Thompson Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1942

46 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the. Matter of THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AF-
FILIATED WITH CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
. • Case No.' C-°392.-Decided December 31, 194.d
Jurisdiction : aircraft parts manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, 'Restraint, and Coercion: surveillance of union meetings by an
employee' who joined union at request of management representatives for that
express purpose ; anti-union statements ; declarations of union preference ; in-
terrogation concerning union membership ; distribution of anti-union literature ;
threats to close plant if union should be successful:
'Company-Dominated Union: participation of representatives of management
in formation and administration : suggesting and instigating formation, solicit-
ing members, becoming members and officers thereof ; permitting the holding of
meetings on company time and property ; closing plant to enable members to
attend meetings.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; dominated organi-
zation'disestablished ; contract therewith, abrogated.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October '28, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued' his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions. The
Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner except in the following respect :
The Trial Examiner found that Charles Little occupied a super-
visory position, and, accordingly, that certain anti-union statements
and pro-Alliance activities engaged in by Little were attributable to
46 N. L. R. B, No. 64.
514
THOMPSON PRODUCTS,' INC. - 515
the respondent. We do not agree with this conclusion. The record
does ,.ot establish that Little's duties were of such nature that the
employees would have just cause to believe that Little was acting in
behalf of the management.
ORDER '
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations.
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Thompson Products, Inc.,
Bell, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance or with the formation
or administration of any other labor organization of its employees,
and from contributing financial or other support to Pacific Motor
Parts Workers, Alliance or to any other' labor organization of its
employees; ,
(b) Recognizing Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance as the rep-
resentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay; hours of employment, or any other conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to the agreement dated November 10, 1941, between
the respondent and Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance, or any ex-
tension, renewal, modification or supplement thereof, or any other
contract or agreement between the respondent and said labor organi-
zation which may now be in force;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise' of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other 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 and completely disestablish
Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance as the representative of any of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment,,or other conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in
Bell, California, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating =
(1) that the respondent will not engage -in the conduct from which
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d)
of this Order; and (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth
in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order
what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GER_>,RD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above,
Decision and Order.
IMi\IEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Robes t C. Moore and Bat tlett Breed, for the Board.
Latham, & Watkins, by Mr. Paul R. lWatkins, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the
respondent.
Mr. Hoicald Baldioin, of Los'Angeles, Calif., for the Alliance.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
.; , you a third amended charge' duly filed on September 16, 1942, by United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated
with Congress of Industrial Organizations,` herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein 'called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued its amended complaint3
dated September 17, 1942, against Thompson Products, Inc., herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Sec-
tion 2 ( 6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the amended complaint alleged in
substance: (1) that the respondent, in July 1937, instigated the formation of
Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance, herein called the Alliance, and since then
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Alliance,
and contributed assistance and support to it; (2) that on August 12, 1937, and
,at specifiedidates thereafter,, the,respondent .ha.s entered into written agreements
with the Alliance, recognizing it as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of
all its employees at its Bell plant, more-fully described hereinafter, and covering
wages, hums, and woiking conditions; (3) that the respondent caused one of its
employees, in April 1937, to join the Union for the purpose of observing and
reporting to the respondent the activities of the Union, (4) that the iespondent
interrogated its employees with respect to the Union and warned them that if
1 The original , first and second amended charges were filed, respectively, on May 1,
May 21, and July 19, 1942.
3 At the hearing a motion was granted , without objection , to amend the title of the case
and all formal papers, by stiikuig "(U. A. W.-C. I 0 )" and substituting "affiliated with
Congress of Industrial Organizations ," wherever " United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural^impleuient Workei9 of America" appeared
3 The original complaint ,: issued on August 28 , 1942, and notice of hearing , ,;were duly
seried upon the iespondent, the Union, and the Alliance. By motion received on August
31, the iespondent moved for continuance of the heating; said motion , was granted on
September 2 by the Regional Director , and the hearing was continued to September 28.
Upon a subsequent motion by the respondent , the hearing was further continued until
October 1, 1942.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 517
the Union mere organized among them the Bell Plant would be closed and its
equipment moved to another location ; and (5) that by said activities the respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The amended complaint and accom-
panying notice of hearing, were drily served upon the respondent, the Union, and
the Alliance.
As found in footnote 3 above, the original complaint was issued on August 28
By motion received on September 11, the respondent moved to strike certain
portions of the original complaint or, in the alternative, to be allowed a bill of
particulars. By another motion, also received on September 11. the respondent
moved that the complaint be dismissed. Said motions were denied on September
22 by Gustaf B Erickson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Acting
Chief Trial Examiner.
The respondent, by its answer verified on September 4. denied that it had
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the original complaint. At the
opening of the hearing it was stipulated by -counsel for the Board and counsel for
the respondent that the denials set forth in the answer should be deemed to
apply to all allegations of unfair labor practices in the amended complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, between
October 1 and 8, 1942, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner in place and stead of Gustaf B. Erickson
The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Alliance by
its president. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the close of the hearing the Trial
Examiner granted a motion, in which all parties joined, to conform the pleadings
to the proof Also at the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board, counsel
for the respondent, and the representative of the Alliance argued orally before
the undersigned. All parties waived the proffered opportunity to file a brief
with the Trial Examiner. '
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes, in addition to the above, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent.' an Ohio corporation with its principal office in the city of
Cleveland, Ohio, operates industrial plains in Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit. Michigan
and Bell , California, and, through a subsidiary corporation, Thompson Products,
Ltd., operates a plant in Canada This proceeding is concerned primarily with
employees at the respondent's plant at Bell, California
The respondent's Bell plant was purchased as a going concern by the respond-
ent on April 8, 1937, from Jadson Motor Products Company, and thereafter was
operated by the respondent under the name "Jadson Motor Product,, Company"
until about July 1, 1940, at which time the latter name was discontinued There-
after and until the time of the hearing the respondent has continued to operate
this plant under the name "I'bompson Products, Inc, West Coast Plant." At this
plant the respondent is engaging in producing and selling aircraft engine bolts,
assembly bolts, and miscellaneous engine and aircraft fuselage parts.
Steel is the principal raw material u,4ed by the respondent at its Bell plant
In 1941 it purchased steel valued at not less ilian $350,000, of which about 85
percent was purchased and transported from sources of supply located outside
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
the State of California. During the same year the respondent at its Bell plant
manufactured and sold products valued, at not less than $1,500,000. About 65 per=
cent of such sales were made to customers outside the State of California.
The 'respondent employs about 400 workers at its Bell plant.'
II. THE, ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Pacific Motor Parts
Workers Alliance, unaffiliated, are labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of the respondent at its Bell plant
1 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The respondent's domination and interference 'pith the formation and adminis-
tration of the'Alliance; other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
1 Interference with the formation of.the Alliance
When the respondent took possession of the Bell plant in April 1937, its pro-
duction employees, then numbering about 86, were represented by no labor organ-
ization. Much unrest existed in the factory because of low wages and because
of fear that the respondent might discontinue its operations here. At about this,
time many of the employees applied for membership in the Union, while -some'
of the workers discussed the possibility of an inside organization. No steps,
however, were taken to form an inside union until late in the following July.
In June, Raymond S Livingstone, the respondent's director of personnel, whose
headquarters then were, and now are, at Cleveland, visited the Bell plant for a
few days to investigate a controversy over the discharge of certain employees,
and to acquaint himself as to personnel conditions generally. He learned of the
existing unrest and, upon inquiry, was informed by Assistant Works Manager
Victor Kangas that most of the men were "C. I. 0."
Also during June, Acting General Manager C. V. Dachtler asked Kangas to
have some employee join the Union and report upon its membership, stating that
the company would pay the dues ° Kangas assigned his friend, employee Lewis
A. Porter, to this task. Lyman Hodges, then in charge of shipping and acting
as the local personnel manager, gave Porter the money, for his clues. Porter
joined the Union, thereafter reported the iiumber of employees attending union
meetings to Kangas, and the latter transmitted the information to Dachtler?
I
* The above findings of fact as to the respondent's business are based upon stipulations
entered into between counsel for the Board and for the respondent.
The findings as to Livingstone's -visit in June are based upon his own testimony, which
I. corroborated , in the main , by Kangas, now, not employed by the respondent
6 The record does not disclose accurately whether this incident occurred before or after
Livingstone's visit of the same month.
* Dachtler, now not employed by the respondent, was not called as a witness. The
testimony of Porter and Kangas as to this assignment is uncontradicted. The respondent,
and the Alliance, however, adduced much testimony in attack upon the general credibility
of both Porter and Kangas, each of whom was called as a witness by the Board As to the
latter, employee McIntire testified that, in May 1937, Kangias asked him to join the C. I 0.
because (1) he feared that in the, change of management the respondent would discharge
him and (2) if the C. I O: were organized it would stand behind him and strike in the
event he were fired. Although Kangas was not recalled to testify on this point, genuine
doubt that the incident occurred is raised by the testimony of Liiingstone that he came to
the plant at about this time Ito investigate charges that Kangas had discriminatorily dis-
charged several c I. 0. members. The respondent adduced evidence tending to show that
THOMPSON- PRODUCTS, `INC. 519
Livingstone returned to the Bell plant on July 23. On the same day, he asked
Kangas if he ' could trust any employee to start an inside organization, and
thereby correct unrest among the employees. Dachtler also recommended that
such an organization be started . Arrangements were then made for department
heads and foremen to meet at dinner that night. Following the dinner, Living-
atone stated to those present that Crawford, the respondent's president, would not
stand for an outside labor organization, and that the plant would be closed if
either the C. I. 0 or the A. F. of L. succeeded in organizing the employees. He
also asked the supervisors what they thought of an inside organization, stating
that management itself would prefer this type of organization. No one voiced
any objection, and Livingstone urged all to keep the discussion confidential. After
the meeting, Livingstone again asked Kangas if he had anyone yet in mind who
would start an inside union. Kangas agreed to "sleep on it," and let him know the
next day."
.
The next morning, July 24, Kangas suggested to Livingstone that Porter could
be entrusted with the task, explaining that Porter was older ° and had done police
work. Kangas then approached Porter, told him briefly what Livingstone wanted
him to do and, when the employee expressed willingness, instructed him to meet
Livingstone that evening at the Jonathan Club, where the personnel director was
staying in Los Angeles 10
As instructed, Porter went to the Jonathan Club, where he met Livingstone and
Dachtler. There he was asked to persuade 12 or 15 employees to come into the
office, tell management that, they wanted to be represented by a union rof their
own, and request more pay and better working conditions. In reward for this
Kangas, several months after leaving the respondent 's employ in 1940, sent a telegram to
Livingstone charging misconduct on the part of an employee, an act which Plant Manager
Hileman construed as an attempt to discredit the local management with the Cleveland
office . The Trial Examiner considers it unnecessary to determine ( 1) whether or not
Kangas actually solicited McIntire for union membership , or (2) whether or not he sent
the wire. The sole issue , as discussed more fully hereinafter , is whether or not Kangas, as
a representative of management, engaged in illegal conduct under the Act. Furthermore,
even if the respondent's aigument be accepted as valid, that Kangas by character was
inclined to serve his own interests , it adds support to findings, made above and hereinafter,
that he engaged in unfair,labor practices at the behest of Dachtler and Livingstone when it
appeared to be to his best interest to do so The respondent also adduced testimony in an
effort to impeach Porter , with respect to a report concerning certain conditions in the
plant allegedly made by Porter to the F. B I in July 1942, and an ensuing investigation.
Since Plant Manager Hileman, at the hearing, admitted that he was not at liberty to
disclose whatever he may have been told by the F. B I representative , the Trial Examiner
is unable to make any findings as to'what may, or may not, have happened . It is clear that
Porter was not discharged as a result of any investigation , and the Trial Examiner is
'unable to find that such testimony in any way reflects upon the credibility of Porter.
8 The findings as to this meeting of supervisors rest largely upon the testimony of Kangas
and Drake, the latter a foreman in 1937 Livingstone admitted that the dinner occurred,
but testified that , after be had learned that some of the foremen waiited to attend the
"independent union " meeting , he called the supervisors together to warn them "specifically
-to keep out of the picture " Livingstone further admitted that he told the foremen that
the respondent had "satisfactory" relations with an, independent union in Cleveland but
had suffered "one headache after another" in dealing with the C. I. O. at its Detroit plant.
He denied having made the statements about closing the plant attributed to him by Kangas.
The Trial Examiner does not credit Livingstone' s denial , nor his explanation of why the
meeting was called. Credible evidence establishes that the meeting was held several days
before actual organization of the Alliance began , and before any meeting was scheduled.
No occasion existed, theiefore , for foremen to ask if they might attend the meeting.
6 Porter, at the time of the hearing, was 62.
10 Livingstone denied that Porter was assigned to this task by Kangas at his request. The
undersigned does not accept Livingstone's denial as true.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assignment, Livingstone promised Porter a life-time job, some money, and a
vacation with, pay."
On the following Monday, during working hours, Porter approached several of
his fellow employees, recommended that an inside union be formed, and urged
that they get others to'go with them into the office and ask for recognition and
better working conditions. During the same day, upon learning from Kangas
that the Union planned to hold a meeting the next night to consider a contract for
submission to management, Livingstone advised Kangas to hurry Porter in his
efforts, and have the group bring in its "demands" before the C. I. O. meeting."
The same evening Kangas, in the presence of Porter, received over the telephone,
from Livingstone, the text for application cards in the Association's Kangas
immediately gave the copy to a printer. During working hours on Tuesday
morning, without,checking out, Porter left the plant, as instructed by Kangas,
obtained the cards from the printer, and gave them to Hodges. That- afternoon
Porter led-a group of from 15 to 20 employees into the office, where he, as spokes-
man, asked Livingstone and Dachtler if the company would recognize an inside
union if organized. Dachtler stated that he was in favor of such an organization.
The employees were then told that they must obtain membership among a major-
ity." At the close of the shift that afternoon. several of the group passed out
application cards at the plant gate, and at the same time announced that an
organizational meeting would be held.
"The finding as to this meeting rests upon the credible testimony of Porter Dachtler
was not called as a witness. Livingstone testified that Porter visited him voluntarily,
offered to go to C. I. 0. meetings and report to him, and then asked peiirnssion to bring
some of the employees into the office to talk to him. It has already been established, by
unrefuted testimony, that Poiter was already repotting C. I 0. meetings to Kangas and
Dachtler. There existed no reason why he should visit Livingstone and Dachtler with an
' offer to do what he was already engaged in doing . Upon Livingstone 's testimony on this-
point the Trial Examiner places no reliance
32 This finding nests upon Kaiigas' testimony Livingstone denied the incident As found
heretofore , Livingstone ' s unsupported testimony is unreliable.
is Livingstone denied having given Kangas the text for these cards, which read as follows :
Pacific Parts Workers Alliance
I the undersigned 'employee of the Jadson Motor Products Comp,iny, do hereby
apply for membership in the Pacific Parts Workers Alliance with the understanding
that upon acceptance of, the application for membership that the Pacific Parts
Workers Alliance will be my exclusive representative in baigamning with lily employer
with reference to,wages, hours and working conditions, and that I will abide 6y the
constitution of the Pacific Parts Workers Alliance when drafted and approved by the
elected representative.
This'membeiship to be effective until one year from the date of signing.
Unrelated evidence establishes that these cards were printed and received by Porter before
the meeting of employees with Livingstone on July 27, at which meeting the employees
first broached their request to form an inside union Although former Alliance officials
were questioned as to their knowledge with respect to these cards, all of their testified that
they were without recollection as to the origin of the cards, or of the text appearing upon
them. 'The surrounding circumstances fully support the testimony of Kangas and Porter,
and the Trial Examiner does not accept Livingstone's denial.
14 The respondent introduced in evidence a document which Livingstone identified as
having been dictated by himselt on July 26, purportedly describing the visit of the employees
to his office. The first sentence of the document read : "Minutes of a meeting held between
a group of employees and the Management . . Livingstone gave no reasonable explana-
tion as to why he used the term "minutes" to characterize an informal interview. Credible
evidence refutes the statement also contained in the document that the meeting was held on
July 26. The stenographer who testified that Livingstone dictated to her the text of the
"minutes" admitted that she could not recall when the dictation was made. Under the
circumstances , the Trial Examiner is convinced that the document was not prepared, as
Livingstone testified , immediately after the meeting , and places no reliance upon it.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. - 521
Formal organization of the Alliance began that evening, July 2i 16 A constitu-
tion and bylaws committee was appointed Porter took no further active part in
the organization. A day or two later, however, at the request of Livingstone,
Porter delivered a paper, which lie testified he believed to contain items for a
proposed agreement, to a local attorney. 'After the attorney read the paper, he
advised Porter that he did not think much of it, that he should so tell management,
and that someone else should be sent over to consult him. Porter told Kangas
what the attorney had said. Thereafter the Alliance committee retained the same
attorney to draw tip its constitution and bylaws
During the latter part of the same week, Kangas, Hodges, and Porter were
guests of Livingstone at the Jonathan Club Livingstone complimented the others
upon the successful launching of the Alliance, and told them they would not
have to worry about their jobs in the future.ir Porter was thereafter rewarded
by being given a 2-weeks' vacation with pay.is
2. Set-up of the Alliance
The Alliance constitution , adopted on August 3 at a membership meeting, pro-
vided for an executive council of five members To serve on this council it was
necessary that an employee be an American citizen, 21 years or more of age,
and an employee of the respondent for not less than one year . The executive
council, elected annually by the membership , chose its president and vice
president. ,
"At the hearing Bebb, who was chairman of this meeting, identified a document bearing
the date of July 29 as being the minutes of this first meeting., The Trial Examiner, how-
ever, places no reliance upon the (late appealing on the document. Porter, Bebb, and Creek,
the latter the Alliance's first president, all testified that the first meeting was held on the
.same .day that the group went to management, which'was on July 27. As in the case of
the "minutes" produced by Livingstone, desciibed above, the record does not clearly
establish when the minutes of the first Alliance meeting were prepared.
ii Livingstone denied having sent Porter to see the attorney, who was not called as a
witness The respondent stipulated, however, that were the attorney called, he would
testily that Porter made the first contact with him for the Allanee Porter was not on
any of the Alliance committees The recoid.reveals no reason, other than that contained
in his own testimony, upon which the finding rests, as to why lie should have visited the
attorney The Trial Examiner does not accept Livingstone's denial: Porter's testimony is
also supported by that of Kangas, who testified that Livingstone asked him regarding an
attorney and that he infoinied the peiaonnel director that Porter doubtless could suggest
one
11 The findings as to this meeting are based upon the ciedible testimony of Kangas and
Porter Hodges was not called as a witness. Livingstone testified that lie did not recall
the meeting, but admitted that it might have taken place He denied, however, having
discussed the subject of the Alliance. The Tiial Examines does not credit his denial.
r8 Porter's testimony that lie alone, among employees, received a vacation with pay that
year, is unrefuted There is also considerable'testimony in the record about the payment
to 1'oitei of a sum of money by the respondent as a reward for special services. Both
Kangas and Porter testified that the latter received $50, and Kangas slated that this money
was received bl him, for delivery to Porter, from Hileman Porter placed the incident in
1937, Kangas about a year later. The respondent adduced evidence to show that, in 1938,
it paid Poiter $40 for another confidential assignment,-that of investigating thefts of
certain mateiials. Porter admitted the assignment but denied having been paid especially
for it. Kangas testified that he gave Poi ter money on but one occasion, and that Hileman
told him it was for organizing the Alliance. Hileman flatly denied having made this state-
ment to Kangas However , since the issue to be determined is whether the respondent
used Porter as its agent in staiting the formation of the Alliance, and not whether it
thereafter paid Porter for his services in this respect, the Trial Examiner finds it unneces-
sary to resolve the conflicting testimony as to the payment of monies. It-is clear that the
employee received a vacation, and it is found that in this respect he was rewarded for his
efforts in organizing the Alliance
522 DECISIONS . OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Paragraph 1 of the constitution reads, in part, as follows :
Pursuant to the authority granted by the National Labor Relations Act,
commonly known as the Wagner Act, there is hereby organized and the
undersigned do hereby associate themselves in an organization to be known
as Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance, for the purposes and upon the'
conditions as set forth herein ...
About 70 employees signed the document on or about August 3 Dues in the
organization were 25 cents a month.
3. Written agreements between the respondent and the Alliance
Sometime between August 3 and August 12, Livingstone and Hodges checked a
number of the Alliance membership cards against the pay-roll list. According
to Livingstone's testimony, he found that the Alliance represented -a majority of
the employees at the Bell plant.
On August 12 the respondent entered into a written agreement with the Alli-
ance, recognizing it as the exclusive bargaining agent for all its employees at this
plant, and covering wages and other working conditions. By the terms of the
contract, wages were increased
Thereafter the contract was periodically renewed. At the time of the hearing,
there existed between the parties an agreement dated November 10, 1941, to' run
for one year, with an automatic renewal clause therein.
4. The respondent's interference with the administration of the Alliance, and
support rendered to it
Since 1937 the Alliance executive council has met at intervals of from 1 to 3
months.with management officials. Minutes of the first two meetings were pre-
pared by Livingstone Thereafter and until the time of the hearing, minutes of,
these meetings have first been submitted to management before being posted on a
bulletin board for information of the employees 10
Executive council meetings were held in the welding room of the plant, during
working hours. This fact was known to General Superintendent Kearns and.
according to his own testimony, met with no remonstrance from him until the
fall of 1941. At least until July 1942, Alliance clues were collected and member-
ships , solicited openly and without objection by management, during working
hours. President Baldwin of the Association admitted at the hearing that he has '
continued to conduct `Alliance business during working hours despite warnings
by management, but that he has never been disciplined for such conduct. General
membership meetings are held on Sundays. Prior to the declaration of war, on
Sundays when an Alliance meeting was scheduled the plant would be shut down
for 2 hours during the morning, so that shift workers might attend. Employees -
were permitted to make up lost time later in the day.
When applying for a job in, December 1940, employee Overlander was asked
by Personnel Manager Millman 20 if he belonged to any union and was told that
they had an inside organization there, with which friendly relations existed.21
Overlander thereafter joined the Alliance; having been solicited, during working
19 The findings as to the respondent's control over these minutes are based upon the testi-
mony of Livingstone and a stipulation entered into between counsel for the Board and for
the respondent.
'10 Millman has been personnel manager at the Bell plant since September 1940. The
record does not reveal when Hodges left the respondent's employ
Overlander ' s testimony as to this incident is uncontradicted.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 523
hours, by Little, who had charge of the tool crib in which Overlander was an
attendant." I'
In the fall of 1941; Baldwin and Smith, the latter a member of the executive
council, consulted Millman concerning the action of certain supervisors in an
election then being conducted by the Alliance. Baldwin testified that he inquired
of Millman what classification management considered these individuals to be
in, because he had read some "interpretation of the Board's Act," which raised
doubt in his mind as to whether or not they should be in.the Alliance. Millman
thereupon posted the following notice :
'Recent National Labor Relations Board rulings hold that it is not necessary
for a supervisory employee to have the power to hire and fire in order to be
considered a part of the Management. An 'employee who supervises and
directs the work of others or exercises any of the functions of Management is
considered an agent of the employer and is, therefore, according to the con-
tract between the Management and the Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance,
ineligible to belong to the Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance.
Accordingly, the following named men have been asked, or will be asked,
to resign their membership in the Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance
at once: G. C. Beach, J. E. Morse, C. E. Weisser, H. E. Mclntire,.Julius Olsen,
E T. Fickle.
E. T Fickle had been on the executive council of the Alliance since its inception,
and Weisser for the preceding year. Fickle's duties had not been altered since
1938, and Weisser's since 1939. During part of his service on the council Fickle
had been president. Millman's action in the above respect was taken without
further consultation with Baldwin, and the question was never submitted to the
Alliance's membership.
James Creek, first president of the Alliance, was promoted to a supervisory
position„ as head of the maintenance department, 3 or 4 months before his term
of office expired He continued, however, to serve as president of the organization.
5. Conclusions as to the respondent's domination of and interference with the
formation and administration of the Alliance
The foregoing findings plainly establish that the Alliance came into being at
the instigation and insistence of Livingstone, as a means of defeating organization
of an outside union' Active support and interference were also engaged in by
Kangas, Dachtler, and Hodges. It is clear that Porter served as an agent of the
employer in the campaign to arouse an interest in an inside organization, as
v Little was not called as a witness , and Overlander 's testimony with respect to this
occuirence is unrefuted Millman denied that Little had supervisory powers. Overlander's
testimony is undisputed, however, that Little gave him instructions, left instructions for
employees on following shifts, and recommended to Superintendent Kearns that Over-
lander be given a raise . As a result of this recommendation lie received an increase Under
the circumstances , the Trial , Examiner finds that Little had supervisory powers over
Overlander. '
71 In its Decision and Order, In the Matter of Thompson Products, Inc and United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, Local 300 (C. I. 0 ), Case No. C-1343, subsequently enforced,
with modification, by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals (C C. A 6), the Board
found that, at the respondent's Cleveland plant in April 1937, Livingstone advised the
chairman of,the "employees representatives," of the "Thompson Products, Inc., Employees
Association," a labor organization determined by the Board to have been company-
dominated, as to its reorganization into the "Automotive and Aircraft Workers Alliance,
Inc," a labor organization also found by the Board to be company-dominated. The Board
further found that Livingstone advised a committee of employees as to revision of the
constitution of the latter organization.
.rj24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
opposed to the Union, and to lead, as bell-wether, a group of his fellow employees
into management's office with the request that the respondent recognize an inside
organization when formed Porter was rewarded for his part in forming the
organization.
It has been found that a number of the respondent 's supervisors , Creek, Fickle,
and Weisser, served for varying periods as officers and executive councilmen of
the Alliance 1'ei sounel Manager Millman, foremen, and supervisors, since 1937,
have advised employees to join the Alliance. And, as found above, the respondent
has given financial and other support to the Alliance by permitting the holding
of council meetings on company time and property
Therefore the Trial E Tannuer concludes and finds that the respondent has
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Alliance,
and has contributed financial and other support thereto, and that the respondent
has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Trial Examiner further finds that the agreements entered into between
the respondent and the Alliance and the contractual relationship existing there-
undei, have been and ate a means of utilizing an employee-doinrnated organization
to frustrate the exercise by the iespondent's employees of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
U Other acts of rnterfei ence, resti aoit, and coercion
1 Threats to move operations to Cleveland; anti- union remarks by supervisors
Soon after Livingstone asked Porter to take action resulting in formation of
the Alliance, Hodges reformed Porter that if the Unioie w ere not kept out of the
plant, and the inside organization put in, the factory would close.'
In November or December 1941, Millman told employee Smith that the re-
spondent could easily absorb the Bell plaint in its Eastern operations , and would
do so rather than deal with the C.I.O.4
When employee Crank iufoimed Millman in April 1942, of his having joined the
Union, the personnel m,uiager told him that while he could makeup his own mind,
he was taking the "wrong attitude " Soon thereafter General Foreman Long
i pproached Clank and asked him wiry he had joined the Union,26
In the f.ill of 1941. employee Overlander was told by Little, his supervisor in
the tool crib, that Hileman had said that the plant would close if tile C.I O. got in.-"
2 Issuance and distribution of anti-union literature
The respondent has caused to be distributed to its employees at its Bell plant
copies of `Friendly Forum," its" own publication,' containing editorials and
24 As found above, Hodges is no longer employed by the respondent. He was not called
as a witness
2' The finding rests upon Smith 's credible testimony Millrnan 's denial of making the
statement is not credited by the Trial Examiner It has previously been found that
Livingstone, in 1937. had made a similar statement to all foremen, and it is reasonable to
believe that the local personnel manager would accurately reflect the attitude of his
superior
26 Crank s testimony as to both of these incidents is uncontiadicted
n Overlandei's testimony as to this occui rence is unr efuted
28 ln • Api ii 1940, the respondent issued and distributed to all employees in its Bell plant
.copies of "Emploees Handbook" which, according to President Crawford's foreword,
defined it as ' a ready reference of company policies,-an understanding of what employees
may expect of management inc] what management expects of employees . . This hand-
book describes the "Friendly Forum" as tolloiw s . "Each four weeks the company publishes
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 525
articles hostile to outside labor organizations. particularly the C 1 O. The
following excerpt is from an editorial appearing in the May 29, 1911, issue :
The C. I. 0 has shown more contempt for Defense Efforts than it has;
shown desire to co-operate, while the A. F. of L has stated a desire to co-
operate, but both have been militant in their efforts to prevent even the
slightest curtailment of labor's rights, especially labor's right to strike
In its issue of September 19, 1941, the respondent reprinted-for distribution to its,
employees all address by Earl Harding, which is replete with expressions of
hostility toward union organizations . A single excerpt is quoted'
we permitted labor organizers to be trained in Communist "labor col-
leges," not by educators but by agitators. We even paid expenses of such
"students" to Russia for post-graduate courses in revolutionary technique. . .
Then we let Communists impregnate, in many instances dominate, the Amer-
ican labor movement. - And, in the name of "academic freedom," we let
their poison filter into our schools
3. Conclusions
By management's threats to,close the plant if the Union were organized in the
plant, by making inquiries as to union membership among employees, by the
employment of Porter to report upon union meetings, and by anti-union articles
distributed to its, employees in "Friendly Forum." the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in.
Section 7 of the Act.
IV IHE EFi ECT OF THE U\r\IR n._\ROR PR\CTICES UPON CODLiIERcE
The activities of the respondent, set forth in Section III above occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent, 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 respondent has engaged in certain unfvt labor prac-
tices, the Tiial Examiner will reconnnend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
It has been found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and_ administration of the Alliance, and has Conti touted financial
and other support thereto. The effect and consequences of the respondent 's domi-
nation of, interference with, and support of the Alliance, as well as the continued
recognition of the Alliance as the bargaining representative of its employees.
,constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of the
rights guaranteed in the Act. Because of.the respondent's illegal conduct with
regard to it, the Alliance is incapable of serving the respondent's employee,, as
the genuine collective bargaining agenev Accordingly, the Tiial Examiner will
recommend that the respondent disestablish and vNithdraw all recognition front
the Alliance as the representative, of any of its employees for the ,pniposes of
a paper, Fiiendly Forunm, vnhicli contains nevus of the company and of employees,
Employees ate responsible for 1iioicledge of infor-rnation pnblasbed either on bulletin boards
or 17t Friendly Forum " [Italics supplied ] '
'526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dealing with it concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment.
It has also been found that the agreements entered into between the respondent
and the Alliance have been a means whereby the respondent'has utilized an em=
ployer-dominated labor organization to frustrate self-organization and defeat
genuine collective bargaining by its employees. Under these circumstances
any continuation, renewal, or modification of the current agreement would
perpetuate the conditions which have deprived employees of the rights guaran-
teed to them by the Act and would render ineffectual other portions of these
remedial recommendations. • It will - therefore be recommended that the re-
spondent cease giving effect to any agreement between it and the Alliance, or to
any modification or extension thereof. Nothing in'these recommendations should
be taken, however, to require the respondent to vary those wage, hour, and
other substantive features of its relations with the employees themselves, if,
any, which the respondent established in performance of the agreement as
extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Pacific Motor
Parts Workers Alliance, unaffiliated, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adniinistratiou.of the
Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance, and by contributing support to it, the
respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Trial Examiner recommends that the respondent, Thompson Products, Inc., and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Pacific Motor
Parts Workers Alliance by whatever name it may be known, or with the forma-
tion or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing financial or other support to the Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alli-
ance or to any other labor organization of its employees ;
20 See N L. R B v. Newport News Shnipbuilding and Drydock Cbmpany , 308 U S 241;
N. L R B v The Falk Corporation , 308 U S 453 ; N. L. R B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines, 303 U. S 261.
an See National Licorice Co: v. N. L. R B, 309 U. S 350 , aff'g as mod 104 F ( 2d) 655
(C. 'C. A. 2), enf'g as mod . ' 7 N. L. R. B. 537 ; National Labor Relations Board v J. Greene-
bause Tanning Co., 110 F. ( 2d) 984 (C. C. A 7), enf'g as mod 11 N . L R B. 300, cert. den._
311 U. S 662 '
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 527
(b) Giving effect to the agreement dated November 10, 1941, between the
respondent and the Pacifc Motor Parts Workers Alliance , or any extension,
renewal , or modification thereof, or any other contract or agreement between
the respondent and said labor organization which may now be in force ;
(c) Recognizing the Pacific Motor Parts Workers Alliance as the representa-
tive of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or any
other conditions of employment;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees 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 , or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the Pacific
Motor Parts Workers Alliance , by whatever name it may be known, as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances , labor disputes , rates of pay , wages , hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment;
(b) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous places through-
out its plant in Bell , California , and maintain such notices for a period of at
least sixty ( 60) days from the date of posting, stating ( 1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b). (c ), and (d ) of these Recommendations; and
(2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of these
Recommendations.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty -first Region in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate ' Report the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to
take the action aforesaid. -
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 2-as amended , effective October '14,
1942, any party may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board , Shoreham Building, Wash-
ington, D. C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies
upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
C. W. WHITTEMORE
Trial Examniner.
Dated October 28,1942.