Revere Copper and Brass, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1377 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

REVERE COPPER AND BRASS , INC. 1377
no, I wasn 't going to get anybody in trouble ... I was for the union myself and he
said , `Well,' and walked off." Blair denied ever having such a conversation with
Busby . He testified that he had attended one union meeting and knew that Dora
Shinn "was soliciting union membership ." 12 From this testimony the General
Counsel orally argued that Blair requested Busby to get a union card from Shinn
so that she could be disciplined under the no-solicitation rule-a major offense for
which the penalty for a first violation is a layoff of 9 working days. In the absence
of supporting evidence this argument must be rejected . It is founded only on
speculativeness.
I find that the allegation fails for lack of proof . I recommend its dismissal.13
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, I find that Respondent has not violated
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon-the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I recom-
mend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
"The General Counsel raised no issue concerning Blair's attendance at a meeting of
the Union. The inference , if any can be drawn, is that the Union solicited Blair's
membership
13 The General Counsel adduced some evidence of Respondent calling meetings of the
employees and stating in substance that it was only renting the plant and would not
tolerate any outside interference . This conduct is not alleged in the complaint as a viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, Of course, not withstanding the failure to plead, this
conduct, if proven would be material and relevant in determining whether Respondent
was motivated by union animus But, since the ultimate facts pleaded in the complaint
fall for lack of proof there is no need to determine motivation.
Revere Copper and Brass, Inc. and Reuben H. Monkman and
Dewitt Lodge No. 852, International Association of Machin-
ists, Party in Interest . Case No. 13-CA-4613. October 4, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 26, 1962, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Inter-
mediate,Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and briefs in support thereof.
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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
138 NLRB No. 140.
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case,' and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations, with certain exceptions and modifications
as hereinafter set forth.
THE REMEDY
Having found in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Trial Examiner found, inter alia, that the Respondent, by its
interviews and interrogation of employees, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
and also aided, assisted, and contributed support to the Union by
coercing employees into joining the Union in violation of Section
8(a) (2) of the Act. In view of the nature of Respondents' unfair
labor practices, and in order to dissipate the effects of the assistance
and to restore the aforementioned employees as nearly as possible
to the position they occupied prior to the unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner recommended that the 27 employees involved be per-
mitted to resign from the Union, if they wish, without regard to
the terms of the maintenance-of-membership agreement between Re-
spondent and the Union. We shall, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner, adopt such recommendation and shall order the Respond-
ent to advise the 27 employees that they may resign from the Union
and that they will not be subject to the penalties of the contract if
they so elect.
As the 27 employees were unlawfully coerced into joining the Union,
and thus coerced into paying initiation fees, dues, and other union
obligations, we are of the opinion, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that it is necessary, in order to expunge the effects of such unlawful
conduct, to order the Respondent to reimburse these employees for
their initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid to the Union. How-
ever, we do not agree with the General Counsel that the Union, which
was not a party respondent in the case, and admittedly not' guilty of
any unfair labor practices, should be made jointly liable with Re-
spondent in this connection.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's recommendation that Monk-
man be reinstated to his former or substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and
made whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him in the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report.
However, in accordance with the policy recently adopted by the
'Ac the iecoid, exceptions. and briefs adequately set forth the ,csues and positions of
the parties, the Respondent ' s request for oral argument is denied.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS, INC. 1379
Board,' we shall include an allowance for interest on all moneys due
him. Such interest shall be computed at the rate of 6 percent per
annum on the basis of each separate calendar quarter.
We shall also include an allowance for interest on the initiation
fees, dues, and other moneys which we are ordering reimbursed to
employees who were unlawfully coerced into joining the Union. Such
interest shall be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum on the
basis of separate calendar quarters?
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Revere Copper and
Brass, Inc., Clinton, Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees about their union desires and feel-
ings in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee
because he fails to join any labor organization or otherwise exercises
his rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
(c) Contributing assistance and support to any labor organization
in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Reuben Monkman immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate
'Isis Phoalnng cf Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
3Seafaiers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO, 138
NLRB 1142 Member Leedom, for reasons stated in the dissents in the afoiementioned
cases , would not grant any interest in the instant case.
662353-63-vol 138-88
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Report entitled "The Remedy," as modified by the section of the
Board's Decision and Order entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Advise the employees listed in the attached notice marked
"Appendix A," in writing, that said employees may resign from the
Union without being subject to discharge, regardless of the terms of
the agreement between the Respondent and the Union.
(c) Reimburse the employees listed in "Appendix A," together with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, for the initiation fees,
dues, and other moneys they were unlawfully required to pay to
Dewitt Lodge No. 852, International Association of Machinists, in the
manner set forth in the section of the Board's Decision and Order
entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amount
of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Post at its plant at Clinton, Illinois, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B." 4 Copies of the notice shall, after be-
ing signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
4In 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."
Moyer, William L.
Shields, Annabelle M.
Bowman, Virginia L.
Baker, Richard W.
Graham, Charlie V. W.
Bolin, John A.
Foster, Lyle D.
Hawkins, Donald L.
Richards, Wilbert L.
Humphrey, Elmer
Burns, James E.
Miller, Lucille M.
Bolin, Betty C.
Baker, Jess F.
APPENDIX A
Van Valey, James R.
Van Note, John R.
McAboy, Harry R.
Bradshaw, Artis G.
Hatton, Henry E.
Greenwood, Margie L.
Brelsfoard, Reva
Laiser, Wilbur S.
Wickenhauser, Frederick J.
