The Bradford Machine Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 759 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of THE BRADFORD MACHINE TOOL COMPANY and UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH C. I. O. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT 34, AFFILIATED WITH A. F. OF L. PARITY TO
THE CONTRACT
Case No. C-3039.-Decided October 3, 1940
Jurisdiction : machine tool manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint , and Coercion : grant of wage increase upon which
majority of employees, to the knowledge of the respondent, had conditioned
designation of a •labor organization asi their representatives; recognition of,
and entry into closed-shop contract with, one labor organization upon notice
that another labor organization claimed to represent a majority of the
employees.
Remedial Orders : withdrawal of recognition and abrogation of closed-shop
contract.
Mr. Harold Weston, for the Board.
Waite, Schindel & Bayless, by Mr. Herbert Shaffer and Mr. Philip
J. Schneider, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the respondent.
Thorndyke cC Becker, by Mr. William Thorndyke and Mr.- Ralph
Becker, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Mr. L. 0. Thomas, of Washington,
D. C., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Dale Toler, of Norwood, Ohio, and Mr. N. L. Smokier and Mr.
Maurice Sugar, of Detroit, Mich., for the United.
Mr. William F. Scharnikow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Upon charges duly filed on October 11, 1941, by United Automo-
bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. ^ I. 0., herein called the United, the, National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the 'Regional Director for the
Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint dated No-
44 N. L. R. B., No. 146.
759\
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vember 13, 1941, against The Bradford Machine Tool Company,l
Cincinnati, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor ' prac-
tices affecting -commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
Section 2 (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Acf,.49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompany
ing notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District 34, affiliated with A. F.
of L., herein called the I. A. M., and the United.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that (1) on or about October 2, 1941, the respondent agreed
with the I. A. M. to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining agent
for the respondent's employees, provided that it show within 10 days
that it represented a majority of such employees, despite the fact
that at that time the United also claimed to represent a majority of
the respondent's employees; (2) on or about October 10, 1941, the
respondent permitted the I. A. M. to request its employees to sign
s'lips;tauthoriiing%•the''I. A.-M. to, represent 'th'em, but-providing that
the authorizations were to be null and void with no effect unless the
A. F. of L. secured for the subscribers a 10-cent per hour increase
in wages within 10 days; (3) on or about October 11, 1941, the re-
spondent signed a contract with the I: A. M. providing for a 10-cent
per hour increase in wages and a closed shop, although the
United on October 10, 1941, had again notified the respondent that it
claimed to represent a majority of the respondent's employees; (4)
at all times after October 9, 1941, the respondent urged, persuaded,
and warned its employees to join the I. A. M. and to refrain or
withdraw from membership in the United; (5) the I. A. M. was
established, maintained, and assisted by unfair labor practices of the
respondent and was not properly designated as the bargaining agent
by a majority of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit
on October 11, 1941; (6) because of the foregoing acts the contract
executed October it, 1941, between the respondent and the I. A. M.
is invalid; and (7) the respondent'had interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
At the beginning of the hearing the respondent and the I. 'A. M.
filed separate answers. In its answer the respondent denied that
it had engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
The I. A. M. in its answer denied that it had been assisted or spon-
sor'ed'wby- the-respondent;- •andd-maintained- that, it had-`-beer-freely- .r
i The complaint , inaccurately designating the respondent as "Bradford Tool Company,"
was amended at the hearing. '
THE BRADFORD MACHINE TOOL COMPANY 761
designated by a majority of the respondent's employees prior to the
execution of the contract with the respondent on October 11, 1941.
- Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from November 24 to 26,
1941, at Cincinnati, Ohio, before Frank A. Mouritsen, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. . The Board,
the respondent, and the I. A. Al. were represented by counsel and the
United was represented by its international representative. All.par-
ticipated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues. At the start of the hearing, counsel
for the I. A. Al. moved to separate the witnesses. The motion was
denied. At the end of the Board's case and'at the conclusion of the
hearing, counsel for the respondent demurred to the evidence. The
demurrers were overruled. At the 'end of the Board's case, the
I. A. M. moved to dismiss the complaint, and at the conclusion of the
hearing, both the respondent and the I. A. Al. moved to dismiss the
complaint. These motions were denied. At the close'of the Board's
case, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the
proof. This motion was granted. None of the parties argued orally
before the Trial Examiner at the conclusion of the hearing, although
the Trial Examiner granted all the opportunity. Pursuant to the
Trial Examiner's advice to all parties of their right to do so, the
respondent and the I. A. Al. filed briefs with the Trial Examiner,
which briefs we have considered. During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 29, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties. He found
that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices, and
recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
On February 3, 1942, the United filed with the Board its excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report, and on February 11, 1942, its brief
in support of'the exceptions. On February 9, 1942, the I. A. Al. filed
its brief with the Board. Thereafter, pursuant to notice duly served
on .the parties, a hearing .was held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on February 17, 1942, for the purpose of oral argument. The
respondent and the United were represented by counsel, and the
I. A. Al. by its official representative. All participated in the hear-
ing. Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, the respondent and
the I. A. Al. filed further briefs with the Board at the hearing on oral
argument, and on February 23, 1942, the United filed a brief in reply,
thereto. -
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD •
The Board has considered the exceptions of the United to the-In-
termediate Report, and all the briefs submitted by the parties, and
hereby finds the exceptions to have merit insofar as they are con-
sistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set
forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Bradford Machine Tool Company is an Ohio corporation with
its plant and principal place of business located at Cincinnati, Ohio.
It is engaged in the manufacture-of power lathes, machine tools, and
related products. The supplies and materials used by the respondent
in the conduct of its business include electric motors, electric wiring,
pumps, castings, chucks, and steel. During the calendar year 1940,
supplies and materials to the value of $100,000, obtained from outside
the State, of Ohio, were shipped to the respondent's plant in Cin-
cinnati. Total purchases for the year amounted to $850,000. Of a
total output for 1940, valued at approximately $2,000,000, the respond-
ent shipped more than 90 percent by value to points outside the State
of Ohio. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of
the respondent.
International Association of Machinists, District 34, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It
admits to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In March and June 1941, respectively, the I. A. M. and-the United 2
began attempts to organize the respondent's employees. In the
course of their competing campaigns, both' the I. A. M. and the
United secured written authorizations from employees at the respond-
eut's plant during working hours. In June 1941 each organization,
in a letter sent to the respondent, claimed that it represented a major-
2 At this time the name of the United was "International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America " After the consent electron of July 25, 1941, hereinafter mentioned;
its name was changed to 'United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America," as it appears in this proceeding.
THE BRADFORD MACHINE TOOL COMPANY -763
ity of the respondent 's employees and requested that it be recognized
as exclusive bargaining agent. Thereupon the respondent filed with
the Regional Director for the Ninth Region a petition for investiga-
tion and certification of representatives . On July 15, 1941, the
respondent , the. . A. M., and . the United entered into a written agree-
ment that an election-be conducted) by a representative of the Board
among the respondent 's production employees , with certain stipulated
inclusions and exclusions , to determine whether they desired to be
represented by the I. A. M., the United , or neither . Prior to the
election, according to the uncontradicted testimony , the I. A. M.
possessed 147 signed membership cards,, and the United 40 signed
authorizations.
The election was held on July 25, 1941 , under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region. Of the
239 employees who were eligible , 201 voted . There were 39 un-
challenged ballots cast for the United , 51 for the I. A. M., and 104 for
reither . Following the election, the I. A. M. filed a petition with
the Regional Director 'praying that the' election be set ; aside,, on the
ground that during and prior to the election the respondent had
committed numerous acts of interference which precluded a free
choice of a collective bargaining representative.
