Sawyer Industrial Sheet Metal Fabricators

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 997 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS 997
are employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the
date of the issuance of the notice of election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
C. E. SAWYER, D/B/A SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS
and SHOPMENS' LOCAL UNION #539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL AssocIA-
TION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS,
A. F. OF L. Case No.10-CA-1402. March 25,1953
Decision and Order
Upon original and amended charges duly filed by Shopmens' Local
Union #539 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., herein called the Union,
the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, herein
referred to as the General Counsel and the Board, respectively, by
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), duly
issued a complaint alleging that C. E. Sawyer, d/b/a Sawyer Indus-
trial Sheet Metal Fabricators, herein called the Respondent, had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5), and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (61 Stat. 136), herein referred to as the Act. Copies of
the complaint, charges, amended charges, and notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the Respondent :
(1) On or about September 13, 1951, and on various dates thereafter,
has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of his employees in an appropriate unit; (2) on or
about October 29, 1951, initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted a
committee among his employees and thereafter assisted, dominated,
and contributed to the support of, and interfered with the adminis-
tration of, the Committee; and (3) on or about October 29 and Octo-
ber 31, 1951, interrogated his employees about their union member-
ship, sympathies, desires, and activities, and promised employees eco-
nomic benefits to induce them to refrain from remaining members of
or assisting the Union.
The Respondent, in its answer duly filed, denied the commission
of any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. He
asserted, in substance, that approximately 2 weeks prior to Novem-
ber 19, 1951, after presenting a proposed new contract to him, the
Union threatened him and told him it was preferring charges against
103 NLRB No. 88.
257965-54-vol. 103-64
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him for talking with employees; and that he stated that he desired
to have his attorney study the proposed contract and to have any
charges disposed of pending the execution of any contract. The
Respondent further averred that on November 15, 1951, the Union
asked him if he intended to sign the new contract and again threatened
him. The Respondent also asserted that approximately 2 weeks prior
to November 19, 1951, in response to a request from his employees,
he attended a meeting of his employees where he was advised that
22 of the 26 employees present did not wish to participate further
in the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Birmingham, Alabama,
on duly 29 and 31, 1952, before Stephen S. Bean, the duly designated
Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent appeared
by counsel, and the Union by its representative. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the
close of the hearing counsel orally argued the case on the record.
They waived the filing of briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Various rulings were made by the Trial Examiner during the
course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 14, 1952, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on the parties, in which he
found that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the
Act, and recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board,' having con-
sidered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in the case, agrees with the Trial Exam-
iner's ultimate conclusions although not with all his subsidiary find-
ings, and, insofar as the Respondent's exceptions are inconsistent with
the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set forth below,
finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an
individual, doing business under the name and style of C. E. Sawyer,
I 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 Houston, Styles,
and Peterson].
SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS 999
d/b/a Sawyer Industrial Sheet Metal Fabricators, with a principal
office and place of business at Birmingham, Alabama, where he is
engaged in fabricating sheet metal and manufacturing cyclone dust
collectors, milk containers and sterilizers, air ducts, and other sheet-
metal products. During the year 1950, the Respondent produced
finished products of a value of $217,096.25, of which products valued
at $26,061.75 were sold and shipped to points outside the State of
Alabama. During the year 1951, the Respondent produced finished
products of a value of $301,730.16, of which products valued at
$62,080.99 were sold and shipped to points outside the State of Ala-
bama. During the first 6 months of 1952, the Respondent produced
finished products of a value of $146,944.16, of which products valued
at $3,990.33 were sold and shipped to points outside the State of
Alabama.
During the year 1950, the Respondent made sales, totaling $101,-
950.61 in value, within the State of Alabama to Alabama Power Com-
pany, American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Avondale Mills, Goodyear
Rubber Tire Co., B. F. Goodrich Co., Monsanto Chemical Co., Sloss-
Sheffield Co., Stockham Valve and Fitting Company, and Tennessee
Coal, Iron and Railroad Company.
During the year 1951, the Respondent made sales, totaling $132,-
446.99 in value, within the State of Alabama to the above companies
and Allis Chalmers Company, Englander Co., and Anniston Ordnance
Depot.
Under these circumstances, we find that the Respondent is, and has
been at all material times, engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act 2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Shopmens' Local Union #539 of the International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and accepts em-
ployees of the Respondent into membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
At the time of the occurrences discussed below, the Respondent
employed about 26 production and maintenance employees. On Sep-
tember 8, 1950, the Union, having won a consent election, was certified
as the collective-bargaining agent for these employees. On November
20, 1950, the parties entered into a 1-year collective-bargaining agree-
2 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Inmited, 91 NLRB 618. At the hearing
the Respondent denied that it was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, but
did not except to the Trial Examiner's finding to the contrary.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, which was amended in July 1951 to include a union-shop clause,
the Union having been authorized to bargain for such a clause by a
union-authorization election held on October 23, 1950.
B. Interference with the formation of the Committee; interference,
restraint, and coercion
The contract between the Respondent and the Union provided inter
alia that the Respondent was to pay double time for work done on
Sundays and specified holidays, which was a change from the Re-
spondent's previous practice of paying time and a half for such work.
In the year following the execution of this contract, Sunday and
holiday work, which had been plentiful, was almost completely elimi-
nated. When employee Purser complained to Sawyer, the owner of
the business, about this lack of overtime work, sometime during August
or September 1951, Sawyer replied that his customers were unwilling
to pay the double time specified by the union contracts Plant Super-
intendent Key told Purser, about a month before October 29, that the
union contract precluded the Respondent from raising Purser's wages.
Around October 8, 1951, Sawyer told employee Eads that under the
union contract he would have to let an employee walk out the door
rather than raise his salary above the Union's scale.4
Sometime in June 1951, Sawyer asked employee Lovell to talk to
some of the employees and see what he could do about getting them
out of the Unions On several occasions after August 20, 1951, Saw-
yer told employee Ray that the employees would make more money
without the Union than with the Union, and he also voiced similar
sentiments to employee McDaniel.'
Around October 8, 1951, McDonald, the then union shop steward,
circulated in the plant a blank sheet of paper on which, he testified,
he solicited the signatures of those employees who wished to get rid
of the Union. He procured 20 signatures. He did not inform the
8 Unless otherwise indicated , we have accepted the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings
where credibility was in issue.
4 While these statements in themselves do not constitute violations of the Act, they are
set forth to show the Respondent 's attitude toward the Union and its contract.
5 The Trial Examiner stated at the hearing and again in his Intermediate Report that
he would not base an unfair labor practice finding on this incident because it was not
shown that it had occurred within 6 months prior to the filing of the initial charge as
required by Section 10 (b) of the Act. At the hearing , counsel for the General Counsel
stated that it was not his position that an unfair labor practice finding should be based on
this incident , and he did not except to the Trial Examiner's failure to find an unfair labor
practice based thereon Under these circumstances , we have considered this incident as
background only, although it actually did occur within 6 months of the filing of the
original charge
u This finding is based on the credited testimony of McDaniel . The Trial Examiner made
no credibility finding with respect to McDaniel , but he generally discredited Sawyer, who
denied making these remarks.
SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS 1001
Union of this disaffection, nor does the record show that any employee
who signed took any steps to terminate their membership in the Union.
On October 29, 1951, McDonald posted a notice in the employees'
washroom calling a meeting of employees that day after work at the
plant. When employee Lovell asked Superintendent Key what the
notice meant, he was told that it represented the will of about 20
employees and that he had better get on the right side if he intended
to stay on the job.
Pursuant to the notice, the employees gathered around their benches.
Key was in attendance from the opening of the meeting. After some
unorganized discussion, McDonald asked Key to bring Sawyer to the
meeting. Key did so. There is a good deal of confusion in the testi-
mony as to the sequence of events after Sawyer arrived at the meeting.
Thus, for example, although it is clear that Sawyer addressed the
meeting, it is not clear whether he did so at McDonald's request or
on his own initiative, nor whether his remarks were in the form of
a speech or in answer to questions put to him by employees. Adopting
the Trial Examiner's credibility findings, it is clear that in the course
of this meeting Sawyer informed his employees that as long as the
Union's contract was in effect he intended to abide by it, that it was
up to them to decide whether they wished to stay in the Union or to
get out, but that he wished that they would decide one way or the other
100 percent. He pointed out to the employees that the Union had been
voted in by the smallest possible majority of 11 to 10,7 and stated that
he saw no reason why the employees should pay money to an outside
group when they could have their own organization. Statements
which had been made to employees individually by Sawyer and Key
were repeated, as Sawyer blamed the Union for the lack of overtime
work and the lack of promotional opportunities, and promised that,
without the Union, there would again be frequent overtime work and
he would again be able to promote employees as fast as their progress
warranted.
