The M. A. Hanna Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 962 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE M . A. HANNA COMPANY , AGENT, HANNA IRON
ORE COMPANY OF DELAWARE , HANNA IRON ORE COMPANY MICH.),
HOMER ORE COMPANY MICH.), THE AMERICAN BOSTON MINING
COMPANY MICH . ) and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE,
AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
Cases Nos. C-939 and R-&10.-Decided March 23, 1940
Iron Ore Mining Industry-Intertaiencc. Restrannit, and Coercion: statements,
threats-Company-Dominated Unions: domination, interference with, and sup-
port of employees' organization until Supreme Court upheld constitutionality
of Act; suggestion that old organization be di,solved; furnishing bylaws for
formation of new organization of same type, new organization formed by
employee representatives of old organization ; use of company time and property ;
sponsorship and support by supervisory employees ; recognition as bargaining
agent for its members ; new organization found to be successor of old organiza-
tion ; disestablished, as agent for collective bargaining-Investigation of Repre-
sentatives: controversy concerning representation of employees; refusal to bar-
gain-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all mine employees at five
mines, excluding clerical employees, mine policemen, and supervisory employees-
Election Ordered: to be conducted when circumstances permit free choice of
representatives, unaffected by unfair labor practices ; company-dominated union
excluded from ballot.
Mr. Morris L. Forer, for the Board.
Mr. Henry W. Alderman, of Caspian, Mich., and Mr. J. J. Brown-
lee, of Chicago, Ill., for the S. W. O. C.
Gillette, Nye, Harries c Montague, by Mr. D. D. Harries and
Mr. W. K. Montague, of Duluth, Minn., and Day, Young, Veach, d
LeFever, by Mr. Thomas F. Veach, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the re-
spondent.
Mr. M. S. McDonough, of Iron River, Mich., for the M. W. U.
Miss Edna Loeb, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On April 19, May 13, and May 18, 1938, Steel Workers Organizing
Committee, herein called 'the' S. W. O. C., filed with the Regional
21 N. L. R. B., No. 94.
962
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 963
Director for the Twelfth Region ( Milwaukee , Wisconsin ), charges
and amended charges alleging that The M. A. Hanna Company,
Agent, Hamra Iron Ore Company of Delaware , Hanna Iron Ore
Company (Michigan), Homer Ore Company , and The American
Boston Mining Company," herein called the respondents, had engaged
in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 2) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called
the Act.
On May 18, 1938, the S. W. O. C. filed with the Regional Director
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation- of employees of the respondents, and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act . On the same date, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant
to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
ordered the Regional Director to conduct an investigation and to
provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and , acting
pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2 ), and Article II, Sec-
tion 37 (b), of Rules and Regulations , further ordered that the
representation proceeding and the proceeding with respect to the
alleged unfair labor practices be consolidated for purposes of hearing
and that one record of the hearing be made.
On May 18, 1938 , the Board , by the Regional Director , issued its
complaint, and on May 25, 1938 , issued its amended complaint,
alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting , commerce , within the meaning of
Section 8 ( 1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies
of the complaint , the amended complaint , and accompanying notices
of hearing were duly served upon the respondents , the S. W. O. C.,
and Mine Workers Union , herein called the M. W. U.
The complaint , as amended , alleged ' in substance ( 1) that the
respondents had organized , dominated , interfered with, and con-
tributed financial and other support to Hanna Ore Mine Employees'
Organization , herein called the Employees Organization , a labor
organization , from 1935 to the spring of 1937; ( 2) that the respond-
ents had dominated , interfered with, and contributed financial and
other support to the M. W. U. during the spring and summer of
1937, and were continuing to dominate , interfere with, and support
the M . W. U.; and (3) that by these and other acts , the respondents
had interfered with, restrained , and coerced and were continuing
' This company is also designated The Ameilean-Boston Mining Company in the record.
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to interfere with, restrain, and coerce their employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On May 25, 1938, the respondents filed their answer in which
they denied that the Board had jurisdiction over them and denied
that they had engaged in or were engaging in the, alleged unfair
labor practices.2
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Iron River, Michigan,
on June 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, 1938, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the beginning of the
hearing, the M. W. U. moved for leave to intervene in the con-
solidated proceeding. The motion was granted by the Trial Ex-
aminer. The M. W. U. then filed an answer to the complaint, deny-
ing that the respondents had dominated, interfered with, or con-
tributed financial or other support to it.
Also at the commencement of the hearing, the respondents entered
a special appearance, objected to the introduction of any evidence,
moved to dismiss the complaint, and moved to have the complaint
made more definite and certain. These motions were overruled by
the Trial Examiner.
The Board, the respondents, and the M. W. U. were represented
at the hearing by counsel, the S. W. O. C. by a representative,
and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the
Board's case the M. W. U. joined with the respondents in moving
to dismiss the complaint, the petition, and the entire consolidated
proceeding. The motions were overruled by the Trial Examiner.
During the course of the hearing the motions were renewed, and
they are hereby overruled. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner at the hearing on motions and on objections
to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report,
dated September 21, 1938, in which he found that the respondents
had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint,
and recommended that the respondents cease and desist therefrom
and disestablish the M. W. U. The respondents thereafter filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of their
exceptions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board
at Washington, D. C., on April 20, 1939, for the purpose of oral
argument. The respondents aild the S. W. O. C. appeared by
counsel and participated in the oral argument. The Board has con-
8
Counsel for the respondents at the hearing asked that the answer be accepted as the
respondents ' answer to the amended complaint as well as to the complaint . No objection
was made to this request, and it is hereby granted.
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 965
sidered the exceptions and brief of the respondents and, save as con-
sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds the
exceptions to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
National Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a holding
company constituting, through its subsidiaries, an integrated unit in
the iron and steel industry. One of its subsidiaries is the respondent
Hanna Iron Ore Company of Delaware, a holding company organ-
ized under the laws of Delaware. The latter owns stocks of several
subsidiaries of National Steel Corporation and has investments in
other companies, which operate ore properties supplying the bulk
of the ore requirements of other subsidiaries of National Steel
Corporation. Among the ore operating subsidiaries which are
wholly owned by Hanna Iron Ore Company of Delaware are the
respondents Homer Ore Company, Hanna Iron Ore Company, and
The American Boston Mining Company. These three respondents
are Michigan corporations. They lease iron ore mines near Iron
River, Michigan, and are engaged in operating them through the
agency of the respondent, The M. A. Hanna Company, an Ohio
corporation.
We are here concerned with these mines, which are named the
Homer, the Bates, the Hiawatha No. 1, the Hiawatha No. 2, and the
Rogers ,3 respectively, and are known as the M. A. Hanna Group.
Of the five mines, only the Rogers is not being actively mined by
the respondents. Its machine shop and laboratory are operated,
however, for the benefit of the other four mines.
In 1937 the respondents shipped approximately 837,600 gross tons
of iron ore from the Al. A. Hanna Group to points outside, Michigan.
It appears that in June 1938 the respondents had scheduled for
shipment from the M. A. Hanna Group to States other than
Michigan approximately 250,000 gross tons for the year 1938. In
1937 the ore was shipped from Iron River to Escanaba, Michigan,
at the expense of the respondents Homer Ore Company, Hanna Iron
Ore Company, and The American Boston Mining Company. There
it was turned over to the respondent Hanna Iron Ore Company of
Delaware, which at its expense shipped the bulk of ,it across the Great
S Homer Ore Company holds a lease of the Homer Hanna Iron Ore Company hold,
leases of the Bates and the Hiawatha No 1, and The American Boston Mining Company
holds one of the Hiawatha No 2. Although the precise relationship of the Rogers to the
ore-operating respondents does not appear , it is clear that the five mines are managed
by The M. A. Hanna Company , Agent . The nature of the agency is described below.
283032-41-vol. 21-62
,966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lakes to Hanna Furnace Company, a New York Corporation, The
Weirton Steel Company and Great Lakes Steel Corporation, Dela-
ware corporations. The three latter companies are likewise subsidi-
aries of National Steel Corporation. The Weirton Steel Company
.accepts delivery of shipments of ore at the lake docks in Cleveland
and Ashtabula, Ohio, and transports the ore at its expense to its
plant in Weirton, West Virginia. Great Lakes Steel Corporation
and Hanna Furnace Company accept delivery of ore consigned to
them at their respective lake-front plants in Ecorse, Michigan, and
Buffalo, New York. Only a small quantity of ore is sold to un-
.afiliated companies.
The M. A. Hanna Company operates the M. A. Hanna Group by
virtue of substantially identical agency contracts with the operating
respondents , Homer Ore Company , Hanna Iron Ore Company, and
The American Boston Mining Company. Under the provisions of
these agreements, The M. A. Hanna Company is empowered to super-
vise the management of the mines and the handling, selling, trans-
portation , and delivery of the ore produced therefrom , in the name
,of the operating respondents and subject always to their direction
.and to the specific instructions issued by their boards of directors.
The operating respondents reimburse The M. A. Hanna Company
for all operating costs. They also pay a fair share of the salaries
of all its employees who are engaged partly in connection with the
management and operation of the M. A. Hanna Group and partly
in other connections. All mine employees who are engaged only in
work for the operating respondents, however, are employed and paid
directly by them. The M. A. Hanna Group is operated as an inte-
grated unit under the direct supervision of George M. Cannon, as-
sistant general manager of The M. A. Hanna Company. It is clear
that all the respondents are engaged in a single enterprise and that
the officers and employees of the respondent The M . A. Hanna Com-
pany act for and in behalf of all the other respondents . Accord-
ingly, yve find that the respondents have acted in concert with ,respect
to the alleged unfair labor practices with which we are concerned
in this proceeding, and that they are employers, within the meaning
of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization ,4 herein
called the C. I. O. It admits to membership employees in the steel
industry . Local 1624 is a labor organization, affiliated with the
S. W. O. C. It admits to membership all employees in ore mines
4 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 967
in the vicinity of Iron River, Michigan, exclusive of supervisory
and clerical employees.
Hanna Ore Mine Employees' Organization was an unaffiliated
labor organization which admitted to membership all employees of
the respondents at the M. A. Hanna Group mines, with the exception
of company officials and persons who had the right to hire and
discharge employees.
Mine Workers Union is likewise an unaffiliated labor organization.
It admits to membership all employees of the respondents at the
mines, with the exception of company officials and persons who have
the right to hire and discharge employees "or who hold regularly
a purely supervisory position."
III. TIME UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Hanna Ore Al-bne Eviployeec' 01 ganizataoir,
In 1932 or 1933 the respondents formed the Employees Organiza-
tion for their employees at the M. A. Hanna Group mines. The
respondents had bylaws printed and were active in inducing the
employees to participate in it. The Employees Organization con-
sisted, in substance, of a plan of employee representation for the
presentation to the respondents of grievances 5 and other employment
problems. , We have noted that the , M. A. Hanna, Group as oper-
ated as an intergrated enterprise. In a like manner, the structure
of the Employees Organization embraced all the employees in a
single unit," and employees were automatically eligible to participate
therein merely by virtue of their employment status.' The bylaws
excluded from participation company officials and persons with the
power to hire and discharge, but did not exclude other supervisory
employees. No dues were imposed by the Employees Organization.
The bylaws provided for the annual election of employee representa-
tives from among individuals on the respondents' pay, rolls.7 The
'Employees were permitted to invoke the organization ' s aid regarding giievances only
after they had been unsuccessful in settling them through their individual effoi is A
procedure was fixed by the bylaws for appealing grievances . to successively higher man-
agement officials , with provision for arbitration
' The record is not clear as to whether the Rogers shop employees , only eight in
number , actually participated in the Employees Organization Because the mine itself
Is inactive , the evidence regarding the respondents ' alleged unfair labor practices is
restricted , for the most part , to activity at the four active mines. Howeier, the Rogers
shop employees were eligible to participation under the bylaws of the Employees Organi-
zation, which included "All employees who are enrolled on the Company ' s [respondents']
pay rolls . . ." with only the exceptions noted above -Moreover , they were included in
the membership of the M W. U , the labor organization which succeeded the Employees
Organization , hereinafter discussed The eligibility rules of the two organizations are
identical in this respect.
7 By express provision of the bylaws , the requirement that representatives be em-
ployees was suspended during the lifetime of the National Industrial Recovery Act How-
ever , the record does not show that any non-employee was ever elected a representative
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only evidence in the record regarding the conduct of these elections
relates to one held in April 1937. Around the first part of April,
ballots for the nomination of candidates were issued to the Homer
employees by one of the respondents' clerks. On or about April 14,
Ray C. Mahon, superintendent of the Homer, selected as an election
official Frank Eagloski, a Homer employee who was an Employees
Organization representative, and told him that although the respond-
ents could not pay him directly for serving in this capacity, they
would "fix it up some way." Mahon is a ranking supervisory official
assisted by a staff of six subordinate supervisors. He directs the
operation of the Homer and the work of its force of approximately
115 employees. Eagloski protested that there was to be no election
because the men preferred an "outside" organization to the old "com-
pany union." Mahon overruled his objections, however, saying, "My,
my, Frank, you never gave them the idea that this organization was
a company union. We are turning it over to you men." The elec-
tion was held shortly thereafter on mine property, and the polls
remained open for 8 hours during the working day. Eagloski
assisted in the balloting despite the fact that he was also a candidate,
and the respondents reimbursed him for the time thus spent.
Among the employee representatives holding office in 1937 was
Ernest Erickson, the respondents' chief electrician. It is apparent
that his position is one of considerable importance, for he supervises
the work of all the respondents' electricians, with the assistance of a
head electrician at each mine. Each head electrician is vested with
the ordinary supervisory powers of a foreman, directs a crew of
varying size, and has the right to report employees for disciplinary
action. Unlike ordinary production workers, who are paid upon
piece-work and hourly bases, Erickson and the head electricians are
salaried employees."
The representatives formed committees for the purpose of handling
organizational business. By express provision of the bylaws, com-
mittee meetings were held during working hours; representatives
were reimbursed for the time thus lost from work ; a and each one
was guaranteed against discrimination for "any action taken by him
in good faith in his' representative capacity." It was further pro-
vided that the respondents should appoint a "Management's Repre-
sentative" to keep them in touch with the employee representatives,
8 As a supervisory employee , Erickson was specifically excluded from the bargaining
unit agreed upon at the hearing by the S. W. 0. C and the M W. U. See Section
VIII , infra.
O The latter provision reads as follows : "For the time necessarily lost , in actual at-
tendance at regular meetings or at special meetings of conferences jointly approved,
Representatives [ shall] receive from the Company [the respondents ] payment com-
niensurate with their average earnings " Alfred Konoske , one of the representatives,
testified that they were each paid $5 it month for attendance at meetings.
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 969
and that there should be "joint committees" composed of employee
representatives and representatives named by the respondents, who
night equal but not exceed the number of employee representatives.
There was no provision for general meetings of employees.
The respondents admit that they assisted in the formation of the
Employees Organization and supported it, as described above. Their
conduct prior to July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act, does not
constitute an unfair labor practice. However, the Employees Organi-
zation continued to function under the above bylaws without inter-
ruption until some time in April or May 1937. It is therefore
apparent that for nearly 2 years after the effective date of the Act
-the respondents persisted in dominating and interfering with the
administration of the Employees Organization, and in contributing
-financial and other support to it, within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
of the Act, and we so find. We also find that by this conduct the
respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Formation of Mine Workers Union
In the spring of 1937 the S. W. O. C. began an organizational cam-
paign among the respondents' mine employees and by June had
secured a number of adherents. These employees thereafter became
members of S. W. O. C. Local 1624 and elected officers from among
their ranks.
On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
its decisions sustaining the constitutionality of the Act 10 Thereafter,
on or about April 14, Mahon summoned Eagloski to his office during
working hours and told him that the Employees Organization was
illegal since the Supreme Court had ruled upon the Act. Mahon
stated that the employees could "get lots more out of a local organiza-
tion than out of an outside organization"; that they should therefore
"take over" the old organization and "keep it up, carry it on"; and
that there was "no use" joining an outside organization because it
would cost more money than a local one. Eagloski promised to
discuss the matter with his fellow workers.
At about the same time, James Lucca, a shift boss or foreman 11
on Mahon's staff at the Homer, spoke to Eagloski and several other
employees regarding unions. Lucca and another foreman alternately
supervise The day and night shifts of underground miners at the
Homer , numbering from 30 to 60 persons, and as foremen , have the
power to report employees for disciplinary action. During working
10 N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1, and related cases.
'The titles " foreman" and "shift boss" are applied inteichangeably in the record and
will be so applied herein.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours, Lucca made in substance the following statements to the
employees :
Isn't it foolish, there is around ten thousand miners all around
this district, if one of those miners pay three or four dollars a
month to an outside organization, isn't that foolish to spend all
of that money out of this district to somebody else down below
who will get, you into trouble and you don't get anything out
of it and pay some outsiders when you can have an organization
of your own that will cost you hardly anything and in the long
run you will get lots more out of your own organization ... I
think it was my idea if we organized a union, our local union
here, I think it is much better . . .
Approximately a week later, during working hours, Mahon met
with Eagloski, William Waite, and Chief Electrician Erickson,
members of the Employees Organization grievance committee, al-
legedly for the purpose of selecting Employees Organization coin-
mittee officers. At this meeting Mahon made several statements
regarding union matters, as follows: the respondent The M. A.
Hanna Company treated its employees much better than did another
named company; an "independent union" would be more beneficial
for the employees than an organization having members in the steel
mills; the steel mills were always having trouble with the latter type
of union; affiliation with such an organization would precipitate
strikes at the mines; and the C. I. O. was "a communistic organiza-
tion, carried on by communists." As usual, the committee members
lost no pay for time spent at the meeting.
About 3 or 4 weeks after the issuance of the above-mentioned
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the
Act, George M. Cannon, assistant general manager of the respondent
The M. A. Hanna Company, had a conference with Mahon, J. H.
Reeder, superintendent of the Hiawatha No. 1 and Hiawatha No. 2,
Steve Quayle, superintendent of the Bates, and R. C. Fisch, chief
mine engineer. Cannon announced that since the Act had been
upheld the respondents could no longer legally participate in the
Employees Organization and that it would have to be disorganized.
He instructed the superintendents to explain the matter to the em-
ployee representatives and "tell them that it was up to them as to
what they did with that organization." Cannon gave each superin-
tendent a copy of a document entitled, "By-Laws of HANNA ORE
MINE Employees' Organization," which he directed them to transmit
to the representatives for their use in forming a union to succeed
the Employees Organization, if they so desired. These bylaws,
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 971
herein called the Cannon bylaws, were drawn from the bylaws of
the Employees Organization with only a few material alterations?z
Pursuant to the above instructions, Mahon summoned Eagloski_and_
Erickson to another meeting during working hours, told them what
Cannon had said, gave Eagloski a copy of the said bylaws, urging
him to read them, and stated, "Well, you can take these and you can
use these here for the Independent Union or you can use a part of
them only, and if you don't want to you don't have to use any of
them." The two employees lost no pay for attending the meeting.
Mahon testified that "the main point of handing out this set of
[Cannon] by-laws [was] to show what the company was going to'
stop doing . . . so the men . . . would not ... unconsciously take-
the old set of [Employees Organization] by-laws." This testimony
is not credible. The respondents formulated a set of bylaws which-
were' sufficieiit to create a labor organization. By delivering these
Cannon bylaws to the employee representatives, the respondents were-
fostering the type of organization therein provided for.
Reeder testified that at the time Cannon told him of the constitu-
tionality of the Act and of the discontinuance of the Employees Or-
ganization, Cannon also directed him to instruct his supervisory staff
not to discuss unions, and Reeder testified that he did so. Since
neither Cannon nor Mahon alluded to the issuance of any such instruc-
tions at this time, Reeder's testimony is subject to some question. We-
need not, however, resolve the question for the purposes of this de-
cision. It is sufficient to state that the respondents instituted no gen-
eral rule limiting the speech of their supervisory employees to non-
union subjects, and as will be amply demonstrated hereinbelow,.
numerous supervisory officials, including Mahon and even members of
Reecer's staff, were active in discussing union matters with non-super-
visory employees during working hours. Moreover, the respondents.
issued no general notice to all their employees that the Employees
Organization was to be disbanded or that the respondents were going-
to discontinue their domination and support thereof.13
In view of Chief Electrician Erickson's active participation in the
formation of the organization which succeeded the Employees Organ-
ization, as will appear below, it should be noted that in addition to the'
advice and instruction which he secured from Superintendent Mahon.
at the above-described committee meetings, Erickson requested fur-
ther counsel of Mahon regarding the the relative merits of affiliated
and unaffiliated organizations. Between the last of May and middle of
12 The nature of the Cannon bylaws will be more fully discussed in subsection C, infra.
13 When Cannon was asked whether he notified any ordinary Employees Organization
members , he replied :
I wouldn't say that I did and I wouldn't say that I didn't . I wouldn't be
surprised at all that I did tell individuals , but I don't know of any specific case.
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
July 1937, the two supervisory officials had four or five conversations
on this subject, and Mahon admittedly told Erickson of his preference
for the unaffiliated type of union.
Sometime in May 1937 a- meeting of the Employees Organization
representatives was held in a local tavern. George Miller, one of the
representatives, testified that he called the meeting. It appears that
Erickson also had a part in arranging the gathering. It was he who
told Eagloski to be present. At the meeting the representatives dis-
cussed the desirability of forming a new "independent" organization,
and a majority voted to resolve the issue by a referendum among all
the employees. The minutes of this meeting were posted upon at
least one of the mine bulletin boards, one which was enclosed in a
locked glass case. Only the respondents' timekeeper had a key to the
case. A notice of an election or referendum was also posted.
About a week and a half later, Erickson, Miller, and four other
Employees Organization representatives 14 met together in the open
air by the side of a road. Eagloski and other representatives who at
the tavern meeting had registered opposition to the formation of an-
,other unaffiliated union, were intentionally excluded from this meet-
ing. The six men present discussed plans and bylaws for the proposed
organization, voted unanimously to proceed to form the new union,
and decided to have membership application cards printed. One of
their number was delegated to order the cards. As a result of the
Vote at this meeting, no referendum was conducted, and the employees
were not afforded an opportunity to state whether or not they wanted
another unaffiliated union.
Shortly thereafter, application cards for membership in "Inde-
pendent Mine Workers Labor Association, Iron River District, Hanna
,Ore Employees," herein called the Independent, were circulated at
all five of the mines, to some extent during working hours, by Erick-
son, three or four other Employees Organization representatives, and
two employees not shown to be representatives. Superintendents
Reeder and Mahon were admittedly aware of the circulation of these
cards on company property but took no effective action to bring it to
a halt. Each of these cards bore the usual membership language on
one side but on the other side read as follows:
JOIN NOW ! JOIN NOW ! JOIN NOW !
Independent Mine Workers Labor Association , a union of mine
workers, a union by mine workers , a union for mine workers.
The INDEPENDENT is what the name says. That is, free from
company domination and equally free from the rule of labor
bosses. The INDEPENDENT is a non-profit organization.
14 Jim Jeffries, Tony Vitus, William Waite, and Martin Mattres
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 973
There will be no fat salaries paid to organizers. There will be no
strike fund and no special assessments to support strikes in other
industries. The INDEPENDENT is a union of mine workers, for
mine workers ONLY. Its officers are the men who work in the
mines with you and YOU ALONE CAN SAY who shall be its
officers. The aim of the Independent is GOOD WVAGES,
STEADY WORK AND A SQUARE DEAL FOR ALL. JOIN
NOTV.15
During a safety meeting held at the Homer in the last week of
May or the first week of June, Erickson asked Mahon to explain
"the Independent Union situation." Mahon replied that Erickson
was "putting him on the spot" because he had no instructions from
his superiors regarding such matters, but that he would reveal his
personal observations about unions. Mahon admitted at the hearing
that Erickson had apprised him beforehand of his intention to raise
this subject at the meeting. Mahon told the employees that they
should be careful in selecting their bargaining representative and
illustrated the dangers attendant upon unionization by telling the
story of a child injured because of playing with dynamite. Then,
taking up the respective merits of affiliated and unaffiliated unions,
he stated briefly that the former "had more strength." Mahon went
into considerable detail, however, in describing the advantages of the
local or "inside" organization :
[I told them that] the local union would be made up
of local men who better understood local conditions. In the sec-
ond place they would be better able to know how to handle the
union. The dues would be less and they would not be involved
in any outside dispute . . . [I mentioned the Inland Steel strike]
as an example of the last point. If our company were directly
connected with the Inland Steel which was on strike just at that
time we would have been in danger of being thrown into a strike
which was caused by men and called for men in Chicago and in
which we might not have any interest whatsoever.
Several witnesses testified that he concluded his remarks by stating
that although he wanted to be impartial in his speech, he would like
the employees to join the Independent, or that in his opinion they
would be "better off" if they did so. Mahon denied that he voiced
any such opinion or preference, but in view of Mahon's admitted
predilection for unaffiliated unions and the other testimony, we do
not credit his denial. We find, therefore, that he ended his talk by
expressing his bias in favor of the Independent.
The respondents posted a transcript of Mahon's speech on the
bulletin board, and on the following day during working hours,
"Italics indicates larger letters.
'974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mahon questioned one or two of the workers as to the impression
made by his address.
On or about June 25, 1937, Miller called an employees' meeting in
the city hall auditorium in Iron River,16 allegedly to see if the em-
ployees wanted to organize an "independent" union. Employees
Organization representatives notified employees of the meeting by
word of mouth and the local paper carried an announcement of it.
From 50 to 100 persons were present, including at least one Rogers
shop employee, Clarence Eckart. Blank Independent cards were
available at the front of the hall for employees to sign at that time.
The meeting was opened with a speech by M. S. McDonough, a local
attorney and counsel for the M. W. U. in this proceeding, who was
retained by Erickson, Miller, and several other Employees Organiza-
tion representatives to aid them in the formation of the unaffilated
-organization." He told the employees that they had a right to join
any union they chose, that they were meeting for the purpose of form-
ing a union of their own, and that the organization, then still in its
formative period, numbered among its members about 70 per cent
of the employees. Apparently he based his membership estimate
upon the number of Independent cards signed. He then discussed
the action necessary to form an unaff'ilated union. In the course of
his speech McDonough rhetorically asked the employees, in connec-
tion with the C. I. 0., whether they wanted to pay outside agitators
to tell them what to do and to call strikes. He also announced that
he was not representing the respondents at the meeting, and that
there was no mining company that had any control over him.
At the conclusion of this talk, either McDonough or Miller read
aloud a draft of proposed bylaws for a new organization to be called
Mine Workers Union, and the bylaws were voted upon and adopted.
The employees from the four active mines then separated into four
ii Miller testified that he did not have to pay anything for the use of the hall
r'r McDonough assisted the employees free of charge and thereafter played an active part
in evolving the M W. U McDonough is the owner of a one-sixth fee interest in the
ores and minerals of the Homer and is therefore paid royalties by the respondent Homer
-Ore Company , lessee of the Homer . He has been retained by the respondents as counsel
to defend them against workmen's compensation claims of nine employees , and to do other
occasional work. At some time in the past McDonough had two legal proceedings out-
standing against the respondents, but one of these was instituted pi ioi to the date when
the respondents acquired leasehold rights in the mines, and both antedated McDonough's
retainer by the respondents Miller testified that McDonough had done some work for
him , Erickson , and other Employees Organization iepiesentatives
Miller testified that if the M. W U were vindicated in this pi oceeding, McDonough
was to be paid for his services at the Board hearing The M W U bylaws do not requite
the payment of dues but provide that its expenses shall be met by voluntary contribu-
tions. Miller admitted that the M w U did not retain aun} money in its treasury but
spent it, as soon as collected , on social functions , rental for meeting halls, and the
financial secretary ' s salary He did not indicate the souice from which funds with
which to pay McDonough would be secured
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 975
groups,18 and following the practice established during the regime of
the Employees Organization, each group selected its representatives
from among three categories of workers, the underground miners, the
surface workers, and the machine-shop employees. Some person
present moved to have Miller assume the presidency of the new
organization, and he accepted the office allegedly on the condition
that the M. W. U. should not use the Independent cards, which had
been circulated on company property and to some extent on company
time.
Thereafter, M. W. U. membership cards were issued and Erickson
distributed them among a number of employees in the engine room
,of the Homer during the meal hour.
C. Structure and operation of Mine Workers Union
We have found that coincident with Cannon's announcement that
the Employees Organization would have to be discontinued as a result
of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on April
12, 1937, Cannon transmitted the Cannon bylaws to the Employees
Organization representatives for their use in forming a new organiza-
tion. We have noted that the Cannon bylaws are entitled "By-Laws
of . . . [the] Employees' Organization" and that they were drawn
from the original bylaws of that organization with only a few mate-
rial alterations. They contain a preamble,19 a feature which the old
bylaws lacked ; omit the provision for the conduct of committee meet-
ings during working hours; and in lieu of the paragraph providing
for reimbursement of employee representatives, contain the
following :
When permitted by the National Labor Relations Act or such
other legislation as may be applicable, the Representatives may
accept reimbursement from the company [respondents] at their
regular rates for time or pay loss by them while acting in a
representative capacity.
The Cannon bylaws exclude the provisions for management repre-
sentatives and joint committees, but retain the articles providing for
an annual conference between employee and management representa-
tives. The instrument follows the pattern of the old bylaws in
78 Eckart, the Rogers shop employee present, joined the group of Bates employees
The record does not show Whether any other Rogers shop employees were present and
did likewise.
19 The preamble reads :
The following plan is for the purpose of providing an effective oiganizalion and a
procedure for an orderly method of collective bargaining with the employers on all
matters peitaining to wages, hours , grievances and working conditions , to facilitate a
fair adjustment of any controversies ; and to promote a spirit of fair dealing in the
mutual interest of the employees and employers
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exacting no dues but contains a new paragraph, entitled "Expense
of Plan," providing that the expenses of the organization would be
met by voluntary payments by employees "or by such other means
as the Committee may devise, but no contribution shall be required
to entitle an employee to vote or have representation."
Although Miller testified that he prepared a rough draft of the
M. W. U. bylaws largely by excerpting provisions from the constitu-
tion or bylaws 'of International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers, and that any resemblance to the Employees Organization
bylaws was coincidental, inspection of the M. W. U. and Cannon
bylaws, both in evidence, reveals that the M. W. U. bylaws copy
from the Cannon bylaws and are modeled after them. For example,
the M. W. U. bylaws adopt in its entirety the preamble of the Cannon
bylaws. The only significant paragraph of the Cannon bylaws which
was omitted from the M. W. U. bylaws was that providing for
payment of employee representatives.
Like the Employees Organization and Cannon bylaws, the
M. W. U. bylaws make no provision for general membership meet-
ings. Likewise, it appears that the M. W. U. bylaws allow employees
to participate in the organization merely by virtue of their employ-
ment status, and, as Miller testified, an employee does not have to
sign a card to become an M. W. U. member.
D. Further interference, restraint, coercion, support, and d'oi ination
The respondents, by numerous acts and statements in addition to
those set forth above, apprised the employees of their hostility to-
ward the C. I. O. and of their support of the unaffiliated organization,
and otherwise coerced the employees.
At a conference between representatives of the S. W. O. C. and the
respondent on October 22, 1937, the S. W. O. C. submitted a proposed
contract which provided, among other things, for recognition of the
S. W. O. C. as bargaining agent for its members among the mine
employees. Thomas F. Veach, attorney for the respondents, refused
to execute the contract and stated, ". . . we don't want to recognize
the C. I. O. now because of the fact that it would point back to the
automobile industry" where "unlawful strikes" were then in progress.
In declining to deal with the S. W. O. C., Veach characterized mem-
bers of the C. I. O. as "nothing but wildcatters." Following the con-
ference, Assistant General Manager Cannon sent a letter to the em-
ployees in which the respondents announced that they had "been
approached by a committee of C. I. O. organizers who claim to repre-
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 977
sent some of our employees," that they had refused to sign the con-
tract proposed by the committee, and that
We Avant to assure you that no person has to join any union to
get or hold a job with this company. If at any time there is any-
thing you want to talk over with us, you know our door is always
open to you or to any representatives you want to select. We are
always glad to discuss our mutual problems with you and will do
anything we consistently can to improve conditions in our
business.
From the somewhat vague testimony of Cannon, it appears that Can-
non informed both the M. W. U. and the S. W. O. C. that "we were
always glad to meet any of our employees at any time and always had
been."' It appears from Miller's testimony that in December 1937 the
respondents agreed to deal with the M. W. U. as collective bargaining
representative of its members.
In May 1937 Cannon asked Arthur J. Bal, recently or about to be
hired, whether he preferred a "local or an outside union." When the
S. W. 0 C. complained to Cannon in July 1937 that the respondents
were discriminating in favor of the M. W. U., Cannon replied: "Well,
I can't see where you guys are kicking. You had three or four weeks
start ahead of us."
Superintendent Mahon, during working hours; urged employees to
join the independent type of organization, admittedly praised its
merits, and disparaged the S. W. O. C. For example, early in the
organizational campaign of the Independent, he had an argument
regarding unions with Joseph Dabeck and his work partner, em-
ployees Mahon argued in favor of an unaffiliated union, commented
that it was "too bad" that Dabeck had joined the S. W. O. C., and
advised him that under the circumstances it was only fair to the
respondents for him to quit their employ and return to the mine at
which he had formerly worked. In June or July 1937, during work-
ing hours. Mahon asked Terzo Capadagli, an employee, if he thought
`-the independent union" would be better than the C. I. O. Capadagli
replied in the negative, stating in substance that the old "company
union" had never benefited the men and that he did not expect more
from the new one. Mahon said, "Oh, this one is going to be dif-
ferent . . . It is funny you signed up a C. I. O. card and you didn't
sign up one of the independent union cards." Mahon then char-
acterized the C. I. O. as "a bunch of Communists." On another
occasion during the same period, Mahon told Capadagli that he could
withdraw from the S. W. O. C. by submitting a written resignation,
and on still another, told him that the union was "only a racket."
Shortly after the safety meeting in May or June 1937, Mahon asked
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joe Zera, Jr., an employee, during working hours, "... considering
all we have done for you, do you think it was nice for you to join an
outside union?" He said that he would like Zera to participate in the
local union, and advised him "to think it over:" Two or 3 weeks later
Zera resigned from the S. W. O. C. Around the same time, Mahon
called William Koponen, an employee, from his work and asked if he
had joined "the independent union." Koponen said, "No," and
Mahon rejoined, "Well, you better go up to the machine shop and sign
up right now." Koponen obeyed, signed an application card fur-
nished by Erickson, and withdrew from the S. W. O. C. Mahon made
similarly coercive statements to the following employees : Alfred
Wigren and his partner Carl 20 Nels Kangas, and Joe Zera, Sr.
Following the complaint of the S. W. O. C. in July 1937, Cannon
instructed Mahon to cease talking to employees in behalf of the
M. W. U. and against the S. W. O. C. and it does not appear that
Mahon departed from this direction.21 By that time, however, the
M. W. U. had already been established by the Employees Organi-
zation representatives under the sponsorship and with the support
of Cannon, Mahon, Erickson, and other supervisory employees. It
does not appear that the respondents informed the employees of the
instruction to Mahon or took any steps to eliminate the coercive
effect of the activity of Mahon or other persons identified with
management. Moreover, the record reveals similar activity after
July 1937 by persons so identified.22
Mine captains are subordinate in rank to superintendents, superior
to shift bosses or foremen, and have the power to lay off employees.
Peter 'Kuchan, assistant nine captain of the Hiawatha No. 2, aids
in outlining the work and observing safety conditions, and acts as
mine captain in the absence of the regular mine captain. Kuchan
supervises approximately 60 employees. Kuchan admittedly spoke
to several employees about labor organization, advising them that
the employees could "get along" without unions, that "eve have been
working here 35 years without the union. We can get along another
10 or 15," and that the respondents were "good" to their employees.
Upon the complaint of Frank Buczak's partner, an employee, con-
cerning his wages in or about August 1937, Kuchan stated: "If the
C. I. O. gets strong enough they will buy you machines . . . if
the C. I. O. gets strong enough they will, the men will boss the bosses
instead of the bosses bossing the men." Joseph Passamani, an em-
20 Carl ' s last name is not indicated in the record.
2' Mahon admitted that after July 1937 he periodically discussed union matters with
Erickson, chief electrician. The record does not reveal the specific nature of these
discussions. '
22 Cf. Swift & Company v. N. L. R. B., 106 F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10).
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 979'
ployee, testified that during working hours in the winter of 1937-
1938, Kuchan asked him what he thought of unions. Passamani said,
"0. K.," and then Kuchan inquired which union he preferred. Passa-
inani replied that he preferred the C. L O., and Kuchan stated
that the C. I. O. would not "amount" to anything at the respondents'
mines. John Pavich, another employee, testified that Kuchan ad-
vised him to withdraw from the C. I. O. Although Kuchan denied
the above-quoted testimony of Passamani and Pavich, on this record
we find that Kuchan made in substance these statements which they
attributed to him.
Charley Wissuri, foreman at the Hiawatha No. 2, asked Buczak,
an employee, in June 1937 during working hours, why he did not
join the independent organization. The latter replied that he did
not feel that it would help the men, and Wissuri became so angry
that he refused thereafter to speak with Buczak. When Wissuri
discovered that Pavich was a S. W. O. C. member, Wissuri told him,
"John, you make mistake. You got, you do better if you quit that
C. I. 0., you would be better off." In the latter part of the summer
of 1937, he questioned John Dallafeor, an employee, about the C. I. O.
and then attacked it, saying, "Well, listen, John, you think it is right
to go and pay three dollars a month, for the C. I. 0., just to give to
them big fellows down there, John L. Lewis, pay him a million
dollars a year there." Dallafeor asked if Wissuri wanted him to
join the unaffiliated organization, and the latter replied, "Sure, that
is what we want. It don't cost you nothing . . . John L. Lewis
and all the bunch is a bunch of Reds."
Emil Johnson, a foreman at the Bates, approached John Bakarich
and another Bates employee during working hours in October 1937,
shortly after the respondents' announcement that it had refused to
bargain with the S. W. O. C., inquired, "John, what is the C. I. O.
going to do now?" and then said, "Well, I will tell you, John, this
company won't recognize no C. I. O. because he is not American
union. It is imported. Somebody imported from Russia that com-
pany, Bolshevik . . . American Federation and the Independent
Union, that is American union. Ask George Miller . . . He will
tell you about it." On or about May 16, 1938, Johnson told Martin
Hookanson, a Bates employee, that in the event of a Board-conducted
election, "there won't be no more mines, and the company won't
recognize no union," and about the same time told Andrew Martinson,
another Bates employee, that the employees "would be better off with-
out any union whatever." On May 18, 1938, Johnson questioned
Martinson and George Petzen, his mine partner, concerning S. W.
O. C. meetings. Upon Martinson's refusal to divulge any informa-
tion, Johnson stated : "Well, never mind that, I can find out about
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the union. I can bet you, I can tell you more about what is going
on in the union than what you can do yourself, because I can find
out from one gang to another." On May 25, 1938, Johnson cursed
Henry W. Alderman, the S. W. O. C. organizer, in the presence of
Martinson and Petzen.
Foreman Lucca, as we have noted, told Eagloski in April 1937.
that it was folly to pay dues to an affiliated union when a local
union could be formed. Thereafter, Lucca advocated the intramural
organization in statements during working hours to Frank Dahl and
Al Fred Wigren, employees.
The respondents contend in their brief that "for the most part"
the conversations between the shift bosses and the employees with
respect to unions "were conducted in an entirely friendly manner,
with considerable `kidding' back and forth." Without regard to
flue "manner" in which the conversations were conducted, whether
"friendly" or "kidding," the record in its entirety establishes that
the shift bosses and the other supervisory employees made their
statements concerning labor organization in order to induce the
employees to affiliate with the local organization and to dissuade
them from affiliating with the S. W. O. C.23
E. Conciud i'g find tugs
Attorney Veach, Assistant General Manager Carrion, Superin-
tendent Mallon, Assistant Captain Kuchan, Chief Electrician Erick-
son, and Foremen Lucca, Wissuri, and Johnson, in engaging in the
above-described conduct, were acting in behalf of the respondents.
Because the respondents dominated, interfered with, and sup-
ported the formation and administration of the Employees Organi-
zation, and because of the other circumstances set forth in this
record, we find that Miller, Erickson, and other Employees Organi-
23 That the respondents recognize the serious purpose of the statements is shown in
their brief by their admission that the conversations were sometimes "quite spirited,"
and by their statement that
The shift bosses . . . could not be expected to remain silent when all the dis-
cussions relative to union affiliations were going on during the months of May and
June , 1937. It was just as natural for them to talk with the men as for the men
to talk among themselves.
Also in this connection , the respondents ' brief states that the shift bosses " were old
miners, friends of the men working under them , accustomed to talk and argue with them
over various matters ." In view of this argument the following language of the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is peculiarly applicable:
The position of the employer, where . as here, there is present genuine and sincere
ienpect and regard , cairies such weight and influence that his words may be coercive
when they would not be so if the relation of master and servant did not exist.
X L It B v The Falk Corporation , 102 F ( 2d) 383 (C. C A 7), 60 Sup Ct 307,
enf'g, Matter of The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Ass,pciattioan of Iron, Steel
and Tin Workers of North ,I meiira , etc, 6 N L R B 654.
THE M. A. HANNA COMPANY, AGENT 981
-zation representatives acted in behalf of the respondents in forming
and administering the M. W. U.21
The record demonstrates the intimate relationship between the
Employees Organization, the Independent, and the M. W. U., and
between these organizations and the respondents. Neither the
changes of name nor the ostensible discarding of the Independent
cards at Miller's instance can conceal the-continuity in the respond-
ent's interference with self-organization. These alterations were
merely formal and did not affect the substance. For example, Miller
admitted that the Independent and the M. W. U. were an outgrowth
of the same organizational efforts. Cannon understood that the
Independent and the M. W. U. were the same organization. The
M. W. U. paid for the Independent cards.
Upon all the -evidence it is clear that the respondents conceived
of a new inside union as a buffer to the S. W. O. C. drive. They
encouraged the employee representatives to form an intramural
organization to replace the patently illegal Employees Organization,
giving them bylaws to insure that the successor organization would
be modeled after the Employees Organization. Pursuant thereto,
the employee representatives promoted the Independent and the
M. W. U., pursuing their organizational activities on company time
and property. Other management representatives-Veach, Cannon,
Mahon, Erickson, Kuchan, the shift bosses-assisted in these en-
deavTors by their advocacy of or self-identification with the intra-
mural organization, as well as by their opposition to the, S. W. O. C.
Upon this record, testimony by employees that their participation in
the M. W. U. was not secured through interference or coercion and
that they preferred the M. W. U. to the S. W. O. C. is entitled to
little or no weight.25
We find that the respondents have dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the M. W. U., and have con-
tributed support to it; and that by their aforesaid acts, the respond-
24Intenational Association of Machinists, etc v N L 1t B . 311 U S 72 In enfocmg
an order of the Board , the Court stated
Byroad . Shock . Trouts and Bolander combined in themselves the capacities
of . . . active soliciting agents and promoters of Acme welfare until it gave up the
ghost . . [and] principal organizeis for I A . M . . Acme welfare was a
company union It follows necessarily that its leading promoters were company
representatives Men accustomed to such submission seldom regain independence over-
night The interval , if there was one. required for . . . [ their] transfer of alle
glance . from Acme welfare and the company to I A M was too brief for
disruption of the old and basic loyalty The evidence supports the conclusion that
it was not disrupted , but continued , though manifested in less obvious but more
effective form All that they did , therefore , is imputable to the company . .
20 See N L R B v Brown Paper Mill Company , Inc, 310 U S 651 elf g
Mattei of Brown Paper Mill Company . etc and International Brotherhood of
Paper Mal. ers. etc, 1 2 N I. R. B . 60; Matter of West Kentucky Coal Company and
United Mine iVorkeis of America , etc, 10 N L R B 88; Matter of American Scale Com-
pany and International Molders Union of North America, etc, 14 N L R B 971
283032-41-vol 21 6 3
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their 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 pur-
poses of collective bargaining, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents
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
Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act and to restore as nearly as possible the conditions which
existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondents dominated and interfered
with the administration of and contributed financial and other sup-
port to the Employees Organization. Our finding would ordinarily
warrant the issuance of an order directing the respondents to dis-
establish the organization as a representative of their employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining, but we shall withhold such
an order since it is apparent from the record that this labor organiza-
tion has ceased to exist. However, in order to bar a resumption or
repetition of the activities which constituted the unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall order the respondents to cease and desist from domi-
nating, interfering with, or contributing support to, the Employees
Organization.
We have found that the respondents have dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of and contributed sup-
port to the M. W. U. Its continued existence is a consequence of
violation of the Act, thwarting the purposes of the Act,,ancl render-
ing ineffective a mere order to cease the unfair labor pr actices.2 In
order to effectuate the policies of the Act and free the employees of
the respondents from such domination and interferen.ce-