After attempts to settle the matter informally had failed , testimony
upon the I. A. ,M.'s petition was taken before the Regional Director
in Cincinnati on October 1 and 2, 1941 . At noon on October 2 the
I. A. M. requested and was granted an adjournment of the hearing
until October 10 . Later in the afternoon the I. A. M. made arrange-
ments for a conference with the respondent for the following day,
October 3.
Two conferences were held between the 'I . A. M. and the respondent
on October 3, 1941 . - At the first conference the I . A. M. demanded
that the respondent recognize it as collective bargaining agent for
the respondent 's employees . Upon the respondent 's refusal to discuss
the demand unless its counsel were present, a second conference was
held later that day, at which the I. A. M. was represented by William
C. Ripberger and J . E. Chapman, and the respondent by Robert P.
Jones, its president ; Jacob R. Stewart , chairman of its board of
directors ;'and Herbert Shaffer and Philip J. Schneider, its counsel.
The I . A. M. again demanded that the respondent recognize it as
exclusive collectively bargaining agent, basing its claim to represent
a majority of the respondent 's employees upon the 147 membership
cards, which had been signed in June and July 1941 , prior to the
election. The respondent refused to recognize the I. A. M., stating
that the result of the election showed that the I . A. M. did not repre-
sent a majority of the employees.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After further discussion; during which the I. A. M. threatened to
withdraw certain skilled mechanics from the plant, if the respondent
persisted in its refusal of recognition, the respondent finally agreed
that it would recognize and deal with the I. A. M. as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees if the. I. A. M. would
dismiss the pending protest against the election and thereafter secure
hew authorizations from a majority of the employees.
On October 9, 1941, the I. A. M. consented to the dismissal of its.
petition to set.aside the election, and on the same day the dismissal
was approved by the Regional Director.
During working hours in the evening of October 9,, and the morn-
ing of October 10, 1941, the I. A. M., through non-supervisory
employees of the respondent, including Hugh Davis and Herbert
Sierra, circulated petitions and handbills in the plant among the
respondent's employees. The handbills asked the employees to desig-
nate the I. A. M. as their representative,, and purported to guarantee
to them either a 10-cent per hour raise within. 10 days or the I.A. M.'s
withdrawal from the shop. The petitions stated (1) that the signers
designated the I. A. Maas their, collective,bargaining,agent,"and (2)
that such designation would be void unless the I. A. M. secured for
the subscribers a raise of 10 cents per hour within a 10-day period.
The proviso stated :
This authorization shall be null, void and of no effect, unless
the American Federation of Labor secures for us a 10 cent per
hour increase in wages, and other considerations within ten days
from this date.
Of the respondent's employees, 122 signed this-petition, between 5
p. in. on October 9 and 11: 30 a. in. on October 10. According to testi-
mony which was not contradicted,, the respondent's officials know
nothing of the form of, nor the I. A. M.'s contemplated circulation
of, the handbills or the petitions until the petitions had been signed
and were actually presented to the respondent later in the day on
October 10, 1941.
Later in the day pn October 10, 1941, Ripberger and Chapman,
accompanied by a coinmitee of the employees, presented the petitions
to Jones and Stewart as proof of their claim that they represented
a. majority of the respondent's employees, and demanded a 20-cent
per hour raise and recognition of the I: A. M. As exclusive bargaining
agent. The respondent's officials checked its current pay roll and
compared-the signatures on the petitions with the endorsements 'of
the employees on canceled pay checks. They found that the respond-
ent then employed 222 persons in the same broad unit upon 'which
the respondent, the I. A. M., and the United had agreed for the
THE BRADFORD MACHINE TOOL COMPANY 765
purposes ' of the consent election in July, and that all,122 'signatures
on the petitions were apparently the genuine signatures of persons
still employed in that group. After, some discussion, the respondent's
officials stated that they were satisfied that the I. A. M. represented
a majority of the employees, and that the respondent would recognize
the I. A. M. and. grant a 10-cent per hour raise. The, I. A.. M. then
presefiteda form of proposed- contract. and demanded that an accept-
able contract be signed by the next day at the latest. At the insist-
ence of the-I. A. M., the respondent immediately posted a notice of
the wage increase and recognition upon its bulletin board.