Meeks, Roberta Al.
Strohkirch, Nettie E.
Clymer, Hubert E.
Lange, Ernest J.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS, INC. 1381
APPENDIX B
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 interrogate our employees about their union de-
sires and feelings in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any
employee because he fails to join any labor organization or other-
wise exercises his rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, ex-
cept to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized
in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT contribute assistance and support to Dewitt Lodge
No. 852, International Association of Machinists, or any other
labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted by
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL notify the employees listed below, in writing, that they
may resign from Dewitt Lodge No. 852, International Association
of Machinists, by advising the personnel office of the Company,
in writing, within 15 days from the posting of this notice, of
their intention to do so. Any employee who elects to resign may
do so without regard to the terms of the -agreement -between the
Union and the Company.
Moyer, William L.
Shields, Annabelle M.
Bowman, Virginia L.
Baker, Richard W.
Graham, Charlie V. W.
Bolin, John A.
Foster, Lyle D.
Hawkins, Donald L.
Richards, Wilbert L.
Humphrey, Elmer
Burns, James E.
Miller, Lucille M.
Bolin, Betty C.
Baker, Jess F.
Van Valey, James R.
Van Note, John R.
McAboy, Harry R.
Bradshaw, Artis G.
Hatton, Henry E.
Greenwood, Margie L.
Brelsfoard, Reva
Laiser, Wilbur S.
Wickenhauser, Frederick J.
Meeks, Roberta M.
Strohkirch, Nettie E.
Clymer, Hubert E.
Lange, Ernest J.
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL reimburse the above-named employees for the initia-
tion fees, dues , and other moneys they were unlawfully required
to pay to Dewitt Lodge No. 852, International Association of
Machinists.
WE WILL offer Reuben Monkman immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him.
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
We will notify the above-named employee, Monkman, if at present
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Serv-
ice Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago 3, Illinois, Telephone Num-
ber, Central 6-9660, if they have any questions concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge of unfair labor practices filed on December 26, 1961, against Revere
Copper and Brass, Incorporated, herein called the Respondent or Company, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and
notice of hearing dated February 16, 1961, alleging that Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. The answer of Respondent
admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
George J. Batt at Clinton, Illinois, on April 10 and 11, 1962. All parties, except
Monkman who appeared pro se, were represented by counsel at the hearing. Mr.
Christensen, however, entered a special appearance and moved to 'strike Dewitt
Lodge No. 852, International Association of Machinists as a party on the grounds
that no charge had been filed against said organization and that it could not be joined
without its consent. I -denied the motion, and Mr. Christensen remained in the
hearing room during the hearing as an observer. Subsequent to the hearing, Re-
spondent and General Counsel filed briefs which I have considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been , a Maryland corporation
operating factories in several States, including a factory at Clinton , Illinois, the
facility involved in this proceeding, where it is engaged in.the manufacture of copper
tubing, fabricating utensils, and other products . In the course and conduct of its
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS, INC. 1383
business operations , Respondent annually ships its products from one State to
another at an annual rate in excess of $1,000,000.
Respondent concedes , and I find, that it is and has been at all dimes material
hereto an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Dewitt Lodge No. 852, International Association of Machinists , herein sometimes
called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. Interrogation of employees
Respondent and the Union have been parties to collective -bargaining contracts
for a number of years and , in November 1961, began negotiations for a new agree-
ment to ieplace their existing contract which was to expire on November 18, 4961.
On December 11, 1961, the parties executed a new contract resulting from the
negotiations . The new contract contained a change in the so-called union security
provisions of the old agreement which is of significance to this case . Article 11,
paragraph ( 3) of the old agreement provided:
(a) Any employee hired on or after the effective date of this Agreement
must, as a condition of employment , loin the UNION not later than on the first
day, following the completion of his probationary period, and remain a member
for the duration of the Agreement , provided however , the employee may resign
from the UNION during the two week period immediately preceding the expira-
tion date of this Agreement.
(b) Any employee in permanent status who is not a member of the UNION
on the date of this Agreement shall not be required to become a member of
the UNION as a condition of continued employment.
(c) Any employee who is now a member of the UNION or who thereafter
loins the UNION, must maintain his membership in the UNION for the dura-
tion of this Agreement . provided however , that during . the two week period
immediately preceding the expiration date of this Agreement he shall have the
right to resign from the UNION
In the new agreement , the provisos in subparagraphs ( a) and (c) of paragraphs (3),
article II , have been deleted. Thus , employees no longer may resign from the
Union during a period prior to the expiration of the agreement . In other words,
all employees must maintain membership in the Union and there is no "escape
period " The facts in this case are directly related to the negotiations of the parties
and the change in the union security provisions
Negotiations for the new agreement began on November 3, 1961 . The Company
was represented by Harold Schindler , works manager ; James Miller , superintendent
of the manufacturing plant, Gerald Bush, superintendent of the tube mill; Edward
Keenon, assistant works manager , and Horace Roberts, industrial relations officer.
The Union was represented by Lloyd Butcher , grand lodge representative of the
International Association of Machinists ; Raymond Rodgers, financial secretary of
Lodge 852, Robert Karr , chairman of the negotiating committee ; and various other
employee members of the committee.
From the very first bargaining session , the Union insisted that the Company
grant a full union shop permitted by the Act , namely, that all employees be required
to join the Union in the period provided in the statute . The Company , as it had
for years , resisted this demand as being against its policy, and the Union threatened
to strike over the issue
It appears that as of the time of the negotiations there were only 28 permanent
employees who were not members of the Union I Sometime during the negotiations
the Union gave Respondent the names of these persons who were not members.
