UTD Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 13, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 56 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reed Rolled Thread Die Co., subsidiary of UTD
Corporation and International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers , AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-6366'
October 13, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On June 4, 1969, Trial Examiner Herzel H.E
Plaine issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a memorandum in support of
the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act , as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent , Reed Rolled Thread
Die Co., subsidiary of UTD Corporation , Holden,
Massachusetts, its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.'
'We find no merit in Respondent ' s exception to the broad
cease -and-desist order The broad order recommended by the Trial
Examiner is appropriate herein since the domination of a labor
organization by an employer goes to the very heart of the Act N L R B v
Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F 2d 532 (C A 4), Dennison Mfg Co, 168
NLRB No 131
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HERZEL H.E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner Case CA-6366
is an unfair labor practice proceeding charging the
Respondent with violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The
complaint was issued October 31, 1968, on a charge by
the Union (the Charging Party) filed with the Board on
June 19, 1968.
Case RC-9980 is a representation proceeding on a
petition filed March 20, 1968, by the Union (the
Petitioner, also the Charging Party in CA-6366) A
representation election was held on April 17, 1968, but the
case was consolidated on October 31, 1968, with the
unfair labor practice proceeding for the purpose of
providing a hearing on an objection to the results of the
election related to the unfair labor practice charge against
the Respondent (also the Employer in the representation
proceeding)
The complaint alleges that since December 18, 1967,
the Respondent by various acts has dominated and
unlawfully assisted an alleged labor organization, the
Plant Committee, comprised of management and
employee members, to whom it is said the Respondent has
given recognition as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees In this
connection the Union-Petitioner in the representation case
claims in its Objection 4 (to conduct of the
Respondent-Employer affecting the results of the election)
that "the Employer interfered with the results of the
election by meeting periodically with the plant committee
during the preelection period, thus creating an impression
of continued recognition all to the detriment of your
petitioner."
In its answer the Respondent-Employer denied that the
Plant Committee was a labor organization or that it was
accorded recognition as exclusive bargaining
representative or that it was unlawfully assisted or
dominated by the Respondent-Employer
The case was tried on December 10, 1968. Counsel for
all three parties have filed briefs
Upon the entire record of the case,' and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
'Case I-RC-9980 was originally consolidated with the instant case for
hearing on certain issues arising with respect to an election conducted
pursuant to a consent-election agreement See Rules and Regulations of
the National Labor Relations Board, Sec 102 62(a) At the time of the
transfer of Case 1-CA-6366 to the Board, Case I-RC-9980 was served and
remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate action
Accordingly, Respondent's exceptions insofar as they relate to the Trial
Examiner's findings and recommendations in Case 1-RC-9980 are not
before the Board for determination, and we make no findings as to them
'In adopting the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(2) and (1) findings we do not rely
upon his statement that the Company printed the ballots used in a 1948
internal Committee election Furthermore, we rely upon the fact that the
Plant Rules and Policies preclude employee participation in Committee
affairs for the first 90 days of employment only insofar as this rule is an
example of the type of internal union regulation promulgated by the
management-controlled Plant Committee
I JURISDICTION
Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of UTD
Corporation and is a Massachusetts corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Holden,
Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the production and
distribution of machine tools.
Annually, Respondent purchases and receives at its
Massachusetts plant from points outside Massachusetts
raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, and sells and
ships from its Massachusetts plant to points outside
Massachusetts machine tools valued in excess of $50,000.
'All errors, which appear in the transcript of the record, have been noted
and corrected
179 NLRB No. 6
REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. 57
Respondent is engaged, as it admits, in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
The Union is, as Respondent also admits, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
As hereinafter discussed under heading 11, D, and
notwithstanding Respondent's denial, the Plant Committee
is also a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background and Issues
Reed Rolled Thread Die Company had been in business
for many years prior to 1961 In April 1961, the company
was acquired by the Union Twist Drill Corporation
(UTD) and continued business under the style Reed
Rolled Thread Die Co , subsidiary of UTD Corporation,
the Respondent or Employer in the two consolidated
cases (For simplicity, the single designation Respondent is
used hereinafter)
At the time of the acquisition in 1961 there was in
existence a Plant Committee, comprising employee and
management members, which dealt on a regularized basis
under written rules with the subjects of wages, other
conditions of employment, and grievances of the
employees The successor company has continued the
Plant Committee in essentially the same form and for the
same functions as the predecessor company
In 1965, the Steelworkers Union sought to become the
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees but
was defeated in a Board election. No objection to the
results of the election was filed, Case I-RC-8694
In 1968, the Boilermakers Union (the Petitioner and
Charging Party in the presently consolidated cases) sought
to become the bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees In a Board election on April 17, 1968, in
which the Steelworkers Union also appeared on the ballot,
neither union received a majority in a tally showing 120
votes for the Boilermakers, 5 votes for the Steelworkers,
and 145 votes against both participating unions, Case
I-RC-9980 On April 23, 1968, the Boilermakers filed
four specific objections and one general objection to
conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results
of the election While the Plant Committee was not listed
on the ballot, Objection 4 was that Respondent interfered
with the results of the election by meeting periodically
with the Plant Committee during the preelection period,
creating an impression of continued recognition to the
Committee as bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees
On May 31, 1968, the Regional Director in a report
overruled the Boilermakers' objections, including
Objection 4, and certified that as a result of the election
neither union had achieved a majority or the status of
representative of the employees
On June 19, 1968, the Union (Boilermakers) filed the
charge, in Case 1-CA-6366, that, since March 19, 1968,
the Respondent refused to recognize the Union as
bargaining representative of a majority of the employees
on a proferred showing of card authorizations but instead
continued to recognize the Plant Committee, a company
dominated union which Respondent helped to organize
with specified assistance and intent to destroy the Union's
majority
On September 30, 1968, the Regional Director revoked
his report and certification of May 31, 1968, on the
ground that, after investigation of the Union's charge of
June 19, he was issuing a complaint alleging violation by
Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and,
since the complaint related to the Union's Objection 4 to
the results of the election, he was holding in abeyance any
ruling on Objection 4 until disposition of the complaint
On October 10, Respondent appealed to the Board
asking it to set aside the revocation of certification of the
results of the election by the Regional Director
Thereafter, on October 31, 1968, the Regional Director
consolidated for hearing by the Trial Examiner the
complaint case and objection No 4 in the representation
case (with directions to sever and return the representation
case to the Regional Director for determination in
accordance with the agreement for consent election
therein, after the decision of the Trial Examiner)
On November 4, the Board denied Respondent's appeal
to set aside the action of the Regional Director revoking
certification of the results of the election, but without
prejudice to renewal of the appeal upon disposition of the
complaint case
The complaint case and the unresolved objection in the
representation case raise two substantial issues, namely,
(a) whether the Plant Committee is a labor organization
purporting to act, and accorded recognition by
Respondent, as the bargaining representative of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees, as
the General Counsel and Charging Party contend, and
Respondent denies, and (b) whether the Plant Committee
is unlawfully assisted and dominated by Respondent, as
the General Counsel and Charging Party contend, or
merely receives support allowed by law, as the Respondent
contends
In addition, the Respondent contends there is a third
issue, of a procedural nature, which the Trial Examiner
ought to decide, to wit, whether the Regional Director had
the power to revoke his certification of the results of the
election four months after he had overruled the objection
which is now revived by the revocation.
B The Plant Committee
Historical Evolvement
The testimony has been supplied by three people (1)
Respondent's President Rossiter R Holt, who has also
been General Manager since April I, 1961, when Union
Twist Drill Corporation acquired the company, (2)
Personnel Manager James M Hunt, who joined the
company twenty-nine years ago as a rank-and-file
employee, became Assistant Personnel Manager in 1952
and Personnel Manager in 1953, and (3) employee
William E Delaney, who has been a rank-and-file
employee for 16 years, and was an employee member of
the Plant Committee for 6 years
Personnel Manager Hunt testified that the Plant
Committee came into existence in 1948, that it's
formation was the idea of then President Reed, discussed
with some of the employees, and that Hunt became an
employee member of the original committee by the
election on ballots printed by the company In the ensuing
years, according to Hunt, the committee organization was
formalized under written Plant Rules and Policies,
monthly meetings became the regular pattern, and an
annual wage review was developed In 1952, when Hunt
joined management as Assistant Personnel Manager, he
switched from employee member to management member,
and has remained such, serving also as secretary of the
committee. Except for the few early years when former
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
President Reed kept the minutes of the meeting, Personnel
Manager Hunt has kept the Plant Committee minutes of
meetings since 1952 to the present
When the company was transferred to its present
ownership in 1961 and current President Holt joined the
management, the Plant Committee and the practices that
had evolved with it were continued, according to President
Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt, and Holt, as General
Manager, came on the committee to become, with Hunt,
management's representatives As President Holt testified,
the practices he followed in meetings with the committee
since April 1961 were the practices already in existence -
"the history was there," he said. Some revisions of the
governing Plant Rules and Policies were made in October
1961, (G C Exh 2, and again in March 1966, G C Exh
4) The latter contains the presently effective rules The
principal change under the 1966 revision, on proposal by
President Holt according to the minutes of March 22,
1966, (G C Exh 3), involved the elimination of the office
girls', foremen's, and administrative workers'
representation in the Plant Committee (compare the
respective articles IA in G C Exhs 2 and 4) As a result
the current Plant Committee is made up of representatives
of two groups - Respondent's management, and
Respondent's production and maintenance employees
(described under the Plant Rules and Policies as the
factory workers)
Composition, Functions, and Status
The testimony of President Holt and Personnel
Manager Hunt (as well as the representations of
Respondent's counsel) indicated that the Plant Rules and
Policies, G.C Exh 4, do not completely or always
accurately describe the employee-management committee
organization. Putting the testimony and the written
material together it appears that the committee sits in two
capacities, as a Plant Committee and a Factory Workers
Committee, with common memberships in both. The
Plant Committee is comprised of the General Manager
(Holt) and the Personnel Manager (Hunt), representing
management , and seven elected employee members
representing the factory workers, called the Factory
Workers Group The seven employee representatives of
Factory Workers Group, are also the employee members
of the Factory Workers Committee, on which the
management representation is the Plant Superintendent
(John Bock) and the Personnel Manager (Hunt) 3 At the
annual wage review meeting of the Plant Committee,
management representation is expanded to include the
Plant Superintendent (Bock).
The seven employee representatives, constituting the
Factory Workers Group, serving in both the Plant
Committee and Factory Workers Committee, are elected
by the eligible employees from among the eligible
employees. Eligibility to vote or serve is limited to those
employed ninety days or more The rules provide for an
annual election in April (although the 1968 election was
postponed to October) According to Personnel Manager
Hunt, the election is conducted on company time with
ballots provided and prepared by the company and
deposited when marked in a box in the company cafeteria
The ballots may be marked elsewhere prior to deposit.
Personnel Manager Hunt prepares an eligibility list from
the payroll and furnishes the list to a member of the
Factory Workers Group, retaining a copy for himself He
and the member check the voted ballots against the
eligibility list. A primary election is held on a Tuesday
The written rules are silent on this aspect
and the ballot lists all of the eligible employees except
those who have by writing in advance declined to serve.
The voting employees may vote for any seven names listed
(both in the primary and final balloting) The twenty
names receiving the highest number of votes in the
primary then appear on the final ballot for the following
Thursday and the seven receiving the highest number of
votes become the Factory Workers Group. The existing
Factory Workers Group does the counting of ballots in
Personnel Manager Hunt's office, while he watches He
then prepares the notice of the results which he causes to
be posted In this connection, Hunt testified that he is in
charge of the company bulletin boards and responsible for
what is posted on them
The eligibility lists are destroyed by Personnel Manager
Hunt, as excess paper, immediately following the election,
and the ballots are retained by him for a few weeks and
then also destroyed, if there are no questions
According to Personnel Manager Hunt, immediately
following the election, the Factory Workers Group picks
its own chairman (note that the written rules erronously
call him chairman of the Plant Committee, see Hunt's
testimony infra) and a vice chairman (although the written
rules do not refer to a vice chairman). President Holt
testified that since he came on the Plant Committee in
1961 the composition of the employee membership has
been fairly constant, with few changes For example,
employee Charles Beard, who was Chairman of the
Factory Workers Group until he resigned in early 1968,
served as a committee member for 5 or 6 years, and
witness William Delaney served as an employee member
for 6 years from 1962 to 1968, when he too resigned
The Plant Committee holds regular monthly meetings,
on the second Thursday of the month, at approximately 3
P M., in the abandoned plant cafeteria on the second floor
of the plant, and has held such monthly meetings before
and since December 18, 1967 (the start of the six month
limitation period under Section 10(b) of the Act) plus
some special meetings in 1968. The Factory Workers
Committee also holds regular committee meetings once a
month at a time prior to the Plant Committee meetings,
and has met regularly both before and since December 18,
1967 The employee members are paid for their time spent
in committee meetings and those employees who spend
such time out of their regular shift are paid overtime
Special meetings may be called only by the General
Manager and any held without his permission cannot be
held on company time (G C. Exh. 4, art 1, E, 4 )
President Holt testified that he and Personnel Manager
Hunt were always together with the employee
representatives at the monthly Plant Committee meetings
Hunt testified that the employee members had the
privilege of meeting, and being paid, for up to fifteen
minutes in advance of arrival of the management
representatives, and of meeting and being paid for five
minutes time after adjournment, although normally, he
said, they did not stay on after adjournment.
Occasionally, said Hunt, there would be a request by the
employee members for a caucus during a meeting, and he
and President Holt would step out of the meeting during
the caucus However, there was no evidence of any
practice of the Factory Workers Group meeting by
themselves off the company premises,' or meeting at times
other than the scheduled Plant Committee or Factory
Workers Committee meetings.
'Hunt said he knew of one meeting of the Factory Workers Group
several years ago at employee Buffone ' s house He mentioned what he
REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO 59
According to President Holt, there are no advance or
formal agenda for the committee meetings Matters
brought up at the Factory Workers Committee meetings
were often disposed of by Plant Superintendent Bock,
testified Holt, but if Bock could not dispose of a matter
or if his action was unsatisfactory, it would be brought up
at a Plant Committee meeting
At the Plant Committee meetings, Personnel Manager
Hunt opened the meeting with the call to order and
reading of the last meeting's minutes, and adjourned the
meeting after new business had been discussed The plant
rules do not specify who is chairman of the committee'
but testified Hunt, "if there was a chairman it was
probably me " He further testified that he was active
participant in the meetings on behalf of management, as
well as the official secretary
According to President Holt, since there were no
formal agenda, after the regular opening of a meeting
with reading and correcting (if needed) of minutes of the
previous meeting, the usual course was to cover unfinished
business and bring up new items President Holt would
invariably initiate any discussions on business conditions,
he said, and other matters, which might cover almost any
subject (other than wages and benefits discussed at the
annual wage review), would be raised either by the factory
workers or management It was clear from the testimony
of President Holt and Personnel Manager Hunt (certain
examples appear hereinafter) and of employee William
Delaney, who served as an employee member on the Plant
Committee from 1962 until his resignation in 1968, that
President Holt conducted most of each meeting and
usually made the final decisions on matters requiring
decision (President Holt was not willing to admit that his
decision was always final, noting that on one occasion he
had reconsidered a wage decision in the light of what the
factory workers thought they should have )
As the designated secretary of the Plant Committee
under the written rules, Personnel Manager Hunt kept the
minutes of the meetings, including as well the minutes of
the Factory Workers Committee meetings He would take
notes while a meeting was in progress and thereafter,
promptly dictate the minutes to his secretary, usually
without consultation, he said, except an occasional
question of President Holt (and before him President
Reed) on how certain items should appear in the Plant
Committee minutes, but inquiring of no one else In the
case of the Factory Workers Committee minutes,
Superintendent Bock, and no one else, reviewed the
minutes before they were made available to anyone Hunt
did not keep but rather destroyed his original notes Once
the minutes of a meeting were typed and corrected, Hunt
would cause a quantity to be multilithed and made
available to all employees in boxes kept at the timeclocks
for distribution purposes The seven employee members of
the committee received their copies of minutes and saw
them for the first time, by this same distribution Hunt
testified that he sought to make the minutes of each
meeting available to the employees on the day following
the meeting
In this connection, the testimony of Personnel Manager
Hunt made clear that all of the paper work - including
thought was another at employee Leo Harman ' s house, but according to
employee Delaney this was merely a social gathering of some of the
members for supper at Harman ' s motel residence in 1963 or 1964
'The reference to a chairman in article 1, B, 1(d) of G C Exh 4 is in
fact though not in words to the employee chairman of the Factory
Workers Group and not to a Plant Committee chairman
the materials and the services - was supplied by the
Respondent with no contribution from the employees
(indeed there have been no employee funds, such as dues)
Included are such things as the minutes of the Plant,
Factory Workers, and Grievances Committees, with
reproduction for all employees of the minutes of the first
two committees, election ballots, eligibility lists, wage
review announcements, and even the employee wage
review requests
Under the written Plant Rules and Policies, '2
Management will assume that the Plant Committees
speaks for the employees they represent 3 It is
understood, that the Plant Committee' cannot commit the
employees they represent without the approval of those
employees, but it is assumed that when the Committee has
reached a meeting of minds with Management, that they
will fully explain their position to their constituents, and
endeavor to secure their cooperation " (G C Exh 4, art
I, D, 2-3 ) However the "cannot commit" language is not
in harmony with the text or practice Other than the
provision in article XXV (G C Exh 4) for a once-a-year
employee vote to ratify or reject any tentative change
effected by the Plant Committee in the Plant Rules and
Policies, there is neither in writing or practice any
provision or mechanism for the employee representatives
to report back to the employees actions contemplated or
taken by the employee representatives in the Plant
Committee or Factory Workers Committee or to obtain
approval by vote or meeting of the employees Indeed, it
is President Holt's interpretation of the Plant Rules and
Policies (corroborated by Personnel Manager Hunt) that
the employees may not vote on the results reached by the
Plant Committee in the annual wage review or on any
economic matters, such as wage increases, vacations,
holidays, and so on And, as Personnel Manager Hunt
testified, supra, actions of the Plant Committee or
Factory Workers Committee, as reported in the minutes
of their meetings, are communicated forthwith and
directly to all employees without a preliminary
communication to the employee representatives or other
opportunity to enable the employee representatives to
make any prior checks with their fellow employees '
Even the provision in article XXV, for an annual
employee vote to ratify or reject changes made by the
committee in the Plant Rules and Policies during the
previous year, has become almost a dead letter Personnel
'The language, rather inartfully, appears to refer at this point to the
employee members
'/d
'The one instance , brought out in the testimony of President Holt, of
general employee voting on an issue relating to their economic welfare
occurred in 1968, when management, and not the employee representatives,
went to the employees as a whole for a vote, apparently because the
employee representatives had not been able to agree on a management
proposal It seems that after agreement in the September 1967 wage review
meeting of the Plant Committee on an increase in pension contributions
(see G C Exh 5), the parent company pressed for change in pension
funding from an insured program to an investment program to conform
with what other affiliates had done Despite special committee meetings
called by President Holt and explanations by a parent company officer, the
employee members had not been able to agree The company, in breach of
art XXV, went directly to the employees , although President Holt
conceded that there would have been no vote if management could have
gotten the employee representatives to agree The ensuing popular vote,
grounded on eliminating or retaining a life insurance policy provided for in
the Plant Rules and Policies, was construed to be a disapproval of the
proposed change since it fell short of the 75 percent approval then required
for a change in the Plant Rules and Policies The item was No 5 in Resp
Exh 5
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Manager Hunt testified that the only one such vote since
1961 was taken in 1968 when several previous changes,
Respondent's Exhibit 5, items 1-4, were rolled together
with the "illegal" vote management wanted on the item
tied to its pension reform plan, Respondent's Exhibit 5,
item 5, see fn 7, supra On the other hand, the significant
changes made in the Plant Rules and Policies in 1966,
relating to representation in the Plant Committee, were
not submitted to an employee vote, and such a vote was
specifically bypassed, see minutes of March 22 and 24,
1966, General Counsel's Exhibit 3
Annual Wage Review
Each year at the end of September, in keeping with the
historical arrangement under the predecessor company,
according to the testimony of President Holt, the Plant
Committee (expanded to include Plant Superintendent
Bock in addition to President Holt and Personnel
Manager Hunt as the management representatives) would
meet for an annual wage review The company would set
the date in advance usually the last Friday in September.
The meeting, usually lasting a whole day, would be held at
a restaurant away from the plant arranged for by the
company The employee members were paid as for
working time, and the company paid for use of the
facilities and luncheon at the restaurant
Well in advance of the wage review meeting the
chairman of the employee members of the Plant
Committee provided President Holt and Personnel
Manager Hunt with a list of requests. Personnel Manager
Hunt testified that employee Beard, chairman of the
employee representatives, discussed some of the items with
him in organizing the 1967 and 1968 lists, and that Hunt's
secretary, at Beard's request, typed both documents in
Hunt's office General Counsel's Exhibit 10, containing
eight requests for increases in pay and benefits, was
presented for the September 1967 wage review meeting. In
that case, as in others, said President Holt, he came
prepared with notes, for himself alone, on what the
company would do, and Personnel Manager Hunt
indicated, that he and the Assistant Treasurer had
engaged in the necessary preparatory research The
demands were discussed at the meeting without any
advance distribution or disclosure of management's views,
and while he did not accede to every request, said
President Holt, agreement was reached on some. In this
regard, testified President Holt, he has final authority in
dealing with the employees and he made the final
decisions on what the company would give. He has never
acceded to all requests but also has never denied all
requests, said President Holt.
President Holt testified that it was the practice of the
committee to continue to meet in the wage review until
there was agreement 8 There has been no exchange of
documentation to support the agreements. At the
conclusion of the meeting the company (Personnel
Manager Hunt) would simply draft and post on the plant
bulletin boards an announcement signed by President
Holt. The written announcement was not shown to the
employee members of the Plant Committee before it was
posted, although an understanding had been reached as to
its terms, said President Holt. General Counsel's Exhibit
5, was such an announcement, stating that at the
September 29, 1967 Plant Committee meeting agreement
was reached on a four percent wage increase, on an
increase in pension equivalent to average four cents per
hour, and on a three cents per hour increase in second and
third shift premium pay. The announcement, General
Counsel's Exhibit 5, covered four of the eight items
mentioned in the employee members' list of requests,
General Counsel's Exhibit 10. According to employee
member Delaney, who participated, President Holt
conducted the September 29, 1967, meeting and, with the
employees' list of items in hand, made the determination
of what would be discussed, spending most of the day on
those items particularly the pension matter, and tabling
certain items, such as vacations, without discussion
As President Holt testified, after the seven employee
members of the Plant Committee have dealt with the
matters agreed to at the annual wage review meeting, the
plant employees at large do not vote to accept or reject
But, said President Holt, it is expected of the employee
members of the committee, under article 1, D, 3, of the
plant rules (quoted above), that after coming to an
agreement with management they would "believe in it and
would sell it" to their fellow employees, although, he said,
he had never asked them to sell it.9
The 1968 wage review meeting was held on September
27, 1968, but with only four of seven employee members
of the committee participating because of three
resignations in February 1968 and unfilled vacancies due
to Respondent's postponement of the April election
Respondent's Exhibit 4 was the employee representatives'
list of seven requests, according to Personnel Manager
Hunt, who indicated that there was action on four of the
items and no action on three. According to President
Holt, there was "give and take" on some of them, and a
notice of the results posted on the bulletin boards.
Grievances
The grievance procedures in effect at the plant have
been built around use of members of the Plant Committee
in the several steps described in article VIII of the Plant
Rules and Policies, General Counsel's Exhibit 4. Thus one
or more employee members may serve variously as
members of a Grievance Committee, or, in the final
appeal to the General Manager, as representatives of the
aggrieved employee At this final step, according to
President Holt, his decision as General Manager is final
There is no further review of his decisions at wage review
or other Plant Committee meetings Personnel Manager
Hunt testified that in the grievance procedure, his function
is to expedite, that is, to assist in making interpretations
of rules and policies and to prepare minutes of the
grievance meetings The minutes are kept in his office,
available on request and available to the grievance
committee needing them on a successive step.
In summary, it was President Holt's view that the
Respondent has enjoyed good labor relations The only
problem he saw was with the pension program, which he
thought was good but not good enough (see fns. 7 and 9,
supra) In his view, Respondent listened to its employees
and had good contacts Also, it heard things it didn't like
to hear, but, he said, this was the purpose of the
committee, to find out what the employee problems were
and to try to get satisfactory remedies wherever possible
'in 1966, said President Holt, after failure to agree on the company
proposals the meeting recessed to the following week , when the employee
members came back and accepted the company proposals
'In connection with the company 's proposal in 1968 to change the
pension program , see fn 7 supra . President Holt said that he expected the
employee members of the Plant Committee to "sell " the other employees
on the change , which ultimately missed approval by a very narrow margin
on the popular vote conducted by management Previously , Holt had called
special Plant Committee meetings on the subject in January and February
1968
REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. 61
C Conduct Relating to the Union
Personnel Manager Hunt testified that in representation
proceedings involving Respondent in 1965, the
Steelworkers Union was the petitioner, Case 1-RC-8694,
and failed to obtain a majority, as certified by the
Regional Director in Respondent's Exhibit 6. No
objection was filed
In 1968, the Boilermakers Union (Charging Party) was
the petitioner in representation proceedings involving
Respondent, Case I-RC-9980 The petition, General
Counsel's Exhibit 1(a), was filed March 20, 1968.
A regular meeting of the Plant Committee was held
March 21, 1968, the day after the Union's petition was
filed President Holt testified (and see minutes of meeting,
General Counsel's Exhibit 11) that he announced the filing
at the meeting, referred to the fact that the committee had
only four employee representatives because of
resignations, that a Plant Committee election would
normally be held in the first week in April, but thought it
best to postpone the election because of the Union's
petition He also stated that the Plant Committee would
continue to meet and function as usual and the committee
next met again April 11, see minutes, General Counsel's
Exhibit 12
On March 28, 1968, an agreement for consent election
in the representation proceeding was executed, General
Counsel's Exhibit 1(b), pursuant to which a Board election
was scheduled for April 17 Included on the ballot were
both the Boilermakers and Steelworkers, who had
intervened Prior to the election the Boilermakers
handbilled the employees with circulars, Respondent's
Exhibits 8 and 9, which were critical, among other things,
of Respondent's Plant Rules and Policies and alleged
control of the Plant Committee by management On its
part, Respondent sent four letters over the signature of
President Holt, addressed to the employees and their
families, dated March 29, April 10, April 12, and April
15, 1968, exhibits U-i, U-2, U-3, and R-l, respectively,
calling the employees' attention to the Board election for
April 17, renewing Respondent's 1965 opposition to either
union, noting existing employee benefits and that the
employees have a written understanding with the company
in the form of the Plant Rules and Policies, and urging
the employees to vote against both unions
In the April 17 election neither union received a
majority in the tally of votes showing 120 for the
Boilermakers, 5 for the Steelworkers, and 145 against
either, General Counsel's Exhibit I(d). The Union
(Boilermakers) filed objections on April 23, General
Counsel's Exhibit 1(c), including as objection No 4 that
"the Employer interfered with the results of the election
by meeting periodically with the Plant Committee during
the preelection period, thus creating an impression of
continued recognition all to the detriment of your
petitioner."
On May 31, 1968, the Regional Director in a report on
objections and certification of results of election overruled
the Union's objections and certified that neither
participating union had won the right to represent the
employees as bargaining agent.1°
The Plant Committee continued its regular monthly
meetings in May and June 1968. At the June 5 meeting,
testified President Holt, he reported the results of the
April 17 Board election He told the committee that the
whole Plant Committee program had been carefully
reviewed and a decision made to continue it as in the past,
because it was worthwhile and necessary for management
to maintain contact with the employees He suggested that
the committee election postponed from April be held on
Tuesday, June 18 (primary), and Thursday, June 20
(final) According to Holt, there was no discussion or
problem raised concerning the dates The primary was
held on June 18 (results tabulated in General Counsel's
Exhibit 9), but on June 19 the Union filed an unfair labor
practice charge against Respondent alleging 8(a)(2) and
(5) violations for recognizing a company organized and
dominated union and for refusing to recognize the Union,
General Counsel's Exhibit 1(e) " Whereupon, on June 20,
as President Holt testified, he issued a notice to the
employees, General Counsel's Exhibit 6, which said that,
because the Union had filed an unfair labor practice
charge claiming that the Plant Committee interfered with
the employees' rights under the Act, though the claim was
without merit, he was postponing the Plant Committee
election, on advice of counsel, until the Board had
processed the charge
At the August 8, 1968, meeting of the Plant
Committee, President Holt announced that the company
expected to continue the past practice of an annual wage
review meeting, and at the September 12 meeting be
received a list of the employee proposals, Respondent's
Exhibit 4 As noted under heading B, above, the wage
review meeting was held on September 28, 1968, and the
notice of the results posted in the plant.
On September 30, 1968, the Regional Director revoked
his May 31 certification of the results of the election He
noted the Union charge of June 19 and stated that he had
determined to issue a complaint against Respondent for
alleged violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (2), and that he
was holding in abeyance ruling on the Union's objection
No 4 to the results of the election, General Counsel's
Exhibit 1(g) On October 10, Respondent appealed to the
Board to set aside this action of the Regional Director.
The 1968 Plant Committee final election of employee
members, postponed from June 20, was held on October
8, 1968, according to President Holt and Personnel
Manager Hunt (the ballot was General Counsel's Exhibit
G C. 8), and the new committee met on October 10
On October 31, 1968, the Regional Director issued the
Section 8(a)(1) and (2) complaint against Respondent and
an order consolidating the hearing with the Union's
objection No 4 to the results of the election, General
Counsel's Exhibit 1(i). On November 4, the Board denied
Respondent's appeal of the Regional Director's revocation
of certification, but without prejudice to renewal of the
appeal upon disposition of the complaint case, General
Counsel's Exhibit 1(k)
President Holt issued a letter to all employees on
November 8, 1968, General Counsel's Exhibit 7, which
informed the employees of the pendency of the 8(a)(2)
charge and notice of hearing for December 10. He
observed that what the Union wanted was to disestablish
"In dealing with objection No 4, the May 31 report noted that the
Plant Committee did not appear on the ballot, and that there was no
pending charge that the Plant Committee was assisted or dominated by business was encompassed in the two committee meetings in March and
Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(2) The objection appears to have April, prior to the Board election , did not show any employer preference
been disposed of on the ground that the evidence before the Regional or impropriety interfering with employee voting rights
Director indicated that the Plant Committee was purely advisory and could "Personnel Manager Hunt testified that this was the first unfair labor
not make commitments binding on management , and that whatever practice charge ever filed against Respondent
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Plant Committee He said he did not believe that the
Plant Committee or the plant employees had been
dominated or coerced by management, that the committee
had been in existence for twenty years, and that he
believed the employees would want the company to fight a
decision to disestablish the committee, as evidenced by
their expression in the Board elections of 1965 and 1968
to continue as in the past He concluded by saying the
company would do everything within the framework of the
law to maintain the Plant Committee Program
In concluding his testimony on this subject, President
Holt stated that the Plant Committee was the only
organization that purported to speak for the production
and maintenance employees of Respondent
D Domination , Interference, and Unlawful
Assistance
In my view, the evidence is overwhelming that the Plant
Committee is a company organized, dominated, and
unlawfully assisted labor organization
Section 2(5) of the Act defines "labor organization" to
include any "employee representation committee or plan,
in which employees participate and which exists for the
purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work "
From the description of the Plant Committee functions
under heading B, above, it is obvious that the committee
has dealt and deals with the employer on the subjects
listed in the statutory definition, and that the employer's
representatives participate in the discussion and resolution
of these matters and frequently grant the employee
representatives' requests Even though the dealing may not
be collective bargaining in the usual sense, these activities
with respect to any one or more of the listed subjects
constitute the Plant Committee a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) and as the term is used
in Section 8(a)(2) of the Act i 2 N L R B v Cabot Carbon
Co , 360 U S 203, 213-214, 218 (1959), N L R B v
Standard Coil Products Co , 224 F 2d 465, 467-469 (C A.
1), cert denied 350 U S 902, American President Lines,
Ltd v N L R B, 340 F 2d 490, 492 (C A. 9)
Historically, the Plant Committee was originated over
twenty years ago by the president of Respondent's
predecessor in discussion with just a few of the employees
and with no vote or discussion then or since by the general
body of employees on the matter of the committee's
formation, organization, or continuance When
Respondent became owner in 1961 it adopted and
continued the committee's operations under the Plant
Rules and Policies and the practices devised by its
predecessor, with some modifications in organization
made, again as in the case of its predecessor, without any
vote by, or discussion with, the general body of
employees indeed Respondent in 1966 effected the one
major organizational change, of dropping the
representation in the committee of foremen,
administrative employees, and office girls, by
circumventing the popular vote it was pledged to take by
the then effective 1961 Plant Rules and Policies 11
"Sec 8 (a)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to
dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor
organization or contribute financial or other support "
"The events that happened earlier than six months prior to the filing of
the charge are not relied on here to charge unfair labor practices (in
accordance with Sec 10(b) of the Act as amended by the Taft -Hartley
Act), but they are "utilized to shed light on the true character of matters
The Supreme Court in Cabot Carbon, supra, said that,
"The principal distinction [between an independent and a
company-dominated labor organization] lies in the
unfettered power of the former to insist upon its
requests," 360 U S at 214, recognizing that while "Final
decision is always with management, . when a claim is
made by a well organized, good sized union, management
is doubtless more strongly influenced in its decision than it
would be by a recommendation of a board which it, itself,
has selected and which has been provided with no fighting
arms " (360 U S at 214, fn. 15, quoting from N L R B v
Jas H Matthews & Co , 156 F 2d 706, 708)
In the case of the Plant Committee, the organic
requirements and practice not only made the General
Manager and Personnel Manager part of the committee
(and the Plant Superintendent and Personnel Manager
part of it when it sat as the Factory Workers Committee),
but also put the management representatives in charge of
the calling of meetings (in addition to the fixed monthly
meetings), the running of the meetings, the subjects that
would be discussed, and the reporting of the meetings to
the body of employees in minutes and announcements of
actions and decisions, without consultation of the
employee representatives on the wording of the reporting
or without affording them an opportunity to report
directly to their fellow employees. In this connection, the
Personnel Manager (Hunt) was the de lure secretary of
the committee (under the written rules), and consulted
with the General Manager and the Plant Superintendent
respectively, on the form and language of the reporting
(minutes) for the Plant Committee and Factory Workers
Committee meetings.
Personnel Manager Hunt also claimed to be de facto
committee chairman (the rules are silent on this)
However, it can be said with greater accuracy that, apart
from Personnel Manager Hunt opening and adjourning
the meetings, the real chairman, who determined what
would be discussed and who lead the substantive
discussions, was President and General Manager Holt
President and General Manager Holt and Personnel
Manager Hunt attended all of the meetings of the Plant
Committee, and Plant Superintendent Bock, along with
Hunt, attended all of the meetings of the Factory Workers
Committee Personnel Manager Hunt also attended the
meetings, and acted as secretary, of the grievance
committees, which draw their members from the Plant
Committee, and Hunt was in charge of the preparation,
custody, and distribution of minutes for all of the various
committees
The Factory Workers Group, who comprise the seven
employee representatives on the Plant Committee and
Factory Workers Committee, have been chosen at annual
elections from among the production and maintenance
workers. However, workers who have not been employed
for at least ninety days are neither eligible to serve nor to
vote The election machinery - preparation of eligibility
lists and ballots, counting, announcements of results,
storage and final destruction of ballots - is entirely in the
hands or under supervision of management, except for
participation of members of the Factory Workers Group
occurring within the limitations period, " Local Lodge 1424 Machinists v
N L R B , 362 U S 411, 416-417 In this connection it is useful to note the
Supreme Court opinion, prior to adoption of Taft-Hartley, that while the
historical continuity of a plant committee "may not be controlling as to
the continuance of dominance by the Company, it is at least evidence of
such dominance, entitled to be considered by the Board The effects of long
practice persist " N L R B v Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co
319 U S 50,57
REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO.
in checking the eligible voters and counting of ballots. The
evidence also established that twice in 1968 management
made the decision to postpone the election of employee
representatives that would regularly have been held in
April 1968, and also made the third decision to go ahead
with it in October 1968
The Factory Workers Group has no separate existence
that permits it to hold meetings or act separately from the
Plant Committee or Factory Workers Committee, except
the meeting to choose a chairman and vice chairman of
their group immediately after the annual election. The
evidence indicates that the group has not attempted to
meet separately or away from the established meeting
place in the plant The practice does allow for the Factory
Workers Group to caucus in the established meeting place
in the plant for up to fifteen minutes before the
management representatives arrive for a committee
meeting and for up to five minutes after adjournment;
and, on occasion during meetings, the group has been
permitted to caucus while management representatives
stepped out of the meeting temporarily.
There is no provision for the Factory Workers Group
to meet with their constituents at large or to report to
them to obtain instructions, approvals, or other views on
actions or positions taken or to be taken As already
indicated the only reporting is by minutes of meetings or
announcements prepared and distributed by management,
which the employee representatives see for the first time in
a general distribution to all employees.
Employees at large have no right to vote on any
economic matter. Their right to vote on issues is limited
to a theoretical, once-a-year submission of changes made
during the year in the written Plant Rules and Policies.
However during Respondent's ownership of the Company,
since April 1, 1961, such a vote was taken only once, in
1968; and on the occasion of the 1966 revision of the
Plant Committee composition involving change of the
written Plant Rules and Policies, Respondent by-passed
taking the employee vote.
Nonetheless, despite this absence of direct
communication and opportunity for expression of views,
between the Factory Workers Group and the employees at
large, it has been management 's position that in the Plant
Committee (and Factory Workers Committee) meetings
the Factory Workers Group "speaks for the employees
they represent," and when the group has reached a
meeting of minds with management that the group will
"endeavor to secure" the cooperation of their constituents.
President Holt's testimony was indicative that the Factory
Workers Group was expected to "sell" their fellow
employees on the actions taken and decisions arrived at in
the course of the committee meetings.
The subservience of the Factory Workers Group to the
preferences of management is fairly manifest in the
evidence concerning the annual wage review, in particular
the 1967 and 1968 reviews. Thus it appears that the
chairman of the employees' representative consulted the
Personnel Manager before even drafting the list of
employee requests and had the lists physically prepared by
the Personnel Manager's office. Management has come to
the meetings fully prepared to state what it will give on
the items it chooses to discuss but without advance
counterproposal or revelation of its position , and has
tabled other items without discussion, leaving the
employee representatives little option other than to accept
what was offered. Their fellow committee member,
President Holt, has final say on what the company will do
or even discuss.
63
Even in the instance of the 1966 meeting, cited by
President Holt, when the employee members had not
accepted his proposals at the end of the meeting day, they
came back on a subsequent day and accepted them, as
Holt told it, fn. 8, supra
The constancy in the employee membership on the
committee, with little turnover, and the inability of new
employees to have a voice in selecting, or in
representation on, the committee, no doubt has eased
management's ability to continue its dominance of the
employee members; and the "clubiness" of the wage
review day at the restaurant, away from the shop, with
meals provided and time paid for, was not calculated to
stir employee members' resistance to employer disposal of
their requests '
Likewise the employer's contribution of all moneys
(including payment for committee time), supplies, services,
and meeting places, to enable and assist the Plant
Committee system to function, with no employee
contribution or funds available for this purpose, has not
made easier any inclination that the Factory Workers
Group might have to press or insist upon requests on
behalf of the employees 11
Not only has Respondent dominated the Plant
Committee, but it has propagated, as illustrated in the
Plant Rules and Policies1s and in the letters to employees
and their families preceding and following the last Board
election," and has apparently successfully instilled in a
majority of the employees, the mistaken belief that the
Plant Committee was a truly representative labor
organization of the employees, which Respondent has
recognized for bargaining. Recognition has not been set
out in the usual type collective bargaining contract used
by labor unions, but nevertheless has been explicit in the
conduct of the whole Plant Committee system Indeed, as
recently as April 10, 1968, in its communication to the
employees (exhibit U-2), Respondent reminded them that
the Plant Rules and Policies of March 22, 1966
(embodying the Plant Committee system) was their
written understanding with the company for mutually
meeting and solving questions and problems In its
communications (note 17, supra), Respondent has also
demonstrated to its employees its hostility to independent
union organization, and (G.C Exh. 7) that it would
"Respondent claims in its brief that good labor relations exist in the
plant because there has been no unfair labor practice complaint against
Respondent heretofore, and because there was no evidence of employee
bitterness or ill-will toward management It has been aptly suggested, in a
like situation , that the appearance of amiability and of absence of hostility
"did not indicate genuine industrial peace but rather an absence of genuine
representation which permitted the employers a degree of freedom which is
usually found when there is no bargaining representative in the picture "
National Federation of Labor , Inc , 160 NLRB 961, 989, enfd N L R B
v National Federation of Labor. Inc. 387 F 2d 352 (C A 5)
"While the Act does not prohibit cooperation between management and
a labor organization , on the contrary encourages it, Federal Mogul Corp
v N L R B, 394 F 2d 915, (C A 6), contributions become unlawful
support when management's activities undermine the integrity of the
employees ' freedom of choice and independence in dealing with the
employer, Id . and particularly when the contributions are made to an
employees ' committee that is not free to run its internal affairs and
conduct negotiations without managerial interference and domination, Id
at 2336, citing with approval N L R B v H and H Plastics Mfg Co , 389
F 2d 678, (C A 6) In H and H Plastics , the Court listed factors similar to
many enumerated in the instant case, including financial support , indicative
of unlawful managerial interference with and domination of an employees'
committee in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 2), 389 F 2d at 680-681
"G C Exh 4
"Exhibits UI, U2, U3, R-l, GC-7
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continue to recognize the Plant Committee as the
employees' representative unless compelled to desist by
law.
Thus, Respondent by its dominance and interference
with the administration,18 but continued recognition of the
Plant Committee, has used it "as a means of thwarting
the policy of collective bargaining by enabling the
employer to induce adherence of employees to the [Plant
Committee] in the mistaken belief that it was truly
representative and afforded an agency for collective
bargaining, and thus to prevent self-organization."
N L R B v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines. 303 U S 261,
271
Accordingly, I find that in the six month period
preceding the filing of the charge and in the period since,
Respondent has, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act, unlawfully assisted, interfered with the
administration of, and dominated the Plant Committee,
the labor organization purporting to represent, and
recognized by Respondent as representing, its
production and maintenance employees. N L R B v.
Grand Foundries, Inc , 362 F 2d 702, 709 (C A 8), and
see N L R B v. Chardon Telephone Co , 323 F 2d 563,
564 (C.A. 6), N L R B v Western Reserve Telephone
Co , 323 F 2d 564, 566 (C A 6)
E The Representation Election and the Procedural
Issue
Respondent has contended that I ought not deal with,
or make any findings on the merits of, the question of
interference with the April 17, 1968, Board election
results , rather , that I should decide that the Regional
Director had no power to revoke his certification of the
results of the election four months after he had overruled
the objection of interference and certified the results of the
election , and hence had no power to revive and refer the
issue to me for hearing . (The chronology of events is set
out in heading C, above )
However , the Board has made the procedural law for
the case on this question by denying Respondent's appeal
to set aside the Regional Director ' s revocation of the
certification and holding that his action was proper,
without prejudice to a further appeal by Respondent. The
Board has further directed that any renewal of the attack
on the Regional Director ' s authority must await
disposition of the unfair labor practice case Board Order,
November 4, 1968 (G C Exh. I (k)).
I therefore will not deal with the procedural issue,
though I note in passing that Respondent may have
overlooked the reach of the Regional Director ' s authority,
as the delegate of the Board, to make post-election
investigation independently and regardless of the time
limitations on the parties for filing objections or whether
the matters investigated were included in the objections,
N L R B v Realist , Inc , 328 F 2d 840, 843 (C A. 7),
cert. denied 377 U.S 994, and of his authority to police
certifications , by recall if necessary , when circumstances
are brought to his attention that would have caused him
to refuse certification in the first instance , National
Federation of Labor, Inc, supra , 160 NLRB 961, 989,
enfd N L R B v. National Federation of Labor, Inc , 387
"In determining that Respondent ' s conduct has constituted interference
with, or domination of, or unlawful assistance to, a labor organization in
violation of Sec 8(a)(l) and (2) of the Act, the test " is not whether each
individual fact is a violation, but whether the facts taken together" justify
the conclusion , N L R B v Thompson Rama Wooldridge , Inc, 305 F 2d
807, 810 (C A 7)
F 2d 352 (C A.5)."
On the merits, the gravamen of the Union's objection
(No 4) to the results of the representation election was
that Respondent created for its employees the impression
of "continued recognition" to the Plant Committee as
bargaining representative of the employees. The Union's
recital of the committee meetings during the preelection
period were symptomatic but hardly the total evidence of
the impression conveyed. The evidence of the actual,
though not formal, recognition has been summarized and
analyzed under the preceding headings. The Union's
objection was well taken Moreover the election was
tainted not only for the reason alleged by the Union but
also by reason of Respondent's more encompassing
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) N L R B v Fashion
Fair, Inc . 399 F 2d 764 (C.A 6), N L R B v Tennessee
Packers, Inc , 379 F 2d 172, 179 (C.A 6), cert denied 389
U S. 958, Weather Seal Inc , 161 NLRB 1226, 1229 That
the Plant Committee was not listed on the election ballot
made it no less a factor in the ultimate result
I find that the existence of the company dominated and
company assisted labor organization, the Plant
Committee, and Respondent's according it continued
recognition as the bargaining representative of its
employees, interfered with and made impossible the
holding of a fair representation election among
Respondent's employees on April 17, 1968 In my view,
the results of that election should be set aside, and I
would so recommend to the Regional Director upon
severance and return of the representation case to him
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
"It was part of Respondent ' s contention that the Regional Director's
postelection actions, in revoking his certification and referring the reopened
issue for hearing , were destructive of the consent -election procedural design
for speedy resolution of representation questions In this connection I have
also taken note of N L R B v Chelsea Clock Co . 411 F 2d 189 (C A 1),
just released as this decision was going to print The court held that the
Regional Director had abdicated the authority vested in him by the parties
to finally resolve an objection to the results of a consent election, by
referring the objection for hearing to a Trial Examiner in consolidation
with a related unfair labor practice case The court was of the opinion that
the reference for hearing and consolidation violated the purpose of the
consent-election procedure to obtain a speedy result from the Regional
Director , and found that the Regional Director ' s delay of more than four
months before acting on the severed representation case after it was
returned to him , apparently awaiting the Board ' s affirmance of the Trial
Examiner's decision in the complaint case, was evidence of the
abandonment of the decision making by the Regional Director
Without commenting on the merits of the decision , it may be observed
that the Court held that there was nothing improper per se in the Regional
Director delegating for hearing the objection to the election results, and
said that it was not holding that consolidation may never be employed in a
consent election context
In the representation case before me, the agreement for the consent
election (G C Exh l (b)) preserves for the Regional Director , particularly
in paragraph 6, complete and final discretion on the method of
investigation of objections to the conduct of the election or conduct
affecting the results of the election , including the question of whether a
hearing should be held
In the circumstances, taking into account that the reference and
consolidation by the Regional Director in the present cases is within his
apparent authority under the consent agreement and under his broad
postelection authority to investigate , and to police election certifications,
and that the Board has initially approved his postelection action and
postponed any attack upon it until the complaint case has been disposed
of, I remain of the view that I should not pass upon the procedural issue
REED ROLLED THREAD DIE CO. 65
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relations to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing the free flow
thereof
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act
In particular, I shall recommend the disestablishment
of the employer dominated labor organization as "the
only effective way of wiping the slate clean and affording
the employees an opportunity to start afresh in organizing
for the adjustment of their relations with the employer"
N L R B v Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Co , 308 U.S 241, 250, N L R B v Southern Bell
Telephone Co , supra, 319 U.S 50, 57, Carpenter Steel
Co , 76 NLRB 670, 673.
Also, "because Respondent's unfair labor practices
strike at the very roots of employees' rights safeguarded
by the Act," St Joseph Lead Company, 171 NLRB No.
74, fn 1 (1968),20 I shall recommend a broad
cease-and-desist order
Concerning the representation case, RC-9980, having
found that Respondent's unfair labor practices interfered
with the results of the election of April 17, 1968, and
having recommended that the results of the election be set
aside, I shall further recommend that, in accordance with
the order for consolidation, the representation case be
severed from the complaint case and returned to the
Regional Director for disposition
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following
Plant Committee or any other labor organization of its
employees
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights of
self-organization guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as recognized in Section 7
and authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from, and
completely disestablish the Plant Committee as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with Respondent in respect to grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, provided, that this action
shall not be interpreted as requiring Respondent to vary
wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive features of its
employees' working conditions already established
(b) Post at Respondent's plant in Holden,
Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."21 Immediately upon receipt of the copies
of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region I (Boston, Massachusetts), the
Respondent shall cause the copies to be signed by one of
its authorized representatives and posted, the posted
copies to M maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 22
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Case I-RC-9980 be
severed from this proceeding and returned for disposition
to the Regional Director for Region I
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act The
Union and the Plant Committee are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
2 By dominating, interfering with the administration
of, and unlawfully assisting the Plant Committee, to
whom it has accorded recognition as bargaining agent of
its employees, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act The unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3 By engaging in said unfair labor practices the
Respondent has interfered with the results of the
representation election of April 17, 1968
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and conclusions
of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I
recommend that Respondent, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Dominating, contributing financial or other
assistance to, or interfering with the administration of, the
"Likewise based on findings of Sec 8 ( a)(2) and ( 1) domination of, and
unlawful assistance to, a labor organization
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words, "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced in a United States Court of
Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that
After a trial, in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the Act, and has told us
to post this notice and to keep our word about what we
are committed to do.
WE WILL NOT dominate, contribute financial or other
assistance to, or interfere with the administration of,
the Plant Committee or any other labor organization.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE HEREBY withdraw all recognition from and
completely disestablish the Plant Committee as the
representative of any of our employees for the purpose
of dealing with us concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or other
conditions of employment However, we will not
interpret this action as requiring us to vary your wages,
hours, seniority , or other substantive features of your
working conditions already established.
You are all free to become or remain members of
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , or to refrain
from doing so, except as your right might be affected by a
contract validly made under the National Labor Relations
Act with a labor organization , whereby membership in the
labor organization is a condition of employment after the
30th day following the date of the contract or the
beginning of the individual's employment, whichever is
later
Dated By
REED ROLLED THREAD
DIE CO.
SUBSIDIARY OF UTD
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & Sudbury
Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone
223-3300.