Immediately after the representatives of the I. A. M. left the plant
on October 10, Toler, International' representative, of the United,
called the respondent and demanded, that it cease bargaining with the
I. A. M., inasmuch as the United represented a majority of the re-
spondent's employees. Foster Raper, president of the local union of
the United; testified that on October 10 the United- had been desig-
nated as collective, bargaining agent by 104 of the respondent's em-
ployees and- that at the ,time of -the hearing the number had been
increased to 125.'
On October it, 1941, Ripberger and Chapman and a committee of
the repondent's employees again met with the respondent's repre-
sentatives and their counsel. The respondent's counsel -had revised
the form of the contract submitted to it. After discussion of the
respondent's draft, the parties agreed upon and signed a contract
for the term-of-2- years which, contained a closed-shop' provision and
a grant of a 10-cent per hour wage increase. Later in the same day
the respondent posted a notice summarizing the important features
of the contract.
Following the posting of the notice the United threatened ,to call
a strike if the closed-shop provision of the contract was enforced, and
filed the charges herein. The Regional Director persuaded the re-
spondent and the I. A. M. to waive the closed-shop provision of the
contract until- the, Board could dispose of the charges. _
Conclusions concerning the unfair labor practices
When the I. A. M., in proof of its selection by a majority of the
employees, exhibited to the respondent its conditional designations,
it offered the respondent a choice, the exercise of which the Act
reserves exclusively to employees,-that of establishing or declining
to establish a bargaining representative. On their face the designa-
tions conditioned the authority of the I. A. M. to bargain collectively
upon action to be taken by the respondent. They may thus be said
to have remained executory at the time of their presentation. The
respondent granted the requisite wage -increases, well knowing that
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it thereby fulfilled the very condition upon which the effectiveness of
the designations was limited. It is immaterial to our conclusion
that the I. A. M. took the initiative in presenting the alternatives
implicit in the conditional designations.3 Employers are under the
duty to refrain from any action which is calculated to aid or hinder
a labor organization in its effort to achieve representative -status.
The experience of the, Board affords numerous instances, in which such
proscribed action has taken the form of wage, increases timed to
coincide,with critical stages in employee self-organization. We do
not decide what would have been the result had the respondent acted
in ignorance of the condition upon the designations. We find that
by granting the increase with full knowledge thereof the respondent
illegally participated in the selection of the bargaining representative
of its employees. To hold otherwise would be to encourage labor
organizations seeking to achieve representative status to address
themselves to employers rather than to the employees, a result
abhorrent to the policies and purposes of the Act.' I
It,follows'that the respondent was not entitled to rely,-as proof
of I. A. M. majority for the purpose of recognition, upon the desig-
nations to the completion of which it had illegally contributed. Nor
does the record otherwise evidence a desire on the part of a majority
of the respondent's employees to be represented by the I. A. M. On
the contrary, the I. A. M. polled not more than 24 percent of those
eligible, and not more than 29 percent of those voting in the July
election ,5 and as late as October 3, the I. A. M; regfibsted, ;and the
3 See Matter of Medo Photo Supply Corporation and American Federation of Photo
Employees Union , Local 21311, A. F. of L, 43 N. L R B 989
4 In some instances the Board has found that such grants of wage increases have assisted
labor organizations favored by the respondents and so have constituted violations of Section
8 (2) of the Act. See Matter of Curtiss -Wright Corporation and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 753,
39 N L. R. B 992 , 1014-1015 ; Matter of Germain Seed & Plant Company and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen d Helpers of America, Local No .595,
A F L, 37 N. L R. B. 1090; Matter of American Smelting and Refining Company and
Omaha Smeltermens Union # 461, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 29 N. L. R B 360 , 375 In other
instances the Boai d has found that grants of wage increases hindered organizational activities
among the respondent's employees and so violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. See Matter
of Crown Can Company and American Federation of Labor, 42 N. L . R B. 1160; Matter
of Bear Brand Hosiery Co . and International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Local 296,
affiliated with A. F. L., 40 N. L R: B. 323, 334 ; Matter of United Biscuit Company of America
and Biscuit Cracker Local #/i31, et al, 38 N L. R B . 778; Matter of Rudolph and Charles
Kudile and Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union No 680, A. F. L, 28 N. L It B
116, 120, 127; Matter of Taylor Milling Corp and Avery Smith and James L. Wykes,
26 N L R B 424, 429-430 ; Matter of Indianapolis Power & Light Company and Utility
Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, affiliated with the Congress for Industrial Organi-
zations, 25 N L. R B 193 ; Matter of Charles C Hobart and American Federation of Labor,.
25 N L R. B 727; Matter of Dire Motor Coach Corp and Sunshine , Bus Lines , Inc and
Brotherhood of Raili!oad Trainmen, 25 N L. R. B. 869,' 891; :erif'd .° as mod., N. L. R.'B. V.
Dixie Motor Coach Corp, 128 F . (2d) 201 (C, C. A. 5) ; Matter of The Triplex Screw
Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America,
Local No 1583, 25 N L. R B 1126 , 1134, and cases therein cited.
5 These pei centages assume that all seven challenged ballots were validly cast for the
I. A M.
c
THE BRADFORD , MACHINE TOOL COMPANY 767
respondent properly refused," recognition on the basis of designations
executed prior to that election. Concededly, then, the conditional
designations which resulted from the activity of October 9-10 were
the sole evidence of majority upon which the respondent relied, or
which in fact existed, when the respondent recognized the I. A. M.
We find that by recognizing the I. A. M. under such circumstances
the respondent illegally assisted that organization.7
Although the respondent's action in granting the I. A. M. a closed-
shop contract followed the wage increase and formal recognition by
only a day, an intervening circumstance gives the last step a sig-
nificance absent from the other two. On October 10, immediately
after the respondent had recognized the I. A. M., the United claiming
to'represent a majority of the respondent's employees, warned the
respondent to refrain from continuing its negotiations with the
I. A.. M.8 This warning, however, gave the respondent no pause.
As a justification for its entry into the closed-shop contract with the
I. A: M.; the respondent continued its reliance upon the I.-A. M.
authorizations, which as already noted owed 'their effectiveness to
its own grant of the wage increases.
We find that on October 11, 1941, by entering into the closed-shop
contract with the I. A. M., in which it affirmed its recognition of
the I. A. M. as exclusive bargaining agent, the respondent illegally,
assisted and entrenched the I. A. M. during the pendency of a repre-
6 The Board has consistently absolved employers from charges of refusal to bargain, collec-
tively in the presence of a bona fide doubt as to majority designation . Matter of Sbicca, Inc.
and United Shoe Workers of America , affiliated with the CIO , 30 N L. R B . 60, 71 ; Matter
of Allied Yarns Corp and Textile Workers Union of America , affiliated with the 0 I. 0 ,
26 N. L R B 1440 , 1450-1451; Matter of Brewer-Titchener Corp. and Inter national Associa-
tion of Machinists and International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths , Drop-Forgers and Helpers,
A F of L , 19 N. L. R. B. 160 , Matter of Iluch Leather Co. and General C. I 0 Union,
11 N. L. R. B. 394.
i See National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, et at,
303 U S. 261; Matter of John Engelhorn 4 Sons and Packinghouse Workers Organizing
Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 42 N L IR B. 866;
Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill i
Smelter Workers , Local No. 26, 35 N L It . B 1153 , 1171; Matter of Gouty- Whitaker Cons-
pany, et at and Metal Polishers , Buffers , Platers and Helpers International Union„affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, 33 N L R B 393 ; Matter of Illinois Electric Poice-
lain Company and Illinois Electric Porcelain Workers of Macomb, Federal Labor Union
No 21787, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 31 N. L. R. B. 101 , 127; Matter
of B. Z B . Knitting Company and American Federation of Hosiery Workers , Local No 64,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 28 N L It . B 257, 267.
B While the United did not in fact command a majority when it served its caveat, uncon-
tradicted testimony, indicates that it had then been designated by 104 of the respondents
222 employees , a number sufficient to afford it an election under the Board 's practice in
representation cases. See Matter of Rosiclare Lead and Fluorspar Mining Company and
District 50, United Mine Workers Union, 41 N. L. R B 1143; Matter of Superior Coach
Corp. and International Union , UAW-CIO, 39' N L R B 926; Matter of Cities Service Oil
Co. and Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations, 38 N. L R B. 1055; and Matter of American Bridge Company and Local Union No.
1117, Steel'Workers Organizing Committee ( CIO), 38 N L. R. B 624. - By, the time of the
hearing the I. A. M designations totaled 125 , a majority.
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentation dispute bet`veen two unions as to the relative strength of
whose claims of majority it had no rational basis for choice.9
Upon the basis of all' the evidence, we find that the respondent
aided and assisted the I. A. M. by conceding the wage increase men-
tioned in the authorizations, by unjustifiably granting the I. A. M:
recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees, and by
executing the closed-shop contract on October 11, 1941. We further
find, that the-respondent has thereby interfered.:with, restrained,- and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to bargain, col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES' UPON COMMERCE
,'We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent 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
We have found that the respondent has ehgagea in certain unfair
labor practices. We will order the respondent to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find neces,
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent aided and assisted. the I. A. M.
inter alia by recognizing it a's the exclusive bargaining agent of its
employees and executing the closed- shop contract of October 11, 1941.
In order to restore the status quo and to permit the employees full
freedom in self-organization and the choice of their agent for col-
lective bargaining, we shall therefore order the respondent (1) to
withdraw recognition from the I. A. ,M. as the exclusive representa-
tive of the respondent's employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, unless and until it shall have been certified as such by the
Board, and (2) to cease and desist from giving effect to its contract,
dated October 11, 1941, with the I. A. M., as well as to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, and any superseding
contract which may now be in force, and to any contract with a labor
organization not certified by the Board. Nothing herein, however,
shall be deemed to require the respondent to vary those wages, hours,
4
9 See Matter of John Engelhorn it Sons and Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee;
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 42 N. L . R. B. 866.
THE BRADFORD , MACHINE TOOL COMPANY 769.
senioi ity, and 'other substantive features' of its relations with the. em-
ployees themselves, if any, which the respondent established in per-
formance of , the contract, dated October 11, 1941,. as extended,
renewed, modified, supplemented or superseded.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case,, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, and International Association of Machinists; District 34, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its 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 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within, the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
,of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, The Bradford Machine Tool Company, Cincinnati, Ohio,
and its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Recognizing the International Association of Machinists,
District 34, affiliated with the American Federation of tabor, as the
exclusive representative of its employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining, unless and until it shall have been certified as such by
the National Labor Relations Board ;
(b) Giving effect to its contract, dated October 11, 1941, with the
International Association of Machinists, District 34, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, and to any extension, renewal,
modification, or supplement thereof, and any superseding contract
which may now be in force; and to any contract with a labor
organization not certified by the Board;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage. in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
487498-42-vol. 44-49
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National,
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a), Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the International
Association of Machinists, District 34, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, unless aild until it shall have been certified
as such by the National Labor Relations Board;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive -days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b),
and (c) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Mn. War. M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.