Roberts testified that during the course of the negotiations the Union suggested that
if they could "get a hundred percent membership then they wouldn't need a full
union security provision in the new contract " He added that the Company made
1 The record is unclear but it would appear that there were about 400 employees in the
bargaining unit when negotiations began since 'Norman MacLeod, Industrial relations
manager, estimated that 7 or 8 percent were nonunion
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no commitment to this suggestion. The Company was concerned, however, about
the Union's threat to strike and discussed means of averting it. Roberts testified that,
Well, we thought that if we were to talk to all of the people who were not
members of the union and explain the situation to them as with regards to the
threat of a union strike, and that we had no objections to their joining the union.
We thought that they probably would become members.
Gerald Bush, superintendent of the tube plant, also testified about Respondent's
decision to talk with the nonunion employees. He stated that after the Union
threatened to strike unless they "had a hundred percent membership in the union,"
management officials, in a caucus, decided to talk to the employees who were not
members of the Union. He testified that, "it was decided we should talk to the men
and make them fully aware if there was a-strike, what the circumstances would be,
and to give them the opportunity of averting the strike if possible " He could
not recall anything else that was said in the caucus about the matter.
In accord with the decision to discuss the problem with employees, certain
management representatives interviewed nonmember employees and discussed the
Union's demand for a full union shop with them. In all, about 18 employees were
interviewed, usually alone in the office of a company official, having been summoned
to the office for that purpose. Typical interviews were as follows:
Richard Baker had been employed by Respondent as a toolmaker for about 10
years and was not a member of the Union. On the 4th of December he was notified
to report to Roberts' office. Roberts told him that the Union was threatening to
strike unless they got "a hundred percent membership in the union. . . Baker
told Roberts that he felt he was being pressured and he "didn't lake to be pushed
into the union from either side." Roberts told him it was not a "matter of pressure"
but that the employee had a "choice to volunteer . . . Baker said he did not want
to join but he would to avert a strike. As Baker was leaving Roberts' office, Roberts
told him to contact Ray Rodgers, official of the Union, but Baker was unable to find
hum. Two days later, while Baker was ill at home, Rodgers, Grand Lodge Representa-
tive Butcher, and the shop committee appeared at Baker's home and Rodgers asked
him if he was ready to join the Union. Rodgers told Baker that Roberts and
Schindler told them to call since Baker had agreed to join the Union. Baker signed
a card for Rodgers.2
Employee Lyle Foster was also interviewed by Roberts in his office, but prior
to that his foreman had also talked to him about the same matter. He testified that
Foreman Jackson told him that "he had just found out" that Foster was not a union
member. Jackson went on to state that the Union was trying to get "one hundred
percent union membership" and had threatened to strike. Later Foster was called
into Roberts' office and told that the Union was threatening to strike for a union shop.
Roberts also told Foster that he would like to see the employees belong to the Union
before it was necessary to tell them "that they will either have to get in or get out "
Foster was asked if he would consider getting in the Union but he was reluctant.
A few days dater, after being approached by Rodgers to sign, he sought out Roberts
and told him he was going to join- the Union but was not doing it voluntarily 3
Roberts told the employee to "check with Ray Rodgers" which the employee did.
Foster gave Rodgers a check for his initiation fee that day.
Employees Reva Brelsford and Elmer Humphrey were also talked to by Roberts
in his office. Roberts told Brelsford that the Union had threatened to strike for a
union shop and asked her if she would join the Union. She said she would rather
join than go on strike and later joined the Union The conversation with Humphrey,
on December 4, was substantially the same, and Humphrey joined the Union a few
days later.
Works Manager Schindler also discussed the Union's demand with employees
prior to the execution of the new agreement. James Van Valey saw Schindler in
the office on or about December 4, and Schindler told him ,that the Union had about
90 percent of the employees enrolled as members and that he knew the Union was
going out on strike if all the employees did not join. Schindler also stated that he
could not tell the employee what "clothes to wear or anything like that." Van Valey
2About a week before his conversation with Roberts, Baker had been asked by Keenan,
assistant works manager, if he would join the Union to avert a strike Baker told Keenan
that he was loyal to the Company but could not give an answer at that time.
'Roberts told Foster that be could not understand why the employee felt he was being
forced into the Union The employee then told Roberts that he had heard that Works
Manager Schindler and Grand Lodge Representative Butcher had an arrangement for dis-
missing employees who did not join the Union. Roberts made no comment
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS , INC. 1385
told him that "rather than cause trouble" he would join the Union and did so shortly
thereafter.
Employee John Van Note was sent to the personnel office by James Miller, plant
superintendent, where he saw Schindler privately. Schindler discussed the current
negotiations with the Union, told the employee that the Union was threatening
to strike for a full union shop, and that if a strike occurred and the Company con-
ceded, the employees would have to join the Union when they returned to work.
Schindler also mentioned the number of employees who did not belong to the
Union and gave Van Note the names of some of the union stewards. Van Note
joined the Union a short while later.
Charles Graham was sent to the personnel office by his foreman and met with
Schindler who told him that the Union intended to strike if "they didn't get a
hundred percent membership." The employee expressed an opinion that the Union
would not strike for a union shop but was told by Schindler that he believed the
Union was in earnest and that if the Company agreed with the Union all employees
would have to join. Graham joined the Union before the contract was executed.
