The Perfection Steel Body Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 99 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY (A. H. A. THE
PERFECTION BURIAL VAULT COMPANY) and LOCAL 1151, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F. OF L.
Case No. C-900.-Decided April 03,1940
Steel Vault, Dump Body, and Hoist Manutacturing Industry-Interference,
Restraint , and Coercion : insertion of letter in pay envelopes of employees with
pamphlet emphasizing negatively provisions of Act; questioning employees con-
cerning union membership and activities ; statements of president and of super-
visory officers derogatory to union; dilatory tactics in response to request of
union for collective bargaining-Company Dominated Union: domination of and
interference with formation and administration and lending support thereto ;
statements of president and of supervisory officials urging employees' membership
in "inside" organization ; pamphlet regarding Act put in pay envelopes of em-
ployees emphasizing creation and operation of "inside" organization; distribu-
tion of cards on company time and property soliciting support of and announc-
ing meeting of organization ; alacrity of company in entering into contract with ;
testimony of majority of employees regarding voluntary joining of , without
interference, and absence of coercion , immaterial under circumstances ; disestab-
lished, as agency for collective bargaining; contract with, abrogated.
Mr. Peter Di Leone, for the Board.
Mr. Herman L. Weisman, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. A. G. Skundor, of Bethlehem, Pa., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Ralph S. Rice, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Local 1151, International Association
of Machinists, A. F. of L., herein called the I. A. M., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), on June 15, 1938,
issued and duly served its complaint against The Perfection Steel
Body Company, also known as The Perfection Burial Vault Com-
pany, Galion, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alldging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair, labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
23 N. L. R. B, No 11
99
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
49 Stat. 449 , herein called the Act. Concerning the unfair labor
practices , the complaint, in substance , alleged that the respondent (1)
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed 'in Section 7 of the Act and (2 ) on or about
March 1, 1937, and at all times subsequent thereto, fostered , encour-
aged, dominated , interfered with, and aided a labor organization of
its employees known as Galion Metal Workers Association , herein
called the Association . The respondent filed an answer denying that
it had engaged in unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the
I. A. M., a hearing was held on July 1, 2, 5, and 6, 1938, at Galion,
Ohio, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Board . The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel ; the I . A. M., by its authorized representative . All partici-
pated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded to all parties. Subsequent to the hearing and
pursuant to leave granted thereat, the respondent filed a brief with
the Trial Examiner.
During the hearing the Trial Examiner made several ru l ings on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On September 6, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was 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. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from inter-
fering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization , from dominating or interfering with
the formation or administration of the Association , or any other
labor organization , and from contributing financial or other support
thereto, and that the respondent withdraw all recognition from the
Association as representative of its employees and completely dis-
establish the Association as such representative.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondent
on September 19, 1938. Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, the
respondent filed a brief with the Board on June 14, 1939. Pursuant
to request therefor by the respondent and notice to all parties , a hear-
ing was held before the Board in Washington , D. C., on June 16, 1939,
for the purpose of oral argument. Counsel for the respondent and a
representative of the I. A. M. appeared and participated therein.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and, except as they are consistent with the findings , conclusions, and
order hereinbelow set forth , finds them to be without merit.
THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY 101
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Perfection Steel Body Company, also known as The Perfection
Burial Vault Company, the respondent, is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Ohio, having its principal place of
business at Galion, Ohio. It is engaged in the business of manufactur-
ing steel dump bodies, hoists, and various types of steel vaults, includ-
ing burial vaults. In 1937 the respondent purchased raw materials,
used by it in its manufacturing operations, of a value of $211,085.50.
Fifty per cent of these raw materials were obtained by the respondent
outside the State of Ohio. During the same year the total sales of
the respondent's products amounted to $432,555.72. Ninety per cent
of these products were sold and transported to States other than the
State of Ohio and to foreign countries.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1151, International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L.,
is a labor organization admitting to its membership all machinists,
mechanics, specialists, machinist's helpers, helper apprentices, produc-
tion workers, and apprentices employed by the respondent.
Galion Metal Workers Association is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation admitting to membership all employees of the respondent
except foremen and employees having the power to hire and discharge.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Chronology of events
In the spring of 1937 the I. A. M. instituted an organizational drive
among the respondent's employees. At the hearing the I. A. M.
claimed that by June 1937 it had as members 42 of the respondent's 73
employees. Having procured a majority of the respondent's employ-
ees as members , the I. A. M. arranged for a bargaining conference
with the respondent which took place on June 5, 1937.
On June 11, 1937, Harry Cohen, the respondent's president,' pre-
pared and had mimeographed letters which, at his direction, were
inserted in the pay envelopes of all the employees. There was en-
closed with each letter a printed circular entitled "Some Questions
'Herein referred to as Cohen , as distinguished from his son , Ralph Cohen , who is secre-
tary and treasurer of the respondent
283034-41-vol. 23--8
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Answers Concerning the Wagner Act." This purported to ex-
plain the Act and the rights of employers and employees there-
under . In discussing the circular and the Act in his letter, Cohen
wrote that "particular emphasis is put on the fact that the law does
not compel you to join any Union organization . That is your privi-
lege, and if you can afford the luxury of paying dues, you have a per-
fect right to join any Union or any organization that you may select
... it is not necessary to pay for the privilege of working in the
Perfection factory ... You earn your pay fairly and honestly.
There is absolutely no reason to pay dues for this privilege . . . You
can collective bargain individually or as group representation. It
is not at all necessary for you or any other persons in our employ to
pay dues to any organization to have the privilege of collective
bargaining."
The circular enclosed with Cohen's letter points out, inter alia, that
the Act permits "collective bargaining through representatives other
than C. I. O. or A. F. of L . representatives ," and that "Employe rep-
resentation plans and plant unions are recognized by the Act and there
is no distinction made in the Act between such employe organizations
on the one hand and outside labor unions on the other hand."
Following the issuance of the circular letter and pamphlet, the re-
spondent immediately proceeded to ascertain who among its employees
had joined the I. A. M. Perry Brick, the superintendent, and a
foreman asked several individuals whether they were members of the
I. A. M. The interest manifested by the respondent in the member-
ship and activities of the I. A. M. is also reflected in a foreman's
questioning an I. A. M. member as to "how the Union was coming
along."
During the time that inquiries were being made by the supervisory
force as to the union affiliation of the employees, Cohen called a
number of the I . A. M members to a conference at his office , at which
time, among other things , the preparation of a cheaper type of burial
vault was discussed. At the hearing, Cohen denied that he had dis-
cussed union activities at this meeting. The testimony of employees
who were present, however , indicates that Cohen devoted a considerable
portion of the time spent in the conference to an attack upon union
activities . One of these employees, Mackey, testified , "He told us
that he did not like to see us pay out this kind of money for the benefits
we were receiving . . . The argument was he would rather see an
organization in the shop." Another employee present, Spears , testi-
fied that Cohen stated at the meeting that he did not want any "out-
sider coming in and telling him how to run his business." Still another
employee, Jourdan, testified that Cohen "did not just mention a shop
organization . He said an organization here would be better than
THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY 103
sending the money out of town. He was not going to have a stranger
enter in there and run his business"; and that Cohen further stated
"that he would have nobody running his business, that he would close
his shop first." In view of the agreement among the employees who
were present at the meeting and the specificity of their testimony
regarding the discussion, we find that Cohen discussed union activities
at this meeting.
During the summer of 1937, numerous statements were made by
the respondent's supervisory force further indicating to the employ-
ees the respondent's anti-union animus and its preference for an
inside or shop organization to an outside labor organization.
Perry Brick, the respondent's superintendent, told Frank John-
stone, an employee, concerning the I. A. M., that he "really didn't
think we needed it in a small plant."
John Neikirk, another employee, testified that Brick told him,
after he had denied joining the I. A. M., "Well, you better not; the
old man [Cohen] is against it, and your job is not worth a dime if
you do. Hold your pants on and we will get a company union of
our own which is what the old man wants." While the respondent
attacked the credibility of Neikirk's testimony and pointed out vari-
ous inconsistencies and evasions in other portions thereof, we are
not called upon to decide how we would have regarded Neikirk's
testimony had the conversation concerning which he testified been
denied by Brick. The latter, however, was not called by the re-
spondent as a witness, nor was the respondent's failure to do so
explained. Neikirk's testimony stands undisputed in the record and,
under the circumstances, we accept it and find that Brick made the
statement attributed to him by Neikirk.
Edward Quinn, an employee, testified that Vere Finical, a fore-
man, told him : "Eddie, the old man is not in favor of organizing
right now and you had better be careful about talking unionism or
you may not have a job very long." Finical denied the conversation
but admited that he had instructed Quinn not to hand out union
cards during working hours and that Quinn had agreed to stop
doing so. Quinn's testimony impresses us in this and other respects
with its frankness and fairness. Much of Finical's testimony, on
the other hand, is inconsistent and at times is at direct variance with
the testimony of other witnesses called by the respondent. We ac-
cept the testimony of Quinn and find that Finical made the state-
ment attributed to him.
Mackey and Jourdan both testified that Gus Lowmiller, a. fore-
man, told them that, Cohen might shut the plant down because of
the union activities. Mackey testified that Lowmiller told him:
"Well, the old man won't like it [the I. A. M.] and he may shut the
shop down." Jourdan claims that Lowmiller, referring to the I. A. M.,
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told him, "It is not going to do you no good because the old man
is raising hell about it and he will shut the plant down if it con-
tinues." At the hearing, Lowmiller denied making these statements.
He stated, however, that he had told Mackey that he was "surprised"
when Mackey told him that he was an I. A. M. member, and that he
had said to Jourdan "a man of your age would go ahead and do a
thing like that" when Jourdan admitted intending to join the
I. A. M. Since the statements of Mackey and Jourdan support each
other, and since Lowmiller admits that he discussed union matters
with them and spoke of the union disparagingly, we accept the ver-
sion of the conversations given by Mackey and Jourdan and find
that Lowmiller made the statements they attribute to him.
Ralph Cohen, secretary and treasurer of the respondent, told
Leonard Houseberg, an applicant. for employment with the respond-
ent during the latter part of June 1937, that the I. A. M. had not
yet been organized and that " . . . he would a whole lot rather have
an organization through the shop . . . If it was organized through
the other company,2 they [the respondent] would a whole lot rather
close the doors than have someone come in and run their business."
This conversation was not denied by Ralph Cohen.
During the spring and early summer months of 1937 as the respond-
ent's anti-union activities continued, the I. A. M.'s organizational
activities grew correspondingly more feeble, until, as one witness
expressed it, the I. A. M. was "in a state of suspended animation."
This situation continued until the first part of January 1938, when
A. G. Skundor, an organizer for the I. A. M., came to Galion, Ohio.
At that time a new campaign for members was carried on at the
respondent's plant, and by February 15, the I. A. M. had secured 35
employees of a total of 51 as members. That date, when Skundor
with two other members of the I. A. M. interviewed Cohen at his
office in an attempt to secure recognition for the I. A. M. as collective
bargaining agent for the employees, was the first occasion upon which
Skundor's activities came to the attention of the respondent. Skun-
dor told Cohen that the I. A. M. had been designated as their collec-
tive bargaining agent by 35 employees, who constituted a majority
of the employees in the plant. Cohen denied that 35 employees con-
stituted such a majority. However, at the hearing, the respondent's
pay-roll clerk testified that on January 12, 1938, there were but 69
men on the pay roll ; on February 16, but 62; and on March 16, but 54.
Cohen, at the hearing, testified that he had been mistaken in his
estimate as to the number of the respondent's employees, but failed
to explain his making the misrepresentation. Nor had Cohen at any
2 This evidently refers to the fact that the I. A. M. had organized the plant of one of the
respondent 's competitors.
THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY 105
time subsequent to his misinforming Skundor regarding the number
of the respondent's employees sought to correct the misrepresentation.
Cohen also testified that, although he knew that the I. A. M. was
entitled to bargain collectively if it represented a majority of the
employees, he had told Skundor that he wanted to wait and look
over the law before entering into collective bargaining.
Some time following the conference of February 15, Ralph Cohen
approached Homer Price, an employee, and inquired if he had signed
an application card for the I. A. M. Price replied that he had
signed such a card and Ralph Cohen said : "You better be careful
what you are signing because Mr. Skundor is pretty shrewd." Ralph
Cohen also told another employee, C. E. Kersch, that he was check-
ing up on the affiliation of the employees and on Skundor's claim that
the I. A. M. represented a majority, and interrogated Kersch as to
whether he was affiliated with the I. A. M.
On March 15 Cohen again conferred with Skundor and two other
I. A. M. representatives. At that time Cohen stated that "the under-
standing was the employees did not want" the I. A. M.
2. Conclusions
The effect of Cohen's June 11, 1937, letter to the employees and
the circular enclosed therewith was clearly to discourage membership
in the I. A. M. Prior to the issuance of the letter and circular, the
employees had felt that Cohen was sympathetic toward the I. A. M.,
but, as John Spears, an employee, testified, "After that letter came
out they changed their minds quick." Another employee, Price,
testified that after he received the letter of June 11, "I read that letter
over and I thought it meant that Mr. Cohen felt like he didn't want
us in that A. F. of L. union and so I dropped out."
However, it is not necessary to consider the employees' interpreta-
tion of the letter and the circular. A reading of them compels the
conclusion that they interfered with, restrained, and coerced the recipi-
ents in the exercise of their rights under the Act. The reference
in the letter to "luxury of paying dues" and the statements that "it
is not necessary to pay for the privilege of working in the Perfection
factory" and that "it is not at all necessary for you or any other
persons in our employ to pay dues to any organization to have the
privilege of collective bargaining," interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act
by disparaging the I. A. M. and indicating that in the respondent's
eyes those who joined the I. A. M. were wasting money. Such
remarks addressed by an employer to his employees are not regarded
by the employees as abstract expressions. Because of his superior
economic power, the employer who expresses himself to his employees
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as did the respondent here induces action in derogation of self-
organization. Nowhere is this more true and more apparent than
where, as in the instant case, the remarks are addressed to the em-
ployees by means of their pay envelopes, the very source of their
livelihood.
Similarly, the circular enclosed with the June 11 letter is wholly
misleading, confining itself almost entirely to stating what the provi-
sions of the Act do not purport to do, without adequately or accu-
rately listing the rights which the Act guarantees to employees. We
have condemned the distribution of similar literature by employers
as violative of the Act.3
It should be noted, moreover, that the letter and circular were dis-
tributed to the employees less than a week following the first con-
ference between the respondent and the I. A. M., a point crucial in a
union's organizational activities, and that the letter was addressed to
this very exigency.4 Regardless of the effect of such letters and
circulars in times of organizational quiescence, Cohen's letter of June
11 and the circular enclosed therewith were calculated and bound to
have an electric effect.
The course of events following the distribution of the letter and
circular also indicates the respondent's interference with and restraint
and coercion of its employees in their exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act. In view of the respondent's declared
antipathy to the I. A. M., the inquiries made by supervisory em-
ployees as to the union affiliation of the employees were obviously not
academic. Rather, the inquiries were made under such circumstances
that they must have carried the implication that action would be
taken on the basis of the answers. Such an approach by an employer
to his employees constitutes an interference with their right to self-
organization. Such interference was supplemented and intensified
by the threats of the respondent to close the plant rather than deal
with a union and by the succession of statements made by the respond-
ent's officers and supervisory employees indicating its preference for
an,inside organization rather than a union like the I. A. M.
As indicated above, these activities of the respondent were, from its
standpoint, successful in that they resulted in the I. A. M.'s "state of
suspended animation." Thereafter, when the I. A. M. again sought
3 See Matter of Mansfield Mills, Inc . and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 3 N L
R B. 001 ; Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery
Worlers, 0 N L . R B 284, enf'd, N L R . B v. Nebel Knitting Company, Inc , 103 F. (2d)
594 (C. C. A. 4) ; Witter of Link Belt Company and Lodge 1604 of Amalgamated Association
of Iron. Steel and Tin Workers of North America through the Steel Workers Organizing
Committee affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 12 N L. R B 854.
4 The opening sentence of the letter reads , "It has conic to our notice in the past week or
ten days that union organizers have been active in soliciting your membership in their
organization "
THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY 107
to organize the respondent's employees, the respondent promptly
resumed its anti-union activities. At the conference with I. A. M.
representatives on February 15, 1938, Cohen's misrepresentation of
the number of the respondent's employees and his stated desire to
examine the law before bargaining with the I. A. M. were obviously
mere pretexts serving the respondent's well-defined policy of delay
and misrepresentation in order to avoid entering into collective bar-
gaining negotiations. Such an avoidance could not but discourage
membership in the I. A. M. The respondent's renewed inquiries of
its employees as to their union membership further served to imple-
ment its policy in this respect.
The respondent maintains that its above-described activities do
not constitute unfair labor practices because its employees were not
thereby intimidated. Such activities, however, could have had no
other effect. Furthermore, the respondent's contention is refuted by
the testimony of Spears and Price as to the effect of Cohen's letter
of June 11, 1937, and by the evidence that the organizers of the
Association, in the spring of 1938, sought Cohen's approval before
starting organizational activities, admitting at the hearing that they
would not have begun such activities in the absence of Cohen's ap-
proval. Moreover, the question here to be determined is whether the
respondent interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. The
acts of the respondent, sdt forth above, in and of themselves, con-
stituted such interference, restraint, and coercion. Whether such
acts intimidated any employee or group of employees is material only
in so far as it tends to establish that the acts themselves have taken
place.5
The respondent further contends that Cohen on various occasions
stated that the employees were free to join any labor organization and
that therefore the employees could not have felt that the respondent
was opposed to the I. A. M. However, any effect which such state-
ments by Cohen might have had disappears before the strength and
clarity of the anti-union statements and conduct of Cohen and other
officials and supervisory employees of the respondent.
The respondent's June 11, 1937, letter to its employees; the circu-
lar emphasizing negatively the provisions of the Act; the inquiries
by members of the respondent's supervisory force to ascertain who
among the employees were I. A. M. members; the attacks upon the
I. A. M. made by the respondent's president at a meeting called by
him of union employees ; the respondent's constant indication to its
employees of its hostility toward the I. A. M. and outside labor
5 See Matter of Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company ( D. h B. Division ) and Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, 11 N. L. R B 79.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizations through the outspoken warnings of its supervisory
officials including threats that the respondent would close its plant
rather than deal with a labor organization of its employees; the re-
spondent's dilatory tactics in refusing to accept the I. A. M. as the
collective bargaining representative of its employees and its misrep-
resentation to the I. A. M. as to the number of its employees-all
compel us to the conclusion that the respondent embarked upon a
deliberate and consistent campaign of opposition to the I. A. M. and
to its employees' self-organization, and we find that by these and
other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
B. Domination of and interference with the formation and adminis-
tration of the Association and contribution of support thereto
The complaint alleges that the respondent, beginning on or about
March 1, 1937, fostered, encouraged, dominated, interfered with, and
aided the Association. That the respondent indicated unequivocally
to its employees its preference for an inside union among them and its
disapproval of an outside union is clear from the evidence herein-
above related, in Section III A.
The circular put into the employees' pay envelopes by the respond-
ent on June 11, 1937, emphasized that employees could belong to
"employe representation plans and plant unions" and that collective
bargaining could be carried on by "representatives other than C. I. 0.
or A. F. of L. representatives." Cohen told a number of I. A. M.
members that he did not want an "outsider coming in and telling him
how to run his business." Ralph Cohen also expressed a preference
for "an organization through the shop" and Brick, the respondent's
superintendent, told an employee that "we will get a company union
of our own which is what the old man [Cohen] wants." As stated
above, the impetus given by the respondent to the formation of an
inside union was accompanied by a deliberate, aggressive, and con-
sistent campaign by the respondent to discourage membership in the
I. A.M.
The circumstances surrounding the formation of the Association
reveal the results of the afore-mentioned activities of the respondent.
During the first week in March 1938, Louis Metzger, an employee of
the respondent, suggested to Cornell Coulter, a fellow employee, that
they organize an inside union. Before beginning organizational ac-
tivities, however, they conferred with Cohen because they "didn't
want to start organizing-an organization if . . . he [Cohen] didn't
want such an organization" and "if the management doesn't want us,
THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY 109
what good is it going to do us to do a lot of talking here?" Cohen
and Metzger testified that, during the conference, Cohen stated that
the employees could join any labor organization they pleased, that he
would recognize any labor organization that was authorized to bar-
gain collectively by a majority of the employees, and that he could
not tell them to organize any more than he could tell them not to
join the American Federation of Labor. It is clear, however, that at
the conference, Cohen, either tacitly or otherwise, indicated, as he and
others of the respondent's officials and supervisory employees had done
before, that the formation of the Association had the respondent's
approval. Otherwise neither Metzger nor Coulter, whose testimony
indicated that they would not have organized the Association had
they felt that Cohen did not want the organization, would have pro-
ceeded to arrange for the organization of the Association as they did
immediately after their conference with Cohen.
Following the conference, Coulter arranged a meeting of the re-
spondent's employees to discuss the organization of the Association
and, for that purpose, prepared cards which announced the meeting
and solicited membership in the Association. Within 2 days of the
conference, Coulter distributed these cards to the respondent's em-
ployees on the respondent's premises and during working hours. The
respondent claims that it had no knowledge of the distribution.
However, to Brick's knowledge, the cards had been mimeographed by
his sister and Coulter distributed them openly. From these facts, we
infer and find that the respondent knew of the distribution of the
cards. Skundor on March 15 called the respondent's attention to
Coulter's conduct in the distribution of the cards. However, the re-
spondent, thereafter, took no action with respect to this and did
nothing to disavow its tacit support and approval of the Association
through permitting membership therein to be solicited on the re-
spondent's time and property.
On March 28, 1938, the Association held a meeting at which de-
mands to be made of the respondent were formulated. On March 31
Cohen met with Association representatives and entered into a con-
tract with them. At that time 34 of the respondent's 53 employees
were members of the Association. This was one employee less than
the I. A. M. had claimed to represent on February 15, at which time
Cohen had claimed that that was not a majority of the respondent's
employees. Moreover, the record is not clear that Cohen examined the
Association's list of members to determine whether it represented a
majority of the respondent's employees. The only list of members of
the Association to which reference was made at the hearing was that
appended to the constitution of the Association and Cohen testified
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had never examined the constitution. Cohen paid equally
little attention to the terms of the contract entered into between the
respondent and the Association, revealed by his lack of knowledge of
those terms. For example, the contract provided in part that "sen-
iority shall be confined to one department" and "when new jobs are
created such jobs shall be posted and men allowed to apply for such
jobs. Seniority shall govern in all such cases provided successful
applicant is qualified to do such job." Yet Cohen testified that his
understanding of the contract was that seniority was plant wide as
it had always been and that men could be transferred instantly from
one department to another. He further testified that if he created
new jobs and was selecting employees to fill them, he would take the
oldest and most skilled nien, submitting their names to the Association
for approval.
It is thus clear that the Association was formed and administered
pursuant to the respondent's suggestion and with its aid. During the
entire time that the I. A. M. was attempting to organize the re-
spondent's employees, Cohen and the other officials of the respondent
constantly told them that the respondent favored the formation of
an inside union. The effect of constant suggestions to this effect is
shown in the consultation of the Association's organizers with Cohen
before they began organizational activities. Thereafter the respond-
ent's tacit approval of the distribution of membership application
cards among the employees during working hours further aided the
organization of the Association. The respondent also assisted the
Association by entering into the contract with it without examining
into its right to represent the respondent's employees and in such
carelessness and haste as to indicate the absence of normal collective
bargaining. The disparity in the treatment accorded to the I. A. M.
and the Association, when each claimed to represent a majority of
the respondent's employees, indicates to us, as it must have indicated
to the employees, the respondent's desire to foster and encourage the
growth of the Association.
A majority of the employees of the respondent testified that they
had voluntarily joined the Association without any coercion or
interference by the respondent and stated, in substance, that the
respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices. The
respondent contends that in the light of such testimony the allega-
tions of the complaint relative to the respondent's domination of,
interference with, and support of the Association cannot be sustained.
However, the issue here is: Did the respondent dominate or interfere
with the formation or administration of the Association or contribute
aid or support of it? If the respondent did engage in such conduct,
as is clear from the foregoing, evidence that individual employees or
THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY 111
groups of employees were not coerced or interfered with by the re-
spondent is immaterial.'
We find that the respondent, by suggesting to its employees that
they form an inside union, by approving the organization of the
Association, by permitting the solicitation of Association member-
ship during working hours, and by the disparity in the treatment it
accorded the I. A. M. and the Association, dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Association and
contributed support thereto and thereby also interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We further find that the contract of March 31, 1938, between the
respondent and the Association was not the result of collective bar-
gaining between the respondent and the freely designated representa-
tives of its employees, but was executed as an integral part of the
respondent's program of discouraging the I. A. M. and assisting the
Association.
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 respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association and contributed
support thereto. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we
shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the
Association and to disestablish it as a bargaining representative of
any of its employees. We shall also order the respondent to cease
and desist from giving effect to its contract of March 31, 1938, with
the Association, as well as any extension, renewal, modification, or
See N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mill Company , Inc, 108 F. ( 2d) 867 (C C. A 5), enf'g
Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company , Inc., Monroe , Louisiana and International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers, a f iliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N L R B 60;
Matter of Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company (D & B. Division ) and Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, 11 N L. R. B 70
112 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supplement thereof, and any superseding contract which may now
be in force. Nothing in this Decision and Order should be taken
to require the respondent to vary those wage, hours, seniority, and
other such substantive features of its relations with the employees
themselves which the respondent has established in performance of
the invalid contract 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. Local 1151, International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L.,
and Galion Metal Workers Association 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 by 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. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Galion Metal Workers Association, and contributing sup-
port to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. 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 Perfection Steel Body Company, also known as
The Perfection Burial Vault Company, Galion, Ohio, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Galion
Metal Workers Association or with the formation or administration
of any other labor organization of its employees and from contribut-
ing support to said Association or to any other labor organization
of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to its contract of March 31, 1938, with Galion
Metal Workers Association or to any extension, renewal, modification,
or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract which may
now be in force;
THE PERFECTION STEEL BODY COMPANY 113
_ (c) Recognizing Galion Metal Workers Association as representa-
tive of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, 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 engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Galion Metal Workers Asso-
ciation as representative of any of its employees for the purposes
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and completely disestablish said Association as such
representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant and main-
tain 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), (c), and (d) 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 Eighth Region within
ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.