The Letz Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1941

32 N.L.R.B. 563 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY and FEDERAL
LABOR UNION No. 22226, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF LABOR
In the Matter of THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY and FEDERAL
LABOR UNION No. 22226, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR
Case No. R-1880 and C-1816.-Decided June 10, 1941
Jurisdiction : feed grinders manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; distributing anti-
union notices; interference with an election held under Board auspices-
allegations that employer spied on union meetings and transferred an em-
ployee to less desirable work, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : individual notices ordered distributed. -
Practice and Procedure : election set aside and petition dismissed without preju-
dice in view of employer's interference with the election.
Mr. Charles F. McErlean, for the Board.
Fyffe cC Clarke, by Mr. Albert J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for the
respondent.
Mr. S. A. Sweeney, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Union.
Mr. Harold Weston, of counsel to the Board:
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 30, 1940, and April 22, 1940, respectively, Federal Labor
Union No.-22226, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois) a petition and amended peti-
tion alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concern-
ing the representation of employees of The Letz Manufacturing
Company, Crown Point, Indiana, herein called the respondent, and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
32 N. L. R. B., No. 105.
563
44 8692--42-v ol: 32-37
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
449, herein called the Act. On June 15, 1940, the Board issued its
Decision and Direction of Election., On July 12, 1940, an election
was held pursuant to the aforesaid Direction of Election, resulting in
a vote against representation by the Union. The Regional Director
found in his Election Report, dated July 17, 1940, that the respond-
ent had interfered with its employees' choice of representatives and
recommended "that another election be directed by the Board to be
held at such time as the Board is satisfied that the effect of the
interference has been removed."
On September 26, 1940, and December 23, 1940, respectively, the
Union filed charges and amended charges with the Regional Direc-
tor. On November 19, 1940, the Board, acting pursuant to Article
II, Section 36 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
ordered that Case No. C-1816 based on the aforesaid charges be
consolidated with Case No. R-1880, the representation case. On
December 23 and 30, 1940, the Board, by the aforesaid Regional Di-
rector, issued its complaint and amended complaint against the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce -within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the amended complaint and notices of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union.
The amended complaint alleged, in substance, that from September
1, 1939, to the date of the amended complaint, the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (1) by threatening to
close the plant if the Union was selected as the representative of its
employees; (2) by suggesting to its employees that they bargain
individually rather than collectively with the respondent; (3) by
prohibiting union discussions and/or solicitation on the respondent's
time and property, while permitting discussions on other subjects and
solicitation for other organizations on the respondent's time and
property; (4) by spying on union meetings; (5) by interfering with
its employees in their selection of a collective bargaining represent-
ative at an election conducted by the Board on July 12, 1940; and
(6) by, on about February 10, 1940, transferring Norman Bunde
to less desirable work because of his membership in and activities in
behalf of the Union.
On December 30, 1940, the respondent filed its answer admitting
the allegations of the complaint with respect to the nature of its
business, but denying the averments of unfair labor practices. At
Matter of The Letz Manufaeturang Company and Federal Labor Union No. 22226, affil-
iated with the American Federation of Labor, 24 N. L R. B 738
THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 565
the hearing counsel for the respondent moved that the answer as
filed "be allowed to stand as an answer to 'the amended complaint."
The-motion was granted without objection.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Crown Point, Indiana,
on January 9, 1941, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its represent-
ative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's case
and again at the end of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on
the motions to dismiss, and thereafter denied them in his Intermedi-
ate Report. At the close of the hearing a motion by counsel for the
Board to conform the complaint to the proof was granted without
objection. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the ad-
mission of evidence. We have reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 5, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-'
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and de-
sist from the unfair labor practices, and that it take certain appropri-
ate action to remedy the situation brought about by them.
On March 6, 1941, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, and on March 17, 1941, a brief in support of its ex-
ceptions. The Board has considered the exceptions and the brief and,
in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, con-
clusions, 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 Letz Manufacturing Company, an Indiana corporation with
its principal office and plant located at Crown Point, Indiana, is en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of feed grinders.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent are iron, steel,
sheet metal, and wood. During 1940 the respondent purchased raw
materials valued at approximately $250,000, about 50 per cent of which
were transported to it from points outside the State of Indiana. Dur-
ing the same period the respondent's total sales amounted to between
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$500,000 and $600,000, about 90 per cent of which were shipped to
States other than Indiana.