Employees Annabelle Shields, Lucille Miller, and Virginia Bowman were all inter-
viewed separately by Schindler, having been sent to him for that purpose. Schindler's
comments were substantially the same in each case. He told Shields that the Union
would strike for a union shop and described the conditions which would result if
that occurred. He mentioned, for example, the costs which a strike would involve
and the number of employees who would be out of work. Shields told Schindler
that she would think the matter over and subsequently she also joined the Union.
Schindler told Bowman that the Union was strong enough to force a strike and
that the Company would have to capitulate, and informed Miller that he was trying
to prevent a strike and thought it best if she joined the Union to avert a strike over
the union-shop issue.
Schindler also discussed the Union's strike threat with employees Wilbur Laiser,
James Burns, and Harry McAboy at or about the time he discussed it with other
employees, and under essentially the same conditions. Burns told Schindler that
before he would "see any plant go out on a strike" he would join. He did turn
in an application , which he had in his possession at the time, to the Union. McAboy
joined the Union the night before he was sent to Schindler's office, and his conver-
sation with Schindler was cut short when Schindler was advised of that fact.
Gerald Bush, superintendent of the tube mill, talked to the two nonunion em-
ployees who worked in his department, namely, Ernest Lange and Hubert Clymer.
Lange testified that he was called into Bush's office on December 4 and had a short
conversation with Bush. Bush told him he had a list of persons who did not belong
to the Union and he had been asked to talk to the two who worked for him about
joining the Union. He added that the other nonunion employee had joined a week
before and Bush now wanted to talk with Lange about the subject. He asked
Lange if he had ever considered joining the Union and Lange replied that he had
but had decided against it. Bush asked Lange to think about the matter further
and reconsider, and Lange told him he would. The next day Lange was again
called to Bush's office where Bush asked him whether he had decided to join.
When Lange told Bush he had not, Bush told him that some of this union members
felt that they were paying for the contract benefits secured for the nonunion em-
ployees Lange disagreed with this statement, and was told that only six or eight
employees did not belong to the Union and unless they joined the Union would
strike. Bush asked Lange to give the matter more thought and give him an answer
later in the week. Lange agreed and went back to work. Later that week Bush
came to Lange's home but the employee was absent. Bush telephoned a neighbor
and told him to tell Lange to see Bush before going to work which Lange did. At
that time Bush told Lange that he was now the only employee who had not joined
the Union and that the Union "would strike over one member as well as over six
or eight." Lange told Bush he would join the Union to prevent a strike. Bush then
picked up the telephone in his office and called Ray Rodgers, officer of the Local
Union Rodgers appeared in the office, signed the employee for membership, and
was given the employee's personal check.
Employee Clymer was told by Bush when called to his office that the Union was
demanding "a hundred percent membership" and there was a possibility of a strike
if they did not get it. Bush told Clymer that he had been a union member and
that "they did a lot for the working man." He said it was not fair that a few
employees who did not belong should be "getting a free ride" paid for by the rest
of the employees. Clymer told Bush that, to avoid a strike, he would sign with
the Union Bush told him that he would appreciate it if the employee got a card
and signed "right away." Clymer joined the Union.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Three other nonunion employees had conversations with management representa-
tives similar in tenor to those described above. William Moyer was asked by
Edward Keenon, assistant works manager, in early December, if he had joined
the Union. When the employee replied that he had not Keenon asked him if he
intended to. Moyer heard rumors of a strike and joined the Union, he said, to
prevent "hardship."
Betty Bolin was asked by her foreman, in the presence of other employees, if
she were a member of the Union. When she said she was not, the foreman asked
her had she ever thought about it and would she join if asked. Bolin said she would.
Later that day a union shop committeewoman solicited her, stating that she under-
stood Bolin had been asked to join the Union. Bolin joined.
Jess Baker was asked to come into Superintendent Miller's office on December 4
and there Miller told him that it was no secret that the Union had threatened to
strike if it did not secure a union shop. Baker had applied for membership the
night before, however.
With certain exceptions the Respondent does not deny the content of the inter-
views with employees as set forth above. Respondent does assert, however, that in
addition to informing employees of the status of negotiations and the Union's threat
to stirke, Respondent's purpose in talking to employees was to make it clear that,
despite any remarks foremen had made to employees about not joining the Union,
Respondent had no objection to employees joining and that their jobs would not be
jeopardized if they did. Roberts and Schindler testified essentially to that effect.
Neither Roberts nor Schindler mentioned any specific statement to any employee of
that nature, however, and no employee testified about any such conversation. No
foreman was called, and the source of management's information about foreman
antipathy to employees joining, which was asserted to have come from the Union,
was never more precisely identified From a review of the testimony of the sub-
stantial number of employees who testified, as well as that of Respondent's witnesses,
I am satisfied, and I find, that the emphasis and stress in all the interviews was on the
threat of a strike and that any reference lo foremen activity, if made at all, was
minor and incidental
Respondent also states that no promises or threats were made to any employees
during the interviews. I find that no company representative told any employee
that Respondent would treat him any better or worse depending on his decision
about joining the Union.
Respondent also takes the position that the employees were told in the interviews
that they were free to decide for themselves what they wished to do about joining
the Union. I find that such a statement was made in some cases but not in all.
Roberts, for example, did not deny Baker's and Foster's testimony that he urged
them to join the Union despite their reluctance. Moreover, any statement made by
Respondent's representatives to the effect that the choice was the employee's was
made in a context of other remarks which were clearly designed to persuade the
employees to join the Union.
Finally, with respect to the interviews, Respondent denies that certain statements
attributed to it by the employees were actually made. Gerald Bush, superintendent
of the tube mill, denied that he told employee Lange that other employees thought
he was a "free loader" in not joining the Union. The employee had not used that
exact description of the purport of Bush's comments to him about not joining the
Union, but employee Clymer, also interviewed by Bush, had mentioned a "free
ride." Bush did not deny Clymer's testimony. I find that Bush went into greater
detail in his conversations with employees than he was able to remember on the
witness stand. Lange's recall was 'better than Bush's, in my view, and I was more
impressed with his demeanor. I find that Bush did suggest to the employees that
their nonmembership was unpopular with other employees because they paid nothing
for contract benefits.
Bush also denied, as testified to by Lange and set forth in more detail above,
that after talking with Lange for the second time in his office, and after Lange had
agreed to join, Bush then called Ray Rodgers, officer of the Local Union, to see
Lange. I do not credit Bush's denial. Lange told the more coherent and straight-
forward story Moreover, Bush did not deny that he told Clymer that he would
appreciate it if he would go out in the plant and "get signed up right away " This
is consistent with his effort to make it easy for Lange to join when he was in the
mood by arranging for a union official to sign him up
Works Manager Schindler also denied that he made certain statements in the
interviews He denied that he told Bowman that the Union was strong enough to
force the Company to capitulate to its demand for a union shop, or that he gave
Van Note the names of certain union stewards after talking to him about joining
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS, INC. 1387
the Union. I credit the employees as against Schindler in both cases. The employees
who testified in this phase of the case (the interviews) exhibited no malice or resent-
ment toward Respondent .4 In addition, their recall was good and they were careful
not to exaggerate. Questions, the answers to which could be unfavorable to General
Counsel's case, were answered candidly and without hesitation. Schindler, on the
other hand, was unable to recall very much about the details of the interviews when
first interrogated by General Counsel as an adverse witness, although his memory
seemed to improve when he took the stand in Respondent's behalf. In addition, he
seemed somewhat embarrassed about the whole interview situation and unwilling
to remember too much of the details.
I find, therefore, that Respondent's representatives interviewed employees as de-
scribed in the testimony of the employee witnesses and set forth in greater detail
heretofore.5
2. The discharge of Reuben Monkman
Monkman, 1 of the 28 nonunion employees at the time of negotiations for a new
contract, had been employed by Respondent for about 71/2 years when discharged
by Respondent on December 1, 1961. The facts surrounding his discharge are as
follows:
Monkman, although once a steward of the Union, had not been a member of that
organization for years. On or about November 22, 1961, Karr, the Union's shop
chairman, approached him at his job and asked him to join the Union 'Monkman
asked Karr what gave him such an idea, and a discussion ensued about how many
employees were not members of the Union. Karr told Monkman that the reason
Monkman did not belong to the Union was that the Union had never secured a
union-shop agreement He added that the Company had agreed to "get the union
a hundred percent membership if they would sign without a union shop. . . .
About 2 days after the conversation with Karr, Keenon, assistant works manager,
talked with Monkman at his work and reminded Monkman that the employee had
had a conversation with Schindler about the Union 3 years before. Keenon asked
Monkman to repeat what he had told Schindler at that time. Monkman told him
that Schindler had talked to him about joining the Union and asked him to voice
what objections Monkman had to the Union, which Monkman did. After Monk-
man repeated to Keenon what he had earlier told Schindler, Keenon asked the
employee for his present position and was told that Monkman would not join the
Union. Keenon then asked him if he meant he would not join the Union even if
there were a strike, and Monkman replied that such was correct. Monkman also told
Keenon that the Company did not want to commit itself to a union shop but ap-
parently did not object to asking Monkman to join the Union. Monkman, with
Keenon's permission, told Keenon that the Company held the key to the situation
for it could give the Union a union shop or resist, and if it granted it, Monkman
would have to join.
Not long after his talk with Keenon, Monkman was again approached by Karr.
Karr asked him if he were now ready to join and Monkman told him "That when
management approached (him) to join the union, that (he) didn't want any part of
it." Monkman refused to join the Union and Karr told him that be would have to see
Works Manager Schindler. Monkman told Karr that he was not going to join the
Union and he was not going to see Mr. Schindler about it either Karr continued
to insist that Monkman would have to see Schindler and, in Monkman's words,
"I insisted that I wasn't."
On November 28, 1961, Keenon came to where Monkman was working and told
him that Schindler wanted to talk with him. Monkman told Keenon that the Union
had asked him to join, and Keenon had done the same , and that, therefore, he was
not going to see Schindler and give him an explanation of his position. He told
Keenon that he was "not going in to discuss union or discuss union business " 6
Keenon insisted that Monkman come with him and issued an order to that effect
which Monkman refused, urging Keenon to tell Schindler what the employee had
4 The employees were all employed by Respondent at the time of the hearing.
5 Eight nonmember employees who joined the Union during negotiations were not inter-
viewed by Respondent. I rejected General Counsel's offer to prove five of them joined
the Union because they heard that the Union was demanding a union shop and threatening
to strike for it. Of the other three, one joined because a steward told him he was about
the last one not in the Union, another because she asked her foreman husband and he
told her she "might just as well . . join the union " The last employee joined because
she heard the Union "wanted everybody in the union "
6 Employee Gilbert Wood heard Monkman tell Keenon that he would not go to the
office to discuss "union business "
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2
said, and to advise him that Monkman would file a charge of unfair labor practices
against Respondent if he were forced to discuss the Union against his will . Keenon
left.
A short time later, James Weikle, assistant foreman, was sent to Monkman with a
message that Keenon said that Schindler wanted to talk to him. Monkman did not
comply with the request . In a short while , Weikle came back, handed Monkman a
suspension slip, and told him to punch out -immediately . Monkman asked Weikle
if he had told Schindler about Monkman 's intention to go to the National Labor
Relations Board and Weikle replied that he had.
On December 1, 1961, Monkman was notified by registered mail that he was
terminated for acts of insubordination.
The basic facts in Monkman's case are not in dispute although the extent of
management 's conversations with him about the Union , and its motive in calling
him to Schindler 's office, are . Keenon, assistant works manager , admitted that he
spoke with Monkman on November 24, 1961, but his account of the conversation is
radically different from Monkman 's. Keenon testified that he merely said "hello" to
Monkman as he approached him and Monkman asked him how the union negotia-
tions were progressing . He added that he said nothing else but could not recall
if Monkman did. I do not credit Keenon 's testimony based on his demeanor and a
comparison of his account with ,Monkman 's. Keenon was vague and embarrassed on
the stand , but Monkman was direct , detailed , and precise . In Monkman's testimony
he described relating in detail to Keenon a conversation about joining the Union he
had had with Schindler 3 years before . This alleged conversation , which Monkman
could hardly have made up, was never referred to by Keenon or Schindler in their
testimony . I find that , on November 24, Keenon interrogated Monkman regarding
his intentions withrespect to the Union and that the conversation took place as testi-
fied to by Monkman
The subject of Respondent 's motivation in summoning Monkman to the office
on November 28, and his reasons or justification for refusing , will be discussed, for
convenience and clarity, in a later section of this report.
B. Contentions of the parties; additional findings and concluding findings
1. As to the 18(a)(1) and ( 2) violations in interviewing and
interrogating employees
General Counsel 's position , in brief, is that Respondent interrogated its employees
in order to persuade and coerce them to become members of the Union, and that such
conduct interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act. By the same token, he argues, Respondent's
actions in securing members for the Union was aid and assistance to .the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act Respondent, in essence , defends under Sec-
tion 8(c) of the Act, contending that in its conversations with employees it merely
expressed its opinion and views of the status of negotiations , predicted what the
Union might do, or what Respondent might be forced to do, all without promises
of benefit or threats of reprisal.
Interrogation of employees about their union membership or views is not unlawful
per se. The test is whether, under all the circumstances , interrogation reasonably
tends to interfere with or restrain employees in the exercise of their rights under
the Act. N L.R.B v. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 209 F. 2d 596 (C.A. 2); Blue Flash
Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. I find, and conclude, that in the circumstances of this
case Respondent , in interviewing its employees as ,it did, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in their rights to refrain from becoming members of the
Union
In the first place, Respondent's purpose in talking with its employees is significant.
Respondent was not merely gathering factual information upon which it could base
a judgment for future action, such as recognition or nonrecognition of a union
dependent on its numerical strength , but was attempting to change the employees'
views toward the Union, and in that sense undertook a job of proselytism which
is traditionally and properly n union 's and not an employer's. Moreover , Respondent
was motivated in its actions , at least in part, by a desire to aid the Union in securing
members which it normally was unable to obtain . Works Manager Schindler
testified , it is true, that Respondent made no commitment to the Union to obtain
members for it, and I have no reason to believe that such a formal commitment
was made However, a realistic appraisal of the record indicates that the only
logical explanation of the sequence of events is that a tacit understanding occurred
during bargaining that Respondent would discuss with employees the desirability
of their joining the Union . As set forth above, Roberts admitted that during
REVEikE COPPER AND BRASS, INC. 1389
negotiations the Union stated that if they could "get a hundred percent membership
they wouldn't need a full union security provision in the new contract."
Thereafter, management caucused and decided to discuss the subject with employees,
and tell them, as Bush testified, "what the circumstances could be if there were a
possibility of a strike and which we did not want. And if they would consider
joining the union or reconsidering to avert a strike." When employees were inter-
viewed some of them were referred to union officers for applications, and union
representatives knew that the interviews had taken place, for in certain cases, the
interviews were mentioned when the employee was solicited by the Union. All
this, in my judgment, amounted to a silent understanding between the Company and
the Union as to how nonunion employees would be made amenable to union
membership.
Another consideration which I think important, regardless of the content of the
interviews, was the fact they were held in the office of top management-the locus
of authority-and, in some cases, were repetitive. The employees were summoned
to either Schindler's, Roberts', or Bush's offices from their jobs. Bush interviewed
Lange twice in 24 hours, and employee Foster was first interrogated by his foreman,
and then called to Roberts' office for the same purpose. Roberts also talked with
employee Baker after Keenan, assistant works manager, had interrogated the
employee without getting a positive commitment from hun. Monkman, who refused
to appear in Schindler's office and was discharged, was first questioned by Kennon
with negative results. The repeated pressure and scene of the interviews indicates
a company interest in the employees' views which was more than casual and had
overtones of coercion.
Statements made in the interview also contributed to the coercive atmosphere.
In the first place, the employees were told that the Union was going to strike and
that only a few employees remained out of the Union. One employee was told that
he was the last to join. This kind of persuasion could only have the effect of socially
isolating employees from their fellow employees and giving them the impression
that they would be at fault if the Union struck. In addition, two employees were
told that other employees considered them "free loaders" who, therefore, were
selfishly benefiting from the labors of others. By such technique Respondent, I
believe, unfairly saddled ordinary employees with the burden of-in Superintendent
Bush's words-"averting the strike" by relinquishing their rights under the Act.
Finally, aside from any commitment to the Union, tacit or otherwise, Respondent's
interrogation of employees put the employees in the position of being subject
to an unfair mental whipsawing action by the Union and Respondent. Whether
Respondent told the Union that it would talk, or was talking, to employees or not,
it is evident that the Union knew that such was going on and exploited it. For
example, after employee Foster was interviewed by Roberts and had refused to join
the Union, Rodgers, a union representative, asked him if he wanted to join the
Union or talk to Roberts again. When employee Richard Baker, who had previ-
ously been interrogated by Roberts, was at home ill, Rodgers, Grand Lodge Repre-
sentative Butcher, and the entire shop committee visited him and told him that Roberts
had told them that Baker had agreed to join the Union. Employee Bolin, who had
told her foreman that she would join the Union when he asked her if she would
in the presence of her fellow employees, was then approached by a union representa-
tive who stated that she understood that Bolin had been asked. The employee joined.
In a number of cases, as set forth in more detail earlier, employees were referred
to the Union for enrollment after their interviews.? Respondent must be held
to have known that its ,actions would leave the impression that it and the Union
had a common goal. This kind of pressure, whether designed or not, is an additional
element of impropriety in the interviews.
I conclude that under all the circumstances, Respondent, in its interviews and
interrogation of employees, exceeded the permissible boundaries of free speech and
by its actions interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
I also find that the facts set forth above establish that Respondent aided, assisted,
and contributed support to the Union. Respondent's object in talking to the employees
was to have them become members of the Union, for as Roberts said,,if the "situation"
was explained to the employees "they probably would become members." The Com-
pany achieved its object, for although 28 old employees were not members of the
Union when the negotiations began, despite the fact that the Union had been the
7 See Hearever Co , Inc, 122 NLRB 208, 216, where the circulation of a petition for an
independent union was held illegal despite assurances that those who did not wiah to sign
would not be discriminated against
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR IiEljQTIONS BOARD
bargaining representative for many years, all, with .-hs exception of Monkman
who had been discharged, were members when the new contract was executed. The
Union, with company assistance, had now obtained what the witnesses frequently
referred to as "a hundred percent membership" and under the maintenance-of-
membership provision of the contract no longer needed a full union-shop agreement.
It is true, of course, that Respondent and the Umon could have legally executed
an agreement which would have required all employees to join the Union, and this,
as is true of many legitimate employer-union relations, aids, assists, and gives
status to the Union. Congress provided, however, that employees are free to join
or not to join unions and may not be discriminated against or interfered with in their
choice, except under the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act By assisting the
Union in securing members in the manner described, Respondent illegally aided
the Union in acquiring a status it was not entitled to in the absence of proper
union-shop agreement. By such conduct Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act.
2. As to the 8(a)(3) and (1) violation in the discharge of Reuben Monkman
Works Manager Schindler testified that at a negotiating meeting on November 28,
1961, "a remark was made by the committee . . . that they had heard that Monk-
man had made the misstatement that the union and management were making
deals." He added that he asked the committee what "kind of deals" they were talking
about, but the committee did not know. He immediately sent Keenon out to get
Monkman, he said, because he wanted to find out what Monkman was talking about.
There is no evidence in the record that iMonkman had made any statements about
management's and the Union's relations, either true or false. When Keenon came
back without Monkman, a foreman was sent for him, and Monkman again refused
to come to the office. A consultation was held, according to Schindler, and it was
decided to fire the employee for insubordination. Respondent's position is that it
made no agreement with the Union to get rid of Monkman, that it had no hostility
toward him, but that such insubordination could not be tolerated as a matter of
industrial discipline.
I do not believe that Schindler sent for Monkman to inquire about unsupported
committee comments about his conduct. No specific committee member was identi-
fied as the source of the complaint, and Schindler's interruption of a bargaining
session on such a flimsy ground is suspicious. The more likely explanation is that
Monkman's name was mentioned by the Union in the session as another nonunion
employee, for the record shows that Monkman, as well as other employees, were
named in the sessions as being nonunion. Monkman was a former union steward
and it is highly unlikely that his dissidence would go unnoticed by either the Union
which was seeking membership of all employees, or Respondent, which was aiding
the Union in securing that membership. In any event, if it be assumed that a
complaint was made about Monkman and that the Company quickly jumped to make
an investigation, ,it did so, in my view, because it knew that Monkman was resisting
efforts by Respondent to persuade him to join the Union. Keenon, I have found,
talked with Monkman only a few days before about his intentions regarding the
Union and Monkman told him that he would not join the Union even if it meant a
strike. When Keenon, on November 28, told Monkman that Schindler wanted to
see him. the employee told Keenon that the Union, as well as Keenon, had already
asked him to join, and he was not going to see Schindler about the same matter
Keenon did not indicate to Monkman in any way that Monkman misunderstood the
nature of his mission,'or tell him that Schindler wanted to talk about something else
Indeed, Keenon was present at the negotiating session where the Union is supposed
to have asserted that Monkman was accusing the parties of making deals, and testi-
fied, in support of Schindler, that Schindler then sent for Monkman It is strange, in
view of his asserted knowledge of the reason for his errand, that he did not attempt
to disabuse Monkman of any erroneous ideas he had that Respondent was making
another effort to change his mind about the Union
Respondent makes the point that Monkman did not know what Schindler wanted
to see him about and it is a fact that Monkman stated on the stand that he did
not know. I carefully observed Monkman when he was being examined on the point
and I am convinced that he was being careful and precise in using the word
"know" in the sense of positive knowledge. As a matter of fact, he also testified that
he had "reason to believe" that Schindler wanted to talk with him about the Union.
I find, not only that Respondent did intend to discuss union membership with Monk-
man as it had the other employees, but also that Monkman had reasonable cause to
REVERE COPPER AND BRASS, INC . 1391
believe such based upon his prior conversations with the Company and the Union
on the same subject.
Respondent , in support of its position that Monkman 's refusal to come to Schindler's
office was insubordination for which he was properly discharged , relies on the decision
in N.L.R.B. v. Ross Gear & Tool Company , 158 F. 2d 607 (C.A. 7). I think the facts
there, however , were basically different . In that case , the employee , who, there was
some reason to believe, was responsible for certain plant dissension , was sent for
by management for the sole purpose of attempting to resolve the friction . The em-
ployee knew the reason for the request and refused to report even after being
warned that her refusal would result in discharge . The court, in finding .the discharge
to be for cause , pointed out that there was no basis for an inference that the em-
ployee's discharge was because she was a union officer , or to infringe on her rights,
or done for the purpose of restraint , intimidation , or coercion , or resulted in such.
Here Monkman was exercising a statutory right to refrain from union activity and to
have a representative of his own choosing , not the Respondent's. Respondent's con-
duct in interviewing the other employees violated the statute and Respondent would
have treated Monkman alike , or so he reasonably believed. His refusal upset the
Company's plans to persuade employees to join the Union to avoid a strike, and as
Superintendent Bush told employee Lange, "the union would strike over one mem-
ber." Monkman's resistance was a threat to unanimity which Respondent could not
ignore. I find that Monkman was fired because he exercised his rights to refrain from
joining the Union, as well as his right not to be persuaded to that end by the Com-
pany. To label his offense a discharge for insubordination would, in my opinion,
elevate management 's right to direct its employees over the statutory rights of the
employee without sufficient foundation in industrial necessities . I conclude that in
discharging Monkman Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
I also find that by discharging Monkman for the reasons set forth Respondent af-
forded the Union additional assistance and thereby violated Section 8 ( a)(2) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, which have been found
to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Reuben Monkman was discriminatorily discharged in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I will recommend, that„Respondent
be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because
of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the
amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said
period, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to
the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of
backpay.
I have found that Respondent unlawfully assisted the Union in obtaining members
by its interviews with employees and the discharge of Monkman, and I will recom-
mend a remedy which will not only require Respondent to cease and desist from
the conduct engaged in but which will dissipate the effects of the assistance, and
restore, as nearly as possible, employees to the positions they occupied prior to the
unfair labor practices. The remedy here must be tailored to the situation and is
not easily fashioned. In the first place, the Union and Respondent claim that no
effective remedy is legally or practically possible, even assuming that unfair labor
practices were committed, for the Union is not charged with an unfair labor prac-
tice, and its contractual relations with Respondent may not be effectively impaired
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by an order issued against Respondent alone . At the hearing I denied the Union's
motion to strike it as a party for its position is foreclosed by the decision of the
Supreme Court in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S.
197, 231, where it was held that an independent union whose contractual rights are
involved in a proceeding against an employer must , as a matter of due process, be
made a party.
On the other hand, General Counsel states that the Union has committed no
unfair labor practices; that the assistance given the Union was "not the sort which
undermines the ability of a union properly to represent the interests of employees
in arms-length dealing with an employer," and that, therefore, there is no necessity
for the usual 8(a)(2) remedy which would require the Respondent to withdraw
recognition from the Union and cease giving effect to the new contract. General
Counsel also takes the position that he "concedes, without hesitation, the Union's
legal right to conduct an active , strenuous campaign to sign up all the employees . . .
in the manner they used, including asking for Respondent's help." I will not, there-
fore, recommend withdrawal of recognition on this record.
The rights of employees have been interfered with, however, and the status quo
should be restored , giving at the same time due consideration to the practical con-
siderations involved. General Counsel suggests that the rights of 27 nonunion
employees were affected as a class, for they have now acquired a status which they
did not have under the old agreement, namely, a requirement that they be union
members. He requests that all 27 be given an opportunity to resign from the
Union, without being subject to the penalties of the new agreement, and resume
the status they had prior to the unfair labor practices. Although I have found that
only 18 of the 28 nonunion employees existing at the time of the commencement
of negotiations and the unfair labor practices were interrogated, all of the 27 joined
in an atmosphere of coercion engendered by improper interrogation and the discharge
of Monkman. To afford a remedy for only 18 would, I think, be unrealistic and
unfair. I will recommend that all 27 be given an opportunity to resign from the
Union, if they wish, on appropriate notice to Respondent without regard to the
terms of the labor agreement. I will not go so far, however, as to recommend
that Respondent reimburse the employees for- dues and initiation fees, for I think
their choice should be unencumbered by financial considerations. In addition, the
amount of money involved is small , and it has been paid to the Union by Respond-
ent, and since there is no charge against the Union , it may not be required to
disgorge it.
Despite the fact that an employee was illegally discharged, I will, in view of the
fact that the discharge and other unfair labor practices were an integral part of a
unique fact situation, recommend only that Respondent cease and desist from in-
fringing in-any like or related manner upon the rights of employees guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By interrogating its employees as found herein, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Reuben
Monkman , Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By interrogating its employees, as found herein, and by discriminating against
Reuben Monkman, Respondent rendered unlawful assistance and support to a labor
organization , and engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]