After these statements, there was a call for a show of hands 8 of
those who wanted to get rid of the Union. Twenty employees voted in
favor of the motion to get rid of the Union and 4 against it. For some
reason not entirely clear on the record,' a second vote was taken, and
this time 21 employees voted to get rid of the Union and 3 to retain it.
4 Apparently Sawyer was referring to the original election of the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative for it won the union -shop election by a vote of 6 to 20.
8 The testimony is conflicting as to whether Sawyer or one of the employees called for
the vote. As we find below that the presence of Sawyer and Key throughout this meeting
and Sawyer 's remarks at the meeting violated the Act , we find it unnecessary to resolve
this conflict
9 The testimony is conflicting as to whether the second vote was taken because some
employees objected to the legality of the first vote, because some employees were not clear
as to what they were voting on , or because there was doubt that everyone had voted.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Some of the employees then asked Sawyer whether he would deal
with them directly,1° and Sawyer replied that he would talk with a
group or committee of employees about things that arose in the shop,
and further, that if they submitted a contract to him, he would sign
it if he saw fit. The employees then decided that such a committee
also could deal with the Respondent on grievances 11 McDonald, in
the presence of Sawyer and Key, was then elected chairman of the
Committee,l= and he thereupon appointed several other employees to
serve with him.13
Conclusions
The Committee established on October 29 for the purpose of nego-
tiating with the Respondent and handling grievances, was a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. The
Respondent denies that any of his conduct in relation to the Commit-
tee, or any of his other conduct set forth above, was violative of the
Act. We do not agree.
Prior to the October 29 meeting, the Respondent promised his em-
ployees higher wages if they would leave the Union and threatened one
employee with discharge if he did not. Prior to the meeting as well as
at the meeting, Sawyer promised his employees higher wages, more
overtime, and better promotional opportunities if they would get rid
of the Union. At the conclusion of Sawyer's remarks, he and Key
remained at the meeting while the employees voted upon whether or
not they should continue to bargain through the Union. After this
vote, which favored getting rid of the Union, Sawyer indicated his
willingness to bargain with a committee of his employees, and again
he and Key remained while the employees decided on the function of
the Committee and selected its personnel.
10 The finding that this discussion and the election of the Committee occurred after the
votes is based upon a composite of the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Purser
and Lovell.
11 This finding is based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony of McDaniel.
v The Trial Examiner made a finding that Sawyer had appointed McDonald to head
the Committee , which he based upon the credited testimony of employees Lovell, Eads,
and Trammel . The last two, however , did not testify as to this incident . Lovell testified
that Sawyer had appointed McDonald , and his testimony was supported by that of Purser.
However, all the other witnesses who testified on this matter , including two witnesses for
the General Counsel, testified that McDonald had been elected by the employees , either at
the meeting or at another time . Under these circumstances , we find that the General
Counsel has not met the burden of establishing that McDonald was appointed chairman
of the Committee by the Respondent.
13 Sawyer denied that he was aware of the purpose of the meeting before he arrived at
the meeting . The Respondent 's plant is small, employing only about 26 employees, and
Sawyer and Key are first and second in command , respectively . Key had stated to Lovell
on the morning of the day the meeting was held that the meeting represented the will of
about 20 men and that be, Lovell , had better get on the right side . Key was at the meeting
when it began , and left it to call Sawyer to the meeting. Under all these circumstances,
we do not credit Sawyer 's denial that he knew the purpose of the meeting.
SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS 1003
Under all these circumstances, we find that by the conduct of Sawyer
and Key in offering benefits to the employees to get the Union out of
the plant, and by their presence and participation in the October 29
meeting, the Respondent has engaged in interference, restraint, and
coercion, and has thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 14
As the Committee was a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act, we find that the Respondent, by suggesting to the employees
that it would be to their advantage to deal with the Respondent
through the Committee rather than through the Union, and by attend-
ing and participating in a meeting of employees where they were dis-
cussing the function and selecting the personnel of such a committee,
interfered with the administration of and assisted a labor organization
in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act.15
C. The refusal to bargain
The contract which the Respondent had entered into with the Union
provided for its expiration on November 20, 1951. Pursuant to the
terms of that contract, the Union notified the Respondent on September
13, 1951, that it wished to negotiate a new agreement, and requested
a conference with the Respondent for that purpose as soon as possible.
On September 17, 1951, the Respondent wrote a letter to Union Busi-
ness Agent Robinson requesting a copy of the contract to study.
Robinson telephoned the Respondent a few days later and informed
Sawyer that it was not the Union's policy to mail a proposed contract,
but, instead, it was customary to present it in person when it could be
discussed, and requested a meeting where the new contract could be
discussed. Sawyer told Robinson that he would let him know. When
Robinson had not heard from the Respondent by October 30, he called
the Respondent again, and this time arranged for a meeting to take
place on November 5, 1951.
On October 30, 1951, the day after the meeting in the plant at which
the employees had voted to get rid of the Union, Superintendent Key
informed employee Trammel, who had been absent on the day of the
meeting, that a large majority of the employees had voted for a
company union and that he wanted to talk to him before "some of the
hotheads rubbed him the wrong way." The same day, Sawyer had
a conversation with employees McDonald and McDaniel during which
he agreed with the proposition advanced by McDonald, chairman of the
" American Bottling Co., 99 NLRB 345.
'b As the complaint alleges interference only with the administration of a labor organiza-
tion , we have not made a finding that the Respondent interfered with the formation of a
labor organization , although the record would support such a finding.
There is nothing in the record about the Respondent 's relationship with the Committee
after October 29 other than Key's remark to Trammel the next day that a majority of the
employees had voted for a "company union."
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees' Committee, that it would be best not to renew the union
contract but just to let it expire.16 On November 5, as arranged, the
Respondent held a meeting with the union representatives at which the
Union's proposed new contract was submitted and was discussed, sec-
tion by section, for about 2 hours. Neither at that meeting nor at
any other time did the Respondent inform the Union that he no longer
considered it the majority representative of his employees or that he
intended to let the contract run out rather than enter into a new one.
Nor does the record show that Sawyer indicated to the Union his and
the employees' dissatisfaction with the overtime and promotion clauses,
which had appeared in the old contract and were repeated in the new
one. On the contrary, at the end of this discussion, Sawyer informed
the union representative that he thought the contract was "o. k." but
that before he signed it he wished to submit it to his attorney for
approval. Toward the end of the meeting, Union Representative
Odneal informed Sawyer that he intended to file unfair labor practice
charges based on the October 29 meeting. Sawyer stated that he
desired to have these charges dropped before he signed a contract, and
that he wished to see the charges and have his attorney examine them
before undertaking further negotiations. The meeting closed with
Sawyer promising that he would get in touch with Robinson after his
attorney had examined the contract.
The testimony is in conflict as to what transpired between November
5 and 19. Robinson testified that he attempted to call Sawyer 5 or 6
times at the plant, that he was unable to reach him, that he left his
name and telephone number each time with a request that Sawyer call
him back, but that Sawyer never did so. This testimony was denied
by Sawyer and his secretary'17 both of whom testified that Robinson
called only once, and that on that occasion he reached Sawyer. Sawyer
testified that in this call Robinson asked him whether he was willing
to sign the contract, that he informed Robinson that the matter was
still being considered by his attorney, that he did not know whether
he could sign, considering all the "turmoil," and that Robinson there-
upon threatened him with a strike. Catherine Glazuer, Robinson's
secretary, testified that she had attempted to telephone Sawyer for
Robinson 5 or 6 times unsuccessfully, that one of these calls apparently
finally reached Sawyer, and that she overheard Robinson's end of the
conversation. Her version of what was said corroborates to some
extent Sawyer's testimony in this regard. Under these circumstances,
we discredit Robinson's statement that he never reached Sawyer after
November 9, and find that Robinson did succeed in getting in touch
1e This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of employee McDaniel.
,17 Robinson testified that all his calls to Sawyer were taken by a girl named Alayne. It
was shown that Sawyer's secretary is named Alayne and that she is the only one by the
name employed in his office.
SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS 1005
with Sawyer on about November 15, that Sawyer informed Robinson
that his attorney was still considering the contract, that he did not
know whether, considering the "turmoil," he could sign a contract,
and that thereupon Robinson threatened to call a strike. On Novem-
ber 20, no contract having been signed, the four employees loyal to
the Union 18 went on strike and have been on strike ever since. There
have been no further negotiations between the Respondent and the
Union.
Conclusions
The appropriate unit established by the September 8, 1950, certifi-
cate consists of all production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's Birmingham, Alabama, plant, including mechanics,
handymen, helpers, laborers, truckdrivers, and shop janitors or cleanup
men, but excluding office and clerical employees, office janitors or
maids, technical and professional employees, watchmen and/or guards,
and supervisors as defined by the Act.
The Respondent has not questioned the Union's status as the repre-
sentative of a majority in the appropriate unit at any time during
negotiations with the Union, before the Trial Examiner, or before the
Board. It is well settled that a union's representative status estab-
lished by a Board certification is conclusively presumed for a reason-
able period of time, customarily 1 year after certification, and
indefinitely thereafter until such status is shown to have ceased 19 Nei-
ther the signing of the paper circulated by McDonald nor the vote at
the October 29 meeting is sufficient to rebut that presumption. The
paper circulated by McDonald bore no heading and the record does not
show that any employees who signed it notified the Union that they
wished to terminate their membership. Employee Brasher, who had
signed the paper, voted on October 29 to stay with the Union and, on
November 20, joined the three other strikers. Under these circum-
stances, we find that the paper circulated by McDonald is not sufficient
evidence that the employees signing had terminated their membership
in the Union.
The vote at the October 29 meeting to leave the Union was taken
after the Respondent had made coercive statements promising the em-
ployees various benefits if they would get rid of the Union, and was
As These four employees , Ray, Brasher , Eads, and Lovell , had voted in favor of retaining
the Union at the October 29 meeting. On November 19 they were told that they were
laid off, on the ground that the weld shop, where they usually worked, was occupied by a
truck of the Respondent which had been dynamited the night before and placed in the
weld shop by the police with a request that no one be permitted in the weld shop . Charges
alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by these layoffs
were filed with the Board , but no complaint was issued thereon , and we have not considered
them in making our findings and conclusions herein.
39 United States Gypsum Company , 90 NLRB 964.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken in the presence of the plant owner and superintendent. A vote
taken under such circumstances does not represent the uncoerced views
of the employees and therefore cannot rebut the presumption that the
duly certified Union continued to be the representative of the Respond-
ent's employees. As the Respondent's contract with the Union con-
tained a valid union-security clause pursuant to which all employees
in the unit, as a condition of employment, had to become and remain
members of the Union, and as the record does not show that any of
these employees had terminated their membership in the Union, we
find that the Union was the bargaining representative of a majority
of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit at all times mate-
rial herein, and that the Respondent was obligated to bargain in good
faith with the Union concerning wages, hours, and working conditions
of his employees.
The Respondent claims that he met this statutory obligation as he
was always willing to bargain with the Union upon request. However,
it is not enough to be willing to bargain unless bargaining is under-
taken in good faith. We find such good faith lacking in the Respond-
ent's course of conduct here. Thus, prior to the opening of negotiations,
Sawyer told employees they would get more money without the Union
than with it. After the Union had given notice on September 13 of its
desire to negotiate a new contract, Sawyer failed to keep his promise
to Robinson that he would call him to set a date for a bargaining con-
ference. Instead, he addressed the employees on October 29, promised
various benefits if they would get rid of the Union, agreed to bargain
with a committee of employee representatives, participated in the em-
ployees' discussion about forming a committee, and remained present
during the election of the Committee. On October 30 Sawyer told
employees McDonald and McDaniel that he intended not to negotiate
a new contract but merely to let the old one expire. He concealed this
intention from the Union, however, during the November 5 bargaining
session. Nor did he at that session utter any criticism of the fact that
the proposed new contract contained the same provisions as to overtime
and promotional opportunities as the old one, although he had ex-
pressed dissatisfaction with these provisions directly to his employees.
After the November 5 conference, he again failed to get in touch with
the Union as he had promised. When, finally, the Union succeeded in
getting in touch with Sawyer, about 5 days before the old contract was
to expire, Sawyer merely informed the Union that he did not know
whether or not he would be able to sign the new contract.
We find that the conduct set forth above clearly demonstrates that
by November 5, the day of the first formal negotiations with the Union,
the Respondent had determined not to sign a new agreement with the
Union, but to draw out the negotiations until the old one expired and
SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS 1007
the Committee was ready to replace the Union. Under all the circum-
stances of this case, it is immaterial that the Respondent was willing
to talk with the Union at any time, for in view of his determination
not to sign a contract, such talk would have been futile.- Accordingly,
we find that the Respondent, since November 5, 1951, has refused to
bargain in good faith with the Union, and has thereby violated Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act 21
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relq.-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices violative of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act, we
shall order that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent on November 5, 1951, and at all
times thereafter, has refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the representative of a majority of the employees in an appropriate
unit, we shall order the Respondent, upon request, to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive statutory representative of
all the employees in the unit found appropriate, and, if an under-
standing is reached, to embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
Having found that the Respondent interfered with the administra-
tion of and assisted the Committee, we shall order the Respondent to
refrain from recognizing it or dealing with it.
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying
purpose and tendency, we find that the unfair labor practices found
are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed,
and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The pre-
ventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is
coextensive with this threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the
20N. L. R . B. v. Tower Hosiery Mills, 180 F. 2d 701 , cert . den. 340 IT . S. 811.
=The Trial Examiner based his conclusion that the Respondent had violated Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act on a finding that Sawyer refused to bargain with the Union until
the charges were withdrawn . We do not so construe Sawyer's statement to the Union.
Furthermore , we find that the Respondent 's intent was not to bargain with the Union in
good faith regardless of the filing or withdrawal of charges.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of
unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the
Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, we make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of C. E. Sawyer, d/b/a Sawyer Industrial Sheet
Metal Fabricators, occur in commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) of the Act.
2. Shopmens' Local Union #539 of the International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's
Birmingham, Alabama, plant, including mechanics, handymen, help-
ers, laborers, truckdrivers, and shop janitors or cleanup men, but
excluding office and/or clerical employees, office janitors or maids,
technical and professional employees, watchmen and/or guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Shopmens' Local Union #539 of the International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., at all
material times has been the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By promising his employees benefits to induce them to repudiate
the Union, and otherwise interfering with, restraining, and coercing
his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. By interfering with the administration of the Committee, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
7. By refusing on or about November 5, 1951, and thereafter, to
bargain collectively with Shopmens' Local Union #539 of the Inter-
national Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
SAWYER INDUSTRIAL SHEET METAL FABRICATORS 1009
Order
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the record as a whole, pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that C. E.
Sawyer, d/b/a Sawyer Sheet Metal Fabricators, Birmingham, Ala-
bama, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Promising his employees benefits to induce them to repudiate
Shopmens' Local Union #539 of the International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L.
(b) Interfering with the administration of and assisting the Com-
mittee or interfering with or assisting any other labor organization
of his employees.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Shopmens' Local Union
#539 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative
of his employees in the above-described appropriate unit.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Shopmens' Local Union
#539 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will effectuate
the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Committee
as the representative of any of his employees for the purposes of deal-
ing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Shopmens' Local
Union #539 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached.
(c) Post at his place of business in Birmingham, Alabama, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 22 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region,
2' 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."
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall, after being first duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by the Respondent for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
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, I hereby notify my employees that :
I WILL NOT promise employees benefits to induce them to refrain
from remaining members of or assisting SHOPMENS' LOCAL UNION
#539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL
AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A. F. of L.
I WILL NOT be present at the conduct of polls of my employees
with respect to their preferences as to labor organizations or
representation.
I WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist or remain members
Of SHOPMENS' LOCAL UNION #539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS,
A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
I WILL NOT interfere with the administration of and assist the
Committee formed on October 29, 1951, or interfere with or assist
the formation or administration of any other labor organization
of my employees for the purposes of dealing with it concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or conditions of work.
I wmL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with SHOPMENS' LocAL
UNION #539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
INDUSTRIAL STATIONERY & PRINTING COMPANY 1011
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A. F. of L., as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit
described below.
I WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Com-
mittee organized on October 29, 1951, as the representative of
my employees for the purpose of dealing with me concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or conditions of work.
I WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with SHOPMENS' LOCAL
UNION #539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A. F. of L., as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, including me-
chanics , handymen, helpers, laborers, truckdrivers, and shop
janitors or cleanup men, but excluding office and/or clerical
employees, office janitors or maids, technical and professional
employees, watchmen and/or guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
All my employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of SHOPMENS' LOCAL UNION #539
OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A. F. OF L., or any other labor organi-
zation , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement made in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
C. E. SAWYER D/B/A SAWYER INDUSTRIAL
SHEET METAL FABRICATORS
Dated--------------- By -------------------------------------
(Owner and Proprietor)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INDUSTRIAL STATIONERY & PRINTING COMPANY and Los ANGELES
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS ' UNION No . 78, A. F. L. Case
No. 21-CA-1346. March 25,1953
Decision and Order
On January 16, 1953, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
103 NLRB No. 102.