Normally the respondent employs about 170 persons in its plant.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Federal Labor Union Number 22226, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference , restraint, and coercion
In November 1939, Fred F. Schutz, the president of the Lake
County (Indiana) Central Labor Union, came to Crown Point, In-
diana, and held a meeting with about 25 or 30 of the respondent's
employees. During that month a petition was circulated among the
respondent's employees, and on or about December 4, 1939, a charter
from the American Federation of Labor was obtained. Norman
Bunde, an employee in the assembly department of the respondent's
plant, became the Union's first president.
In the beginning of December 1939, Schutz, together with another
official of American Federation of Labor, conferred with John H.
Letz, the respondent's president, and requested Letz to recognize
the Union as the bargaining agent of the respondent's employees.
Nothing came of this meeting or of two other meetings between
Schutz and Letz during December 1939, because, as Schutz testified,
Letz was adamant in his refusal to recognize the Union, stating "he
had never had any dealings with a union, that he was afraid of them."
Letz denied that he made this statement, but we are satisfied and find,
as did the Trial Examiner, who had an opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses, that Letz made the statement attributed to
him by Schutz. Schutz also testified, without contradiction, that
when Letz- questioned the Union's authority to represent the em-
ployees, Schutz offered to submit proof of that fact to Letz or, in
the alternative, to submit the issue to an election to be held under
the auspices of the Board. Letz rejected both offers.
Throughout January 1940, several meetings between various rep-
resentatives of the Union and various officials of the respondent were
held at the plant. Like the December meetings, nothing came of
them. Sometime during that month the Union mailed and the re-
spondent received a proposed contract. The proposed contract reads
as follows :
THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 567
The Party of the First Part [the respondent] agrees to recog-
nize Local Union No. .22226 -as the bargaining agency for its
employees in matters concerning wages and working conditions.
The Party of the Second Part [the Union] agrees that in case
of a controversy, arising during the negotiation of an Agreement
determining wages and working conditions no strike shall be
called for a period of ten (10) days. During the ten days the
matter shall be submitted to an Arbitration Committee con-
sisting of three (3) members. One member shall be selected
by the Employer, Party of the First Part; one member shall
be selected by the Union, Party of the Second Part. The third
member shall be selected by the first two.
It is mutually agreed that negotiations to determine wages
and working conditions shall be started within fifteen (15) days
from the date of the signing of this Agreement.
THIS AGREEMENT shall become effective on the 1st day of Feb-
ruary, 1940, and shall continue in force and effect until the 1st
day of February, 1941, and shall be effective thereafter unless
written notice is given by either party thirty days prior to
February 1st, 1941, or thirty days prior to February 1st of any
year thereafter. .
The respondent, after receipt of the proposed contract, distributed
a letter to its employees sometime in February 1940 which began as
follows :
TO OUR EMPLOYES :-
Federal Trade Union No. 22226 has requested the Company
to sign a contract with it making it the bargaining agent for
all our employees.
We hate, of course, refused to do so.
Such a contract would,-in effect,-force our men to join the
Union, we are, of course, not going to do anything of the kind,-
and if we did, it would be a violation of the law.
The letter then set out excerpts from the decision of the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in National
Labor Relations Board v. Sterling Electric Motors; Inc.,2 ' and
concluded as follows :
Every employe in this plant is free to do as he pleases,-and
is entitled to equal treatment and equal opportunity whether he
belongs to a labor union or not,-and every employe can be sure
the Company will not, now or at any other time, do anything
to change this. ,
2109 F. (2d) 195.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After all is said and done : -
"Nothing takes the place of a steady job."
THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
By JOHN H. LETZ, President.
By stating that the agreement proposed by the Union "would,-in
effect,-force our men to join the Union," the respondent created the
impression that the Union had requested a closed-shop provision
although it had not done so. In view, moreover, of the respondent's
rejection of the Union's previous offer to submit proof in support
of its claim to majority representation, there was no legitimate
occasion for the respondent to advise its employees that "it would be
a violation of the law" to enter into the proposed contract. Under
these circumstances, we find that the respondent in distributing this
letter informed the employees that it was opposed to collective bar-
gaining with the Union even if it was the designated representative
of a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit.3 We find that
by this letter, the respondent sought to discredit and discourage
membership in the Union and thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
Another meeting was held in the early part of February 1940,
at which were present John H. Otto, and William Letz, Mr. White-
head, the respondent's sales manager, Bunde, president of the Union,
-several of the respondent's employees, Mr. Rohrberger, secretary of
the Lake County Labor Council, and Mr. Hyland, a conciliator of
the United States Department of Labor. At this meeting, John Letz
again refused to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent of the
employees, stating that he did not know whether the Union repre-
sented the majority of the respondent's employees. The Union offered
to submit its proof that it represented the majority, and Letz asked
for and secured from the Union time within which to obtain legal
advice.
About 1 week later, Norman Bunde, the Union's president, called
upon John Letz and asked whether the respondent had arrived at
any decision concerning union recognition. According to Bunde,
Letz replied that he "wouldn't do any business with any outside
organization," and Whitehead, the respondent's sales manager, who
was also present, inquired as to why the employees had organized and
then added that "the office was open all the time for anyone to go
up there and put in their grievances, . . . [which] would be given
317 fatter of Republic, Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Cornmtittee, 9 N. L
R. B. 219; enf 'd as mod in Repubiec Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board,
107 F. (2d) 472; 311 U. S. 7.
THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 569
consideration." Letz testified that all that occurred upon that occa-
sion was that Bunde requested union recognition and Letz replied
that he could not do so because he "didn't know how the people felt
about it in the shop." Letz specifically denied having stated that he
"wouldn't do any business with any outside organization." The Trial
Examiner considered Letz generally an evasive and unsatisfactory
witness. Whitehead was not called as a witness and no explanation
was made by the respondent for not calling him. Bunde's version
of Letz's and Whitehead's remarks is consonant with the anti-union
bias reflected in the letter circulated by the respondent, and in view
of this factor, as well as Whitehead's failure to testify and the Trial
Examiner's appraisal of Letz, we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Bunde's testimony as to his conversation with Letz and
Whitehead is substantially accurate.
In about March 1940 the respondent posted a notice on its bulletin
board, reading substantially as follows :
Soliciting for membership in any union is strictly prohibited.
Anyone caught doing so will be immediately discharged.
It may be noted that the prohibition set forth in the notice is not
restricted in its terms to the respondent's time and property. The
record is bare of evidence that union members were impairing plant
discipline. The record shows that both prior and'subsequent to the
Union's organizational activities employee members of the Junior
Order of Mechanics, a fraternal organization, solicited membership
and sold raffle tickets. Upon the entire record we find that the re-
spondent did not post the above-quoted notice as a reasonable
measure for maintaining discipline in the plant, but rather as a
further means of thwarting the Union's organizational activities.
In March 1940 the Union filed a petition for investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
In May 1940, before any hearing was held on the aforesaid petition,
the respondent, the Union, and counsel for the Board entered into a
stipulation agreeing to a consent election to be held under the auspices
of the Board. Thereafter on July 12, 1940, an election by secret
ballot was held among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit,
resulting in a vote of 65 to 64 against the Union.
James R. Hall, an employee in the plant's foundry, testified that
his foreman, Ed Forsyth, told him a few days before the election
was held that if the Union won the election "the Letz Manufacturing
Company would have to close down," because the respondent "couldn't
pay the union wage." Everett Molden, a moulder in the foundry,
also testified to a conversation which he had with Forsyth about that
time in which Forsyth told him that if the Union "got in they would
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have to close the doors because they couldn't afford to pay the union
wage." " In accordance with the conclusion of the Trial Examiner,
we credit the testimony of Hall and Molden.
As the employees left the plant on the evening preceding the
scheduled election each was handed a letter signed by Letz which
reads as follows :
TO OUR EMPLOYES :-
We have seen the Notice 3 being circulated by A. F. of L. Com-
mittee Local #22226,-and we think you are entitled to the
following information :-
1. The law of the United States gives you the right to vote
secretly for the union or against the union,-whichever you wish.
4 Forsyth did not testify . At the hearing counsel for the Board and counsel for the
respondent agreed upon the record that Forsyth was in the hospital and was then too
seriously ill to be called as a witness . Counsel further agreed that within 15 days from
the close of the hearing they would either take Forsyth 's testimony by deposition or they
would enter into a written stipulation as to what Forsyth would testify to if called as a
witness. On January 21 , 1941 , counsel for the Board and for the respondent entered into
a written stipulation , the pertinent part of which reads as follows :
NOW, THEREFORE , IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between said counsel
that the transcript of record heretofore taken in the above entitled cause on January
9, 1941 be amended so as to show the death of said Forsyth.
5 Referring to a leaflet circulated by the Union , urging the employees to vote for the Union
in the election . This notice reads as follows :
NOTICE
To all employees of Letz Manufacturing Company.
The National Labor Relations Board , a Government agency, will conduct an election
among the employees of the Letz Manufacturing Company-at the plant on Friday,
July 12th . The polls will be open from 7. 00 a. in. to S : 00 a. in and from 4: 30 p. in
to 5: 00 p. in.
This election is for the purpose of determining whether you want the American Fed-
eration of Labor Local 22226 to represent you or whether you want "no" union.
The law of the United States of America gives you the right to vote for the union,
by a secret ballot , in a booth , where no body knows how you vote A representative
of the Government has charge of the election and no representative or member of the
company can interfere , and there is no way of the company knowing how you vote.
Rumors have been circulated "that the plant will close if the union wins." This is
only to scare somebody , besides it would be a violation of the law . In fact all indus-
tries will be making war materials in some form or another for our national defense
program, so with an American Federation of Labor Union Local 22226 , representing
you, you will be able to obtain the best wages and working conditions , as nearly all
industries in the State of Indiana are enjoying under the American Federation of
Labor.
Remember with no union the most wages you may make is 30¢ per hour.
The law requires the company to enter into a collective bargaining agreement for
better hourly wages, piece work rates , and seniority rights which protect you from
unjust lay offs, and protects you from discrimination such as being forced to take low
rate jobs from higher rate jobs so you will be forced to quit.
Vote to secure your job and your family '! Place your x in the square for the
American Federation of Labor Local 22226, an American institution . Remember
the union protects you when you are getting old, but with no union you have no
place to go for assistance , thus that union security enables you to get better
old age benefits . Help us to better your wages, and conditions of employment, the
American Federation of Labor will render you full assistance.
So secure your job. Vote for the American Federation of Labor Local 22226. The
American Federation of Labor has a membership of 5,000,000 and the Farmers Union
A. F. of L. Committee Local 22226
THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 571
2. If this plant cannot operate at a profit, it will close,-and
there is no law that will keep it open.
3. This plant has no war material business and we do not be-
lieve it will receive any,-but if it does, that business will be
handled at the lowest possible cost to the Government and will
not bring a feast to anyone,-labor union or no labor union.
4. Nobody has: worked in this plant for as little as 30¢ per
hour for many years,-and you all know that.
5: The law does not require the Company to enter into any
collective bargaining agreement or any other agreement of any
kind with any labor union.
The United States Supreme Court,-referring to the Wagner
Act,-says :-
"The Act does not compel agreements between employers and
employes. It does not compel any agreement whatever."
6. The .A. F. of L. says, "Vote to secure your job and your
family."
You already have your job and you already have your family,-
and you did not get either one from the A. F. of L.
You do not need and you never will need the A. F. of L. to
keep your job secure in our plant.
7. The A. F. of L. has nothing whatever to do with Old Age
Benefits.
They are provided by law (not by the A. F. of L.) ,-and the
money for them is provided by you and the Company, (and not
one cent by the A. F. of L.).
Neither the A. F. of L. nor anyone else has any "pull" with
regard to Old Age Benefits.
8. There are only two things you are sure to get if you "go for"
,the A. F. of L.,-that is an obligation to pay union dues and
assessments,-and "union leadership." '
If you read the newspapers you know what "union leadership"
means to the leaders,-and to the followers.
This election is a very serious matter for every one of you
and every one of you should be sure to vote.
Vote the way you want to vote and not the way anybody else
tells you to vote.
That is the only way you can protect yourselves.
Yours very truly,
THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
JOHN H. LETZ. President.
The election of July 12, 1940, was held under the Board's auspices
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. It was incumbent upon the
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent to maintain a position of complete neutrality 6 with respect
to this election. We think it clear that the respondent by its letter
of July 11, 1940, violated its obligation in this respect Thus, sec-
tion 8 of the letter lends itself only to the interpretation that the
respondent was vigorously 'campaigning against votes for the Union.
Similarly, the respondent's emphasis, in section 1, of the employees'
right to vote against the Union revealed to the employees its bias
against the Union. Further, section 2 of the letter, when considered
in the light of Forsyth's above-quoted remarks and the rest of the
record, must be construed as a threat that the plant might close if
the Union won the election.7 We find that, by distributing the
letter of July 11, 1940, the respondent unlawfully interfered, with the
election held under the auspices of the Board.
We find that the respondent by the notices of February. March, and
July 1940, and by the statements of Letz and Whitehead 'in Febru-
ary and of Forsyth shortly before the election of July 12, 1940,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, 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.
The amended complaint also alleged that the respondent spied upon
the Union's meetings . The only evidence adduced at the hearing in
regard to this allegation is as follows : On a certain evening in De-
cember 1939, the Union held a meeting in the Criminal Court House
in Crown Point. Just prior to the opening,of the meeting John
Letz was seen by two employees passing the Court House. The
undisputed evidence reveals that Letz lives on the same street as the
Court House but a block below. Letz testified that it is his custom
to take a walk every evening and that he usually takes the same
route each time, which takes him past the Court House. Crown
Point is a small town of some four or five thousand people, and is
built around the Court House Square. The main business center
of the town is on this Square and the record shows that it was Letz'
habit to traverse the Square on his evening walks.
The amended complaint further alleged that on about'February 10,
1940, Norman Bunde was transferred from the work he ordinarily
performed to unloading coal from railroad cars and other less de-
sirable work, because of his membership in and activity on behalf of
the Union. The respondent admitted that during the period from
6 Cf. Valley Mould and Iron Corporation v. N. L. R. B, 116 F. (2d) 760 (C. C. A. 7).
7 Cf Hobart Cabinet Company v. N. L R B. (C C. A. 6), decided May 8, 1941; Atlas Un-
derwear-Co. v. N. L. R X, 116 F. (2d) 1020 (C. C. A. 6) , N L. R. B v. Asheville Hosiery
Co., 108 F. (2d) 288 (C. C. A. 4). -
THE LETZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 573
February to June 1940 , Bunde occasionally was assigned to the task
of unloading coal , scrap iron , and other raw material from railroad
cars. The respondent 's contention was not disputed that during
slack periods it was its custom to assign production employees to
the task of unloading the railroad cars and that the men were assigned
thereto without regard to their membership or non-membership in
the Union.
The Trial Examiner found that the evidence was insufficient to
support the above allegations and the Union filed no exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's findings . We shall dismiss the allegations of
the complaint that the respondent violated Section 8 ( 1) of the Act
by spying upon union meetings and by transferring Bunde to less
desirable work.
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
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 by various means has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the
Act. We will order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom.
Since the respondent has, by distributing to each of its employees the
letter of July 11, 1940, engaged in unfair labor practices , we will
direct the respondent to distribute remedial notices to each of its
employees as set forth in the Order.
VI. THE PETITION
Since we have found that the respondent has, by its unfair labor
practices , interfered with the free choice of representatives by em-
ployees at the election of July 12, 1940, to which the respondent, had
consented , we shall set the election aside and dismiss the petition
without prejudice.
Upon the basis of the foregoing - findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case , the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1..Federal Labor Union, Number 22226 , affiliated with the-Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act. `
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
4. The respondent has not spied upon union meetings or discrim-
inatorly transferred Norman Bunde to less desirable work in contra-
vention of Section 8 (1) 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 re-
spondent , The Letz Manufacturing Company, Crown Point, Indiana,
and its officers , agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form , join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Distribute notices to each of its employees stating that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraph 1 of the Order;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Crown
Point, Indiana, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days notices stating that the respondent will not engage
in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in para-
graph 1 of the Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region within
ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , in so far as it alleges that
the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in'Section 7 of the Act, by
spying upon union meetings or by transferring Norman Bunde to
less desirable work be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives be, and it hereby is, dismissed , without
prejudice.