The Bassick Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1552 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Bassick Company, Spring Valley Division , a Division of
Stewart-Warner Corporation and International Union of Elec-
trical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Charging
Party and Local 1031 , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Case No. 13-CA-
3193. June 28, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 25, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
-the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
-and the Intervenor filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning].
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
.of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that The Bassick Company, Spring
Valley Division, a Division of Stewart-Warner Corporation, Spring
Valley, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Assisting, contributing support to, and interfering with the
-administration of, Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its
employees.
IIn view of our adoption of the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent rendered
unlawful assistance and support to Local 1031 by fostering its employees ' membership in
-that Union prior to the execution of the contract with it on March 6, 1959, we deem it
unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner's additional finding that Respondent
rendered further assistance and suppoit to Local 1031 by entering into an agreement
with it in the face of the IAM's representation claim registered on the same date
127 NLRB No. 178.
THE BASSICK CO., SPRING VALLEY DIVISION, ETC. 1553
(b) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, dated March 6, 1959, or any extension, renewal, or modi-
fication thereof, or any other collective-bargaining agreement with
said labor organization which may now be in force unless and until
the said labor organization shall have been duly certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of
the Respondent's employees; but nothing herein shall be construed to
vary or abandon the wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive pro-
visions of any such agreement.
(c) Recognizing Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining unless and until said
labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(d) In any other manner 2 interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist the above-named labor organization or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and 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 or-
ganization as a condition of employment as authorized in 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 the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 1031, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of its employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining unless and until said labor organization has been duly
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive rep-
resentative of such employees.
(b) Post at its plant in Spring Valley, Illinois, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
2In view of the fact that the Respondent assisted and supported Local 1031 by foster-
ing its employees ' membership in that Union, and that Respondent interfered with the
administration of Local 1031 by negotiating with that Union ' s negotiating committee
which contained two supervisors , we find that a broad order is necessary under the circum-
stances to effectuate the policies of the Act.
sin 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."
560940-61-vol 127-99
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent 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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT assist, contribute support to, or interfere with the
administration of Local 1031, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the agreement, dated March 6, 1959,
with the above-named labor organization or to any extension, re-
newal, or modification thereof, or to any other collective-bargain-
ing agreement which we may now have in force with said labor
organization; however, we will not vary or abandon the wages,
hours, seniority, or other substantive provisions of any such
agreement.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative
of our employees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless
and until said labor organization has been duly certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative
of such employees.
WE WILL not in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named
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 BASSICK CO., SPRING VALLEY DIVISION, ETC. 1555
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
THE BASSICK COMPANY, SPRING VALLEY
DIVISION, A DIVISION OF STEWART-
WARNER CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the IUE or the Charging Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois ), issued his complaint, dated June 30,
1959, against The Bassick Company, Spring Valley Division, a Division of Stewart-
Warner Corporation, LaSalle, Illinois, herein called the Respondent. With respect
to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that by certain
specified conduct Respondent rendered assistance and support to, and interfered
with the administration of, Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO,' herein called Local 1031 or Intervenor, and thereby engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (^a) (1)
and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent admits the juris-
dictional allegations and the status of the Unions as labor organizations but denies
that it engaged in any conduct violative of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 5 and 6, 1960, at LaSalle,
Illinois. All parties, including the Intervenor and the Charging Union, were rep-
resented at the hearing and were offered full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argu-
ment at the close of the hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. After the close of the hearing, I received
briefs which I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record 2 in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all times material herein Respondent has been a Connecticut corporation,
maintaining plants and facilities in the States of Connecticut and North Carolina,
and a factory and place of business in Spring Valley, Illinois, which is the one
involved in this proceeding and at which the Respondent has engaged in the manu-
facture of casters for furniture. During the calendar year 1958, Respondent pur-
chased raw materials, valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to the Spring
Valley, Illinois, plant directly from points outside the State of Illinois; during the
same period Respondent shipped from its Spring Valley, Illinois, plant products,
valued in excess of $50,000, to customers located outside the State of Illinois.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent concedes, that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
'As amended at the hearing, without objection
'After the close of the hearing, Respondent filed a motion to correct the typewritten
transcript of testimony in certain specified respects No objections to said motion have
been received. Under the circumstances, I hereby grant said motion, which I am placing
in the official exhibit folder as Respondent's Exhibit No. 12
1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find, that International Union
of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called IUE or the
Charging Union; Local 1031 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 1031 or the Intervenor ; and International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO, herein called JAM, are each labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The sole issue litigated in this proceeding is whether Respondent rendered as-
sistance and support to, and interfered with the administration of, Local 1031, the
Intervenor herein, all in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
A. Commencement of operations and staffing of plant
The Bassick Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Stewart-Warner Cor-
poration, with plants at Spring Valley, Illinois, and at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
The building occupied by Bassick at Spring Valley was purchased from the Controls
Corporation of America on February 1, 1958, at which time only a watchman was
employed by Bassick. In the spring of 1958, Respondent started moving machinery
into the plant and actual production and manufacturing operations began around
August 1958. Respondent manufactured small casters for furniture, work formerly
performed at its Bridgeport plant.
In staffing the Spring Valley plant, former employees of the Controls Cor-
poration were also considered and many of them were in fact hired. Respondent
contemplated employing an ultimate complement of 140 to 150 production and
maintenance employees by August or September 1959. However, by January 1,
1959, it had employed about 45 production and maintenance employees, and by
March 5, 1959, this figure had increased to about 66 or 67. A considerable number
of this group had formerly worked for Controls Corporation of America.
B. Supervisory hierarchy
Respondent admits that Harold MacMahon, plant manager, Harry Stacey, the
general foreman, and Johanna Boland, the personnel director, are management rep-
resentatives. The parties are in dispute as to the status of group leaders; the
General Counsel contends that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
while the Respondent and the Intervenor contend that they are rank-and-file em-
ployees. The parties are also in dispute as to whether or not Al Pawlak was a
supervisor as of the time material herein.
1. The group leaders
The Respondent admitted that as of March 5, 1959, the following were employed
as group leaders: Sam Pierro, Jim McNabb, Charles Peterson, and Don Gilbert.
The factual findings made herein relate to the period as of March 5, 1959.
Sam Pierro• s Pierro was the group leader over departments 76 and 75 on the
day shift from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. About 12 women were employed in department
76, which was the assembly department; and about 3 women were employed in
department 75, which was the parts department. These women received $1.20 per
hour. In addition, Pierro was also the group leader of the setup men and staple
box man. Pierro received $2.01 per hour and his immediate superior was General
Foreman Stacey. His duties were to instruct the female employees on how to
operate their machines and which machines to operate, to schedule production,
and to enforce the Company's safety rules. He also instructed the setup men as
to which machines to set up.
Pierro had a desk located in department 75, at which he spent about 2 hours a
day performing paperwork. He would do manual work when the necessity arose,
such as working on a machine for an hour a day. The rest of the time he would
"watch the people how they are working to be sure they are doing the job properly;
to see what jobs you have next to go on the line of work." If someone did not do
the work properly, he would correct them and show them the proper way. If an
employee ran out of work on a machine, he would assign her to a new job. He has
spoken to employees when they were away from their machine "too long" or
I The factual findings concerning the duties and authority of Pierro are based primarily
on Pierro's own testimony.
THE BASSICK CO., SPRING VALLEY DIVISION, ETC. 1557
"quit ,a bit ." Employees came to him to seek permission to take time off, and he
has permitted employees to take time off for personal reasons, without first clearing
with Foreman Stacey. On one occasion Stacey asked him to recommend someone
to fill a vacancy as setup man ; the person recommended by Pierro was given the
job. If overtime work is needed , Stacey would tell Pierro how many people were
needed and he in turn would select the ones to work overtime and fill out a requi-
sition for them.
During the 90-day probationary period of new employees, he would make out
progress reports every 2 weeks as to their efficiency and as to any personnel prob-
lem. At the end of the 90-day probationary period, he would inform the personnel
department about their efficiency and attitude toward the work if he felt that they
should be retained. However, if he had a problem concerning them, such as that
they were slow to learn or were causing a lot of trouble, he would then indicate on
the progress report that those employees should not be retained.
When Medie Gusti was first employed in September 1958, she was told by Per-
sonnel Director Johanna Boland that "you will be working under Sam" Pierro.
The female employees in departments 75 and 76 regarded Pierro as their "boss."
Jim McNabb, Charles Peterson, and Don Gilbert: McNabb was the group leader
of the plating department where about three employees worked. He received $2.31
per hour. Peterson was the group leader of the stockroom and receiving, had about
four employees, and received $1.76 per hour. Gilbert was the group leader of the
pressroom, where about seven employees worked, and received $2.76 per hour.
All three received a higher rate of pay than the men under them.
Respondent makes no distinction with respect to the duties and authority of its
group leaders; it neither contends nor claims that the duties and authority of
McNabb, Peterson, and Gilbert, none of whom testified, differed in any respect
from that of Pierro. Under all the circumstances, including the credible testimony
of employee Walker, I find that, in general, these three men performed the same
duties and possessed the same authority as Pierro.
Concluding Finding
Upon consideration of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I find
that as of March 5, 1959, the above named group leaders possessed the authority,
which was exercised in varying degrees, which constitutes them supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act?
2. Al Pawlak 5
Prior to March 20, 1959, Pawlak was classified as a setup man. He worked on
the night shift in departments 75 and 76 and received $1.60 per hour. Admittedly,
there was no group leader on the night shift and no higher management repre-
sentative present for the greater portion of that shift. Pierro testified that during the
period between 4 and 4:30 p in., he would advise Pawlak about the work to be put
out in departments 75 and 76 on the night shift, which machines to set up, and
which jobs to run. Miller, Respondent's vice president and counsel, admitted that
Pawlak was the one who assigned the work to the employees on the night shift.
When the employees reported for work on the night shift, Pawlak would tell them
what machines to work on, and would transfer them to other machines when
necessary during the shift. He would also instruct the employees on how to run
the machines. If the employees had any questions in connection with their work,
they would consult Pawlak. It is also significant that Pawlak was requested to
attend the meeting of the group leaders with General Foreman Stacey on the after-
noon of March 5, 1959, when Stacey informed them about the union meeting and
told them to instruct the employees in their respective departments to assemble
in the front office at 3:30 for this meeting, as hereinafter found
In view of the foregoing, and particularly the fact that no other representative
of management was present during the major portion of the night shift, I find that
* See, e.g, The Robert Becht Company, 111 NLRB 1013, 1016-1018; Engine Rebuilding
Corporation, et al., 115 NLRB 1776, 1778; Jordan-Rogers Company, 107 NLRB 1136;
United States Gypsum Company, 109 NLRB 1402, 1405-1406; Apeo Tire & Rubber
Company, 117 NLRB 559, 560; Brunswick Quick Freezer, Inc., 117 NLRB 662, 664;
General Electric Appliance Company, etc., 119 NLRB 573, 575
c The factual findings are based on admitted and undisputed testimony ; Pawlak did
not testify.
1558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pawlak responsibly directed the employees in their work within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and hence was a supervisor as defined in the Act.e
C. The relevant events 7
1. Telephone conversation between Respondent 's Vice President Miller and
Darling, president of Local 1053 , in the fall of 1958
During the course of a telephone conversation between Miller , Respondent's vice
president , and Darling , president and business manager of Local 1031 , in the fall of
1958, Darling stated that he understood Respondent had started a plant in Spring
Valley and that since his union represented many of Stewart-Warner 's employees
in the Chicago area he thought his union was the logical one to represent the em-
ployees at Spring Valley. Miller replied that there were not enough people employed
at Spring Valley at that time to make the plant eligible for representation under the
Board's Rules, but that when the proper time came, if a majority of the employees
wished to have Darling 's union represent them , Respondent would be willing to
recognize and bargain with his union . Darling asked Miller to let him know when
Respondent had the required number of employees , and Miller agreed to do so.
2. Telephone conversation between Miller and Darling
about 2 weeks before March 5, 1959
About 2 weeks before March 5, 1959 , Miller telephoned to Darling and informed
him that "we had enough employees now so that it was eligible for organization."
Darling asked if Miller would be willing to call the employees together so that
Darling would have a chance to talk with them. Miller agreed to do so and they
decided upon March 5 as a mutually convenient date.
Miller then telephoned to Plant Manager MacMahon , informed him of his con-
versation with Darling and that Darling had requested an opportunity to address
the employees in regard to "their becoming members of Local 1031 ," and asked
what would be the most appropriate time to hold such an employee meeting. Mac-
Mahon replied that the best time would be 3:30 p m. because they could hold both
shifts together at that time . Miller told MacMahon that if other unions requested
a similar opportunity "we would have to grant it" but admitted that he also told
MacMahon that "we should make the announcement" of the purpose of the meeting
`Sat the time of the meeting "
Miller then telephoned to Darling again and told him that the employees would
be called together at 3:30 p.m. on March 5. Miller had also prepared a draft con-
tract, patterned after the contract which Stewart -Warner had at the Alemite, Instru-
ment and Electronics Division in Chicago , but left blank any mention of wage
increases . He told Darling about the draft contract and that Respondent expected to
give a wage increase which would be in line with the increases which had been
going on in the area . Miller mentioned to Darling the amount of the increases
which had been given at Westclox, Electrical Utilities, and Eicor Company, the
three largest metal -working plants in the area . At the hearing , Miller could only
remember the increase at Westclox , which was 6 cents "straight across the board "
Miller submitted his draft contract to Darling for him to look over before the
March 5 meeting.
Miller then also telephoned to Seatter, Respondent 's director of industrial relations
with offices located at Bridgeport , Connecticut , and told him about the arrangements
that had been made for Darling to talk with the Spring Valley employees; they
agreed that Scatter would also be present at the agreed-upon time.
3. The employee meeting of March 5
The day-shift hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p in ; the night-shift hours are from
4:30 p.m . to 1 a m. The meeting was held in the general office area of the plant
on Thursday, March 5, as previously planned, and was attended by both the day-
and night-shift employees . The night-shift employees were informed of the meeting
by Al Pawlak on the evening of March 4 without being told the purpose of the
meeting. About a half hour before the meeting , the group leaders and Al Pawlak
a See , e g., Southern Industries Company, et al, 92 NLRB 998 , 1001 ; California Spray-
Chemical Corp ., 86 NLRB 453 . 454-455; Reeves Brothers, Incorporated , et al, 116
NLRB 422 ; Brighton Manufacturinq Company , Incorporated, 122 NLRB 220.
7 Unless otherwise indicated , the findings in this section are based on Respondent's
admissions , Intervenor ' s exhibits , and undisputed testimony.
THE BASSICK CO., SPRING VALLEY DIVISION, ETC. 1559
were assembled in General Foreman Stacey's office, where they were instructed by
Stacey to notify the people working in their respective departments to assemble at
the front end at 3:30 and that Darling had come over to talk to them about a
union. In response to an inquiry as to which union it was, Stacey told them it was
Local 1031 and that Stewart-Warner had the same union in Chicago and had gone
for a number of years without a strike. Group Leader Gilbert stated that he had
belonged to that union and thought it was a pretty good one.
The group leaders then went back to the plant and instructed the employees in
their departments to attend a meeting about a union at the front end of the plant at
3:30. Group Leader McNabb told employee Walker that a union man would talk
to the employees and that Gilbert had been -a member of that Union and thought
it was pretty good. Group Leader Pierro told employee Kruger that there was to
be a meeting for a union and that it was a good union which had never had a strike.
Pienro told employee Guesti about the meeting, adding that there could be "a good
union for all of us to vote on." Group Leader Gilbert told employee Frank Dum-
kuski to shut off his machine and go up front for the meeting. On the way to
the meeting Al Pawlak told Dumkuski that he "should vote for this union because
there is going to be a union in here anyway and this one is going to be a good union."
In addition to the assembled employees of both shifts and Darling, the following
management representatives were also present at the opening of the meeting: Vice
President Miller, Industrial Relations Director Scatter, Plant Manager MacMahon,
General Foreman Stacey, and Personnel Director Boland. MacMahon stated that
he was turning the meeting over to Miller who began by calling attention to a
booklet which all employees received when they were employed and reading the
section to the effect that employees may join or refrain from joining any union
without discrimination. Miller then told the employees that: Local 1031, IBEW,
had been the bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees
at Stewart-Warner's plant in Chicago for some 9 or 10 years and that the employees
seemed satisfied with that Union; Local 1031 also represented a number of em-
ployees in other States; Darling had stated that his Union desired to represent
Respondent's employees at Spring Valley; and if a majority of the employees
desired to be represented by this Union, "we would be willing to bargain with them."
Miller then stated that after he introduced Darling, everybody except production
and maintenance employees should leave the room, and that he understood that
leadmen were classified as production and maintenance employees. Miller then
introduced Frank Darling as president of Local 1031. All except the production
and maintenance employees, the group leaders, and Al Pawlak then left the area.
Darling then gave a promotional talk in favor of Local 1031. He told them
about the different companies with which he had contracts, the seniority setup,
their social activities, and their assets. He assured them that he could get them
a contract by Monday with a seniority setup and a 6 cents per hour raise.8
After Darling finished speaking, there was a question and answer period. Darling
then asked the employees to come forward and sign a petition which stated that
the signers were designating Local 1031 as their exclusive bargaining agent and
authorizing Local 1031 to bargain with Respondent with respect to wages, hours,
and working conditions. Three such petitions were signed by a majority of the
employees, including the group leaders and Al Pawlak. Group Leaders Pierro
and Gilbert were among the first groups who went up to sign for Local 1031,9 and
their signatures head one of the petitions. A union negotiating committee, consist-
ing of Group Leader Pierro, Al Pawlak, and four employees was then elected.
All the machines were shut down during the meeting, which lasted until about
4.45 p.m. All employees were paid for the time spent at this meeting. The
8 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Wayne Walker. The only other
employee who testified with respect to the 6-cent wage increase was Richard Savage,
who was called as a witness by Local 1031, the Intervenor He testified that he did not
recall Darling making this statement during the meeting of employees He did testify
that Darling had said he was sure that a "raise of six-cents or so" could be obtained
but thought the statement was made after the employees had signed up for the Union,
or after the negotiations, or after the 6 cents had been agreed upon. Savage did not
impress me as a forthright and candid witness Under all the circumstances, including
my observation of the demeanor of Walker and Savage and the admitted fact that Miller
had previously promised Darling that Respondent would give a wage increase in line
with that in the area and 6 cents was mentioned during that discussion , as previously
found, I do not credit Savage's testimony in this regard
°This finding is based on the credible testimony of employees Walker and Dumkuski.
I do not credit the contrary testimony of Savage in this respect
1560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
day-shift employees, whose shift normally ended at 4:30, were paid from the
commencement of the meeting at 3:30 until they punched out at the end of the
meeting; indeed one employee testified that he received overtime pay for the
period beyond the normal end of his shift. The night-shift employees, whose
shift normally begins at 4:30 p.m., punched in about 3:30 p.m. and were paid from
that time on.
4. Respondent recognizes Local 1031 and makes arrangements for
contract negotiations
After the meeting, Darling told Miller that a majority of the employees had
selected Local 1031 as their bargaining representative and submitted the three
petitions containing the employees' signatures. Stacey and Boland checked the
signatures and informed Miller that they were genuine. Miller then told Darling
that Respondent recognized Local 1031 as the exclusive bargaining representative
of Respondent's production and maintenance employees. Darling also informed
Miller that the employees had elected a negotiating committee, and arrangements
were made to meet the next morning to negotiate a contract. Meanwhile, the
negotiating committee met with Darling on company time and property to consider
changes in the proposed contract which Miller had submitted to Darling prior
to March 5. Pawlak and Pierro made some suggestions in this respect along with
other members of the negotiating committee.
5. Events of Friday, March 6; Respondent ignores representation claims of IAM
and IUE and executes contract with Local 1031
A local of the IAM had represented the production and maintenance employees
of the Controls Corporation of America at its Spring Valley plant for a number
of years. Personnel Director Boland, who had formerly worked for the Controls
Corporation in its personnel department, had dealt in that capacity with two IAM
representatives, Dominic Berta, president of that local, and Bernard Lomanski, a
Grand Lodge representative. Before acquiring the Controls Corporation plant,
Miller had learned that its employees were represented by a union.
In the fall of 1958, Lomanski telephoned to Miller and, after identifying himself,
had inquired about the hiring procedures which would be followed by Respondent,
stating that many of the former employees of Controls Corporation had been asking
him about how they could obtain employment with Respondent. From October
1958 on, Berta had solicited employees of Respondent for the IAM, had himself
secured some authorization cards, and knew that other employees had obtained
additional authorization cards from other employees. On the evening of March
5 Berta was informed by some of Respondent's employees of the meeting held
that afternoon at the plant and as to what had transpired at the meeting.
On the morning of March 6, Berta and Lomanski went to Respondent's plant
to see Personnel Director Boland, who stated that she would see them shortly.
Meanwhile, Boland joined Respondent's negotiating committee and informed Miller
of the presence of the two IAM representatives. Miller advised her that they
were going to be busy that day and not to bother with them. Mrs. Boland there-
upon had such a message given to the IAM representatives. After unsuccessfully
attempting to see Plant Manager MacMahon, the latter's secretary agreed to deliver
to MacMahon a letter which Lomanski left with her.
Respondent's negotiating committee had met first by themselves and, after a
while, met with Darling and the employee negotiating committee to negotiate a
contract. During the course of the negotiations, MacMahon's secretary gave
MacMahon the letter, which had been left with her by Lomanski, and which stated,
in substance, that a majority of Respondent's production and maintenance employees
had authorized the IAM to represent them for the purpose of negotiating a col-
lective-bargaining agreement and requested recognition and the setting of a date
for such negotiations. MacMahon showed the letter to Miller. About the same
time a telegram from the IUE was shown to Miller which telegram also claimed
to represent a majority of Respondent's production and maintenance employees
and requested a meeting to negotiate a contract. Miller knew that the IUE repre-
sented Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its Bridgeport plant
since 1950. Miller told MacMahon "that he need not pay any attention to them;
that he didn't think they represented any employees."
Negotiations continued and by 12:30 p.m. a complete contract was agreed upon,
subject to employee ratification. The contract followed the draft, previously
submitted to Darling by Miller, with a few changes . An increase of 6 cents an
hour was given to the incentive workers, while nonincentive workers and higher
THE BASSICK CO., SPRING VALLEY DIVISION, ETC. 1561
skilled nonincentive workers were given 7 and 8 cents, respectively. The contract
was then ratified by the employees, who had signed the petitions for Local 1031,
at a meeting held at the plant during working hours. The employees received
their regular pay for the time spent at the ratification meeting. The contract was
then signed and went into effect immediately.
6. Events subsequent to March 6
On Monday, March 9, 1959, Berta and Lomanski traveled to Chicago and filed
with the Board's Regional Office a petition for an election, submitting the requisite
number of authorization cards in support thereof.'° The charge in the instant
proceeding was filed by the IUE on March 6. The contract which was executed
on March 6 has been in effect at all times to the date of the hearing herein.
D. Conclusions with respect to Respondent's violations of Section 8(a) (2) and (1)
of the Act
At Darling's request, Miller informed him when Respondent's plant "had enough
employees" to be "eligible for organization" and agreed to permit him to address
the employees at the plant for that purpose. Moreover, before Darling had even
contacted a single employee, Miller sent him a proposed draft of a contract, agreed
to give a wage increase in line with that given in the area, and informed him of
the wage increases given by the three largest metal-working plants in the area, one
of them being 6 cents per hour. Miller then made arrangements to have the
meeting of both shifts of employees held at the plant at 3:30 p.m. on March 5,
advised Plant Manager MacMahon not to announce its purpose till meeting time,
and arranged to have Industrial Relations Director Scatter come to the meeting from
Bridgeport, Connecticut. Shortly before the meeting, General Foreman Stacey
informed the group leaders and Al Pawlak, whom I have found to be supervisors,
of the nature of the meeting and the name of the union involved, and implied
that it was a desirable union because it had not had a strike for a number of years.
At Stacey's instructions, the group leaders and Al Pawlak summoned the employees
to a union meeting, directing them to shut down their machines. At the same time
some of them indicated to some of the employees that they approved of this union
and urged them to vote for it.ii The meeting was held on company time and prop-
erty, with the night shift reporting an hour early and paid for the entire time spent
at the meeting. Miller and Scatter, very high management officials, were present
at the opening of the meeting, which could not help but impress the employees
with its importance. In his opening statements, Miller made remarks which clearly
indicated his favoritism for Local 1031, and then introduced Darling as president
of Local 1031. During the course of his promotional talk, Darling assured the
employees of a contract with a 6-cent per hour wage increase by Monday if the
employees selected his union as their bargaining representative, an assurance which
Darling knew he could fulfill in view of his previous conversation with Miller.
When Darling asked the employees to come forward to sign the authorization
petitions, some group leaders were among the fist to come forward and sign. The
other employees, who had regarded the group leaders as their boss, then followed
their example. At the same meeting, a negotiating committee was elected with
Supervisors Pierro and Pawlak being members thereof.
All the foregoing, considered as a whole, amounted to more than mere friendly
"cooperation" extended to a union, but constituted potent unlawful assistance and
support at the most critical stage of an organizational campaign, the period during
which Local 1031 obtained a majority of employee signatures to the authorization
petitions. I am convinced and find that through its illegal assistance and support,
Respondent was an effective cause in attaining majority status for Local 1031
and thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act.12
10 Case No 13-RC-6465
11 Respondent is liable for the conduct of Pawlak and the group leaders even if I were
not convinced of their supervisory status. For Stacey had made these men Respondent's
agents in summoning the employees to the meeting and held them out to the employees
as management representatives in talking to the employees in connection with the union
meeting In this respect they were doing no more than reflecting Stacey's previously
announced attitude.
"General Melds and Plastics Corporation, 122 NLRB 182. I reach the same conclu-
sion even if I were not convinced of the supervisory status of Pawlak and the group
leaders.
1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aside from the totality of Respondent's conduct, I find that in the circumstances
and setting in which the meeting was held, including the views expressed by Miller,
the employees could reasonably believe that Darling's assurance of an immediate
contract with a 6-cent per hour wage increase had Miller's backing, as in fact it
had. This was by itself sufficient to nullify the authorization petitions as reflecting
the employees' freedom of choice. In addition, the conduct of some of the group
leaders and of Pawlak both before the meeting, when they in effect solicited on
behalf of Local 1031, and during the meeting, when they set the example for the
employees by being among the first to come forward and sign the petitions, which
conduct merely translated Miller's own expressions to the employees, itself consti-
tuted unlawful assistance and support to Local 1031 and also interfered with the
employees' freedom of choice.13 Finally, and apart from all other factors, the
employees' signatures to the authorization petitions, upon which Miller relied in
granting immediate exclusive recognition to Local 1031, would not have been
obtained by Darling in such a short period without the Respondent's invaluable
assistance in furnishing its time and property and in exercising its authority to
direct the employees of both shifts to assemble en masse for such solicitation by
Darling. A consideration of the entire record as a whole compels the conclusion,
which I find, that the authorization petitions did not truly reflect "that complete
and unhampered freedom of choice [of the signers] which the Act contemplates," 14
and therefore cannot serve as the basis for establishing the majority status of
Local 1031.
As Local 1031 did not represent the free and untrammeled choice of a majority
of the employees, Respondent rendered additional assistance and support to Local
1031, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, by according it immediate
exclusive recognition on the basis of the signatures on the petitions, which Miller
knew had been solicited at the employee meeting, and negotiating and executing a
contract the next day.15 And particularly unlawful was Respondent's conduct in
executing the contract without even making a pretense of examining the prior con-
flicting representation claims by the LAM and the IUE which, at least in the case
of the IAM, raised a real question concerning representation.'6 Finally, Respond-
ent rendered still further assistance and support to, and also interfered with the ad-
ministration of, Local 1031 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by
negotiating, without protest, with a union negotiating committee which contained
two supervisors, Pierro and Pawlak.17 Respondent's contention that it in good faith
believed that Pawlak and the group leaders were not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act, cannot serve as a defense to its unlawful conduct.18
Upon the basis of all the foregoing and the entire record considered as -a whole, I
find that Respondent engaged in conduct which constituted unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
13 The Supreme Court has cautioned that the "existence of that interference, must be
determined by careful scrutiny of all the factors, often subtle, which restrain the em-
ployees' choice" and that even "slight suggestions as to the employer's choice between
unions may have telling effect " International Association of Machinists etc. v. N L R.B.
(Serrick Corp ), 311 U S. 72, 78, 80
14 International Association of Machinists v N L R B . supra
15 See, e.g, Ed Taussig, Inc, 108 NLRB 470, Bernhard-Altman Texas Corporation,
122 NLRB 1289
19 Cf Shea Chemical Corporation. 121 NLRB 1027; Lundy Manufacturing Corporation,
125 NLRB 1188; Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1573.
17 Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc., and its members, 118 NLRB 174,
187; Houston Maritime Association. Inc, et at, 121 NLRB 389, 407; Anchorage Business-
men's Association, et al. , 124 NLRB 662.
28 See, a g ., Ed Taussig and Bernard-Altman cases , supra.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1563
I will also recommend that Respondent (1) cease giving effect to its agreement
with Local 1031, dated March 6, 1959, and to any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof, or to any other agreement with Local 1031 which may now be in force,
and (2) cease recognizing, and withdraw and withhold all recognition from, Local
1031 as the representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respond-
ent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, unless and until the said labor organization shall
have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-
conducted election among Respondent's employees.
In his brief, the General Counsel also seeks an order of reimbursement to em-
ployees of any dues or other moneys collected from them under Respondent's agree-
ment with Local 1031, relying on General Molds & Plastics Corporation, 122 NLRB
182. In the instant case, as in the General Molds case, the contracts contain no
union-security clause. However, in the General Molds case, the union membership
and authorization cards, to which employee signatures were obtained with the Re-
spondent's illegal assistance, also constituted authorizations to Respondent to check
off dues and fees from the signer's wages for transmittal to the assisted union. No
such authorization exists in the instant case. The contract obligates the Respondent
to make and remit dues deductions only upon request of Local 1031, accompanied
"with properly and legally executed assignments in accordance with law authorizing
said deduction." Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that a dues reim-
bursement order is not necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act and that
Respondent's unfair labor practices will be adequately and effectively remedied by
the order recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By rendering assistance and support to, and interfering with the administration
of, Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
2. 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.]
Radio Corporation of America and Local Union 11, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 01-RC-6.36. June ^8, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul D. Cummings, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
l International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 854 , AFL-CIO,
intervened on the basis of its contract interest.
127 NLRB No. 180.