Western Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 1177 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

-In the Matter of WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
Case No . 5-C-1604.-Decided August 9,1944
Messrs. - Earle K. Shawe and Keith W. Blinn , for the Board.`
Root, Clark , Buckner & Ballantine , by Messrs . Wilkie Bushby and
William J. Butler; Messrs . Walter L. Brown and Carl K. Rang, of
New York City ; Piper, Watkins cC Avirett, by Mr. R. Dorsey Watkins,
of Baltimore , Md., and Mr. C. C. Chew, of Point Breeze, Md ., for the
respondent.
Messrs. J. E. Poulton and William E. Dameron , of Washington,
D. C., for the I. A. M.
,Messrs . Charles H. Dorn and Jacob Blum, of Baltimore , Md., for
the Association and the National Committee.
Mr. Frederic B. Parkes, end , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by International Association
of Machinists, A. F. L.,1 herein called the I. A. M., the National Labor
Relations Board, herein balled the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint
dated July 2, 1943, against Western Electric Company, Incorporated,
Point Breeze, Maryland, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, the I. A. M.,
and Point Breeze Employee Association, Inc., herein called the Asso-
ciation, a labor organization alleged in the complaint to be company
dominated.
' At the time of the hearing the I. A. Al. \vas an unaffiliated organization, We take
notice of the fact that the I. A. Al. subsequently affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor.
57 N. L. R. B., No. 178.
1177
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent (1) on or about August 1, 1933, formed
and sponsored a labor organization of its employees known as Em-
ployee Representation Plan, herein called the Plan; (2) from August
1, 1933, to April 22, 1937, dominated and interfered with the admin-
istration'of the Plan and contributed financial and other support to
it; (3) on or about April 22, 1937, fostered, encouraged, and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Association,
alleged to be a successor to the Plan; and (4)_ continuously since April
22, 1937,' dominated and interfered with the administration of the
Association and contributed financial and other • support thereto.
The complaint further alleged that from July 5, 1935, to the date of
the issuance of the complaint, the respondent (1) urged, persuaded,
and warned its employees to join and assist the Plan and its successor,
the Association; (2) recognized the Plan, and its successor, the Asso-
ciation, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees;
(3) "entered into collective bargaining agreements\with the Associa-
tion; and (4) deducted dues and assessments from the wages and
salaries of its employees on behalf of the Association. In addition, the
complaint alleged that from July 5, 1935, to the date of the issuance
of the complaint, the respondent, by its officers and agents, has inter-
fered with, restained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by (1) urging, persuading,
and warning its employees to join and assist the Plan and its suc-
cessor, the Association, and not to become or remain members of any
other labor organization,; especially the I. A. M.; (2) questioning
its employees concerning their activities on behalf of the I. A. M.
and other, affiliated labor organizations ; (3) indicating to its employee's
a preference for an unaffiliated labor organization; and (4) promoting
officers, representatives, and other adherents of the Plan and the Asso-
ciation to better and more desirable positions,
.
On July, 12, 1943, the respondent filed its answer, in which it ad-
mitted some of the allegations of the complaint but denied that it had
engaged in any unfair labor practices. The Association filed an
answer dated July 26, 1943, denying that the Association was formed,
sponsored, or supported by the respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from July 19 to 27, 1943, acid
on August 2, 1943, at Baltimore, Maryland, before Horace A. Ruckel,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
At 'the opening of the hearing, the Trial Exami'ner granted a motion
to intervene filed by National Committee of Communication Equip-
ment Workers, herein called the National Committee, with which the
Association is affiliated. The Board, the respondent, the I. A. M.,
the Association, and the National Committee were represented by
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1179
counsel. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and/ to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The Trial Ex-,
-iminer denied motions by the respondent and, the Association to dis-
miss the complaint on the ground that the proceedings were barred by
an amendment to the Department of Labor, Federal' Security Agencies
Appropriation Act for,the fiscal year 1943-1944, effective July 12,
1943.2 The respondent also filed a motion for a bill of particulars,
which the Trial Examiner granted in certain respects.3 On July 19,
1943, the Board filed a bill of particulars.
At the close of the introduction of evidence by the Board, the Trial
Examiner denied a motion by the respondent to dismiss the com-
plaint. The respondent renewed the motion to dismiss at the conclu-
sion of the hearing. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling thereon
and denied the motion in his Intermediate Report. At the conclusion
of all testimony, the Trial Examiner granted a motion by the Board
to conform the complaint to the proof in formal matters, and a motion
by the Association similarly to conform its answer. During the course
of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions
and oil objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed' the rulings -of the Trial Examiner made during the course
of the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the Board, the respondent, and the Association argued 'orally before,
acid subsegnentl'y filed briefs A66. the Trill Examiner.
On September 13, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
'Report., copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the
I. A. M., and'the Association. He found that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, Within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
and recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:- On October 13, 1943, the Association and the National Com-
2 This amendment provided that No part of the funds appiopriated in this title shall
be used in any way in connection with a complaint case arising over an agreement between
management and labor winch has been in existence for three months or longer without
complaint being filed. lProvided, That, hereafter, notice of such agreement shall have been
posted in the plant affected for said period of three months,osaid notice containing informa-
tion as to the location at an accessible place of such agreement where said agreement shall
be open for inspection by any interested persons." Public Law 135 of the 78th Congress,
Chapter 221, of the First Session. Title IV - 1
3 The Trial Examiner directed counsel for the Board to furnish the, respondent the
names of supervisory officials alleged to have made statements in, violation of the Act.
In denying the motion for a bill of particulars with respect to'other matters, the Trial
Examiner stated that if the respondent should be surprised by the testimony of any wit-
ness for the Boaid, he would entertain a motion for an adjournment of the hearing and
a motion to reserve cross-examination of such witness During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner permitted the respondent to defer its cross-examination of several such
witnesses. I -
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mittee jointly filed with the Board their exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and on October 19, 1943, they filed a joint brief in support of
the 'exceptions. On October 19, 1943, the respondent filed its excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a. brief in support of the excep-
tions. On,October 19, 1943, the I. A. M. filed a brief in support of
the Intermediate- Report. On October 27, 1943, the respondent filed,
its exceptions to the I. A. M.'s brief.
On October 26, 1943, the Board issued an Order, duly served upon
the parties, to show cause in writing why the proceeding should or
'should not be dismissed without prejudice, since it appeared that the
proceeding was within the bar of the amendment to the Appropria-
tion Act for the fiscal year 1943-1944. Statements on the order to
show cause were filed by the respondent, the I. A. M., the Association,
and the National Committee 4 on Novenib^r 15', 1943. Pursuant to
notice, a hearing was held before the Board at Washington, D. C.,
on December 9, 1943, for the purpose of oral argument on both the
merits of the proceeding and the application of the amendment to
the 1944 Appropriation Act. The respondent, the I. A. M., and the
Association were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. At.the request of the Board, the respondent thereafter filed
,copies of contracts which were-alleged to be then currently in effect
between the respondent and the Association.
We find it unnecessary to determine whether this proceