant that Roach had "been seen
with the Board man" and that "you been fooling with this union business, the
pressure has been put on me; its been put on us from the town people , too. You're
the ringleader of the thing-one of the ringleaders of it . You got me in a heck
of a shape . Why don 't you quit."
Conclusions
Beginning this recapitulation with the period between January 10, 1956, and
the first election , the evidence shows Kneeland , an employee or former employee at
Respondent 's Philadelphia plant and a president of an independent Union in the
Philadelphia plant openly engaging in union activity at Respondent 's Commerce plant
and his telling Foreman Franks that it was "union business "- for Szekely himself. This
union business , Kneeland advised McElreath was "to organize a union , a company
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union ." Considering the activities of Preisdent Szekely, Chief Inspector Wainford,
Superintendent Falcone, Foreman Brown, Foreman Wiley, and Foreman Franks,
Respondent is responsible for Kneeland's conduct. See Hardware Engineering Com-
pany, Inc., 117 NLRB 896; Terry Poultry Company, 109 NLRB 1097, 1107-1108.
Then shortly before the first election Foreman Wiley urges Smith to give Szekely and
the Independent "a chance," and later asks how Smith feels about the Union. After
the aforementioned notice prohibiting all union activity under penalty of discharge
was posted during the period between the two elections, Foreman Brown solicits
dues and members for the Independent and asks an' employee how he and
another employee feel about the election. Chief Inspector Wainford urges Porter
to give "the old man [Szekely] a chance" by joining the Independent and Wainford
inveighs against "outside unions" and forthrightly advises Porter that he would
never get a wage increase unless he joined the Independent and that Wainford would
"guarantee" Porter a desired transfer if Porter would join the Independent. It was
during this same period between elections that Szekely convened his employees during
working hours; he was not "telling you people how to vote," but he did tell them about
interference from "outside unions," that there was "only one union, the Independent
Union," that he had given bonuses in Philadelphia, and that "if you got the Independ-
ent Union in, he wouldn't ask for any dues," and then Szekely called upon the Inde-
pendent's president for "a few words." This was during the same period between
elections that Falcone confined Smith to lathe work in order to "keep [him] out of
trouble," trouble in this context being support for the Machinists' Union; Seaboat,
meanwhile, had been roaming about the plant, with his machine shut down, openly
soliciting in behalf of the Independent.
Then on the day of the second election, Superintendent Falcone keeps Gary, a
prominent Machinists supporter and Machinists observer at the election, confined
to lathe work and Foreman Wiley keeps Machinists adherents Carothers and Smith
under constant surveillance.
Then following the second election, Szekely tells the leaders of the Independent
"to make this organization so damn strong that no outside organization will try
to get in here" and that they should oust anyone "in your organization not one
hundred percent behind." And Foreman Franks is under pressure because Roach
has been "fooling with this union [the Machinists]" and has been seen with the
"Board man" and Franks thereupon urges Roach to quit his job.
In the circumstances, the record shows not only that Respondent has assisted
and supported the Independent and otherwise interfered with employees' rights under
Section 7 of the Act, but the character of Respondent's conduct is such as to identify
and make the Independent to be Szekely's or Respondent's own organization and
thus to constitute domination of the Independent as well. I accordingly conclude
that Respondent has thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act.il
Whether or not the Independent is held to be a dominated organization, as dis-
tinguished from one which is assisted and supported, the assistance and support
rendered the Independent's candidacy in the runoff election and the other interference
during the period between the two elections clearly require setting aside the runoff
election. Hence, I consider it unnecessary to belabor this Report with separate
resolution of each of the Machinists' objections. Suffice it to say that Respondent
interfered with the conduct of a free election contemplated by the Act.
Alleged Discrimination
Alfred Gary was hired as a milling machine operator in October 1955 for eventual
employment at Respondent 's plant at Commerce , Georgia; he underwent a training
period at Respondent 's then Philadelphia plant and returned to Respondent's new
n Respondent contends that its contract with the Independent justifies its collection of
dues for the Independent. Apart from the serious question whether any lawful contract
existed at all between Respondent and the Independent in Commerce (cf. National Elec-
tronic Manufacturing Corporation at at., 113 NLRB 620), there is no provision in such
alleged contract permitting such dues collection, absent a "written authorization of any
employee in conformity with Section 302 (cj (4) of the [Act]." There is no evidence
here of such lawful authorizations. Respondent also alludes to the fact that Supervisors
O'Dillon and Jarrett had been members of and engaged in some activities in behalf of the
Machinists. Jarrett quit the Machinists as soon as Respondent advised him he was a
supervisor, which he testified was not until June 1956, and O'Dillon, a setup man, was
discharged in June 1956. They were minor supervisors, compared with President Szekely,
Superintendent Falcone, Chief Inspector Wainford, Foreman Wiley, Foreman Franks, and
Foreman Brown, and in the present circumstances their activity hardly militates against
the 8 (a) (1) and (2) findings made here.
O. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1137
plant in Commerce in the latter part of November 1955. Superintendent Stachel,.
who hired Gary, offered Gary an hourly rate of $1.35; Gary refused such offer
-because, as he advised Stachel, he was then earning $1.46 at other employment at
Commerce; Stachel thereupon agreed to pay Gary $1.65 if Gary would serve a
4 to 6 weeks' training period at $1.35 in Philadelphia. Gary was made an assistant
setup man in January 1956 and was raised a dime to $1.45 that same month. In addi-
tion to setting-up functions, Gary also continued to operate machines until termina-
tion of his employment in July 1956; he was the only rank-and-file operator also doing
setup work. Gary never did receive the wage rate of $1.65 which Stachel had
agreed to give him.
Gary became active in the Machinists' and the IBEW's organizational campaign
in December 1955; he signed cards in both organizations, attended union meetings,
and distributed organizational literature outside the plant; he was an official observer
for the Machinists and wore a Machinists badge at the aforementioned Board
elections in May and June 1956.12 The day after the first election, Superintendent
Frank Falcone remarked to one O'Dillon within Gary's hearing at the plant that he,
Falcone, knew Gary "had been involved all along the last 4 or 5 months." Falcone
then approached Gary and told Gary, according to Gary's undenied testimony, that
"the two unions tied up. We know we got to fight them or hang. I ain't going to have
no campaigning or electioneering in the shop. If I catch you, I'll fire you." On the
day of the runoff election Superintendent Falcone ordered Gary "tied down" to
lathe operations as set forth above, and later that day while the observers for the
various parties were gathered together to sign the tally of ballots, Gary overheard
Production Manager Robert Jerge tell Superintendent Falcone, according to Gary's
undenied testimony, that "he should have . [gotten rid of] Gary a good while
ago," to which Falcone replied, "he knew that, but he thought I'd [Gary] be all
-right."
During the period between the two elections, Gary complained to Foreman Brown
that he had not received his mentioned raise to $1.65. Either Superintendent Falcone
or Brown, or both, thereupon advised Gary, according to Gary's undenied testimony,
that "the Labor Board froze all raises," whereupon Gary protested that he knew
of two employees who had received wage increases and that "if the Labor Board
froze it, they would freeze it all." Falcone told Gary he would receive an increase
"when it was settled and raises opened up."
On or about June 29, after the second election, Gary once more spoke to Foreman
Brown about his wages. (It is recalled that at the meeting with Independent officers
Szekely had announced granting raises to "recommended" employees.) Gary asked
Brown whether Respondent had "turned [the raises] loose," stating that he knew
3 or 4 employees had received raises, whereupon Brown informed Gary that Gary
would have to discuss the matter with Falcone because "I [Brown] don't know
what to tell you." They then called upon Falcone and Gary again reminded
Falcone of the wage promises made to Gary. Falcone replied that he was going
"to equalize all the wages and bring everybody up accordingly" before giving Gary
a raise. Gary then stated that he would work as an operator but not as a setup
man at a $1.45 rate; Falcone refused to relieve Gary of his setup duties and the
upshot of the meeting was that Gary gave notice of resignation effective July 6.
On July 5 Respondent paid Gary his final wages through July 6.
Meanwhile, on June 27, 1956, Gary had applied for employment at a mill located
in Seneca, about 60 miles from his residence in Commerce; Gary began such other
employment shortly after leaving Respondent. Gary testified that he had applied
for this other employment because "There was rumors all over the shop I was leaving.
If I was leaving I needed another job. That's the reason I went."
Gary's quitting stemmed, I find, from his dissatisfaction with his wage situation,
and I also find that Respondent's failure to fulfill its promises to Gary in this respect
was motivated, in part at least, by its opposition to Gary's prominence in the Machin-
ists organization drive. While Respondent may have discriminated in regard to
Gary's wages, I am nevertheless unable to find by a preponderance of evidence
that Respondent was responsible for any "rumors" as to Gary's quitting; and I am
also unable to find by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent violated its
salary commitments to Gary for the purpose of causing Gary to quit. In these
circumstances, I do not find that Gary's quitting "was the culmination of a plan or
scheme on the part of the employer to force such action" and I shall accordingly
recommend dismissing the complaint as to him. Coats & Clark, Inc., 113 NLRB
237, 238, 241 F. 2d 556 (C. A. 5).
11 Gary also signed an Independent card sometime before the first election at the solicita-
tion of employee Ben Allen; Gary testified that he "was scared not to sign."
450553-58-vol. 119-73
11.38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. W. Wilson, a resident of Commerce, Georgia, was employed by Respondent
in October 1955; he worked several weeks in Respondent's Philadelphia plant and
returned in November 1955 to Respondent's Commerce plant where he remained
until his discharge on June 25, 1956. Wilson joined the Machinists and became
active in its organizational campaign; he attended union meetings, distributed union
cards, and wore a pencil clip at work bearing the Machinists insignia. Wilson
had also signed an IBEW card but had not joined the Independent. Sometime early
in January 1956, Foreman Brown asked Wilson where a Machinists union meeting.
was being held that night. Superintendent Falcone, who discharged Wilson, denied
any knowledge of Wilson's union membership and activities.
Wilson was, and still is, a substitute mail carrier in Commerce, and he mentioned
the matter to Superintendent Falcone when he returned to Commerce in November.
Falcone advised Wilson at that time that Wilson could not hold another job while
working for the Respondent, but he agreed to let Wilson work on the night shift
for several weeks during which time Wilson would "break in a substitute mail
carrier." Wilson went on the day shift about 3 weeks later.
Wilson was absent a full week in April without first obtaining permission or other-
wise notifying Respondent during the week. On his return he told Foreman Brown
that he had been ill; in fact, he had not been ill but had been carrying mail.
Falcone informed Wilson at this time that company policy required employees.
to notify Respondent when they were absent, and both men shook hands and agreed
to forget the incident. The next month, May, Wilson was absent from-work
another full week; he worked his mail route that week. Wilson testified that he had
asked and received permission from Jarrett to be out that week, whereas Jarrett
testified that Wilson merely asked to be excused from work the Saturday before.
Falcone testified that he had checked with Jarrett during Wilson's absence and that
Jarrett had informed him that he, Jarrett, had not received any word from Wilson
and did not know the reason for Wilson's absence. At Falcone's instructions,
Foreman Brown brought Wilson to Falcone's office when Wilson returned to work
after this second absence. Wilson told Falcone that he had been ill. Falcone then
warned Wilson, according to Falcone's undenied testimony, that this "would be
the last time I [Falcone] would have him [Wilson] staying out without notifying
us he was going to be out" and that Wilson would be discharged the next time
this happened. So far as the record discloses, Wilson did not inform Falcone on
this occasion that Jarrett had allegedly given him permission to be absent.
Wilson was absent another full week beginning June 18. Wilson's testimony is
that on Friday, June 15, he asked Jarrett whether he could be off the next day and
the entire following week in order to carry mail and that Jarrett said that was "all
right" because he, Jarrett, had "an extra man, anyway." Jarrett testified that he had
discussed the Saturday absence with Wilson, but he denied granting or even discussing
permission for Wilson to take off the week of June 18. Jarrett sent Wilson to
Falcone's office when Falcone returned to work on June 25, and Falcone thereupon
discharged Wilson for being absent without calling in or otherwise notifying
Respondent. According to Wilson, Wilson then told Falcone that Wilson had notified
Jarrett of the absence, as set forth above, that Jarrett thereupon -informed Falcone
that Wilson had "said something about getting off," and that Falcone then announced
that "I'm going to have to let you go anyway." Jarrett denied giving Wilson
permission to be absent that week, as stated above, and he also denied informing Fal-
cone to such effect on the occasion of the discharge. Falcone testified that he told
Wilson that he had given Wilson his "last warning" on the occasion of Wilson's
May absence and that he, Falcone, did not care what excuse Wilson had. Falcone
further testified that he did not learn until after this occasion that Wilson was still
carrying mail and that Wilson's three absences had been for such reason.
While I am inclined to believe Wilson's testimony that he had discussed the June
absence with Jarrett before taking off that week, I am not satisfied that Jarrett clearly
informed Falcone to such effect on the occasion of the discharge interview. I find,
therefore, that Falcone acted on the premise that Wilson had not previously discussed
the absence with Jarrett, and I accordingly conclude that Falcone discharged Wilson
for reasons unrelated to union considerations. I shall recommend dismissing the
complaint in this respect.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section If, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, 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.
AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC . 1139
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action which I find necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair labor
practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices during the
period between the elections, which conduct has interfered with the holding of a
free election, I shall also recommend setting aside the results of the runoff election
and that another election be conducted. I recommend the disestablishment of the
Independent as a company-dominated organization; one result of such recommenda-
tion is to remove the Independent from a place on the ballot in the recommended
new election. This would leave only the Machinists on the ballot; in the circum-
stances, therefore, and in order to restore the status quo ante, I further recommend
that employees in such election be given an opportunity to vote for or against the
Machinists. -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act by dominating
and interfering with the administration of the Independent and by contributing
support to it.
2. Respondent has otherwise violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by soliciting
dues and members for the Independent, interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and voting intentions, threatening to withhold wage increases
and other advancement unless employees joined the Independent, promising job
advancement if employees did join the Independent, urging employees to quit because
of their union activities, keeping employees under surveillance because of union
activities, and treating unions disparately with respect to use of plant time and
facilities.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
4. During the period after the original election and before the close of the runoff
election Respondent engaged in conduct interfering with the employees' right to a.
free election, which conduct affected the results of the runoff election.
5. Respondent did not discriminatorily discharge Wilson and Gary.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
American Furniture Company, Inc. and Truck Drivers, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union 941, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 33-CA-356. August
^03, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 1956, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett 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 In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a supporting brief, and a mo-
tion to dismiss.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and
Rodgers].
118 NLRB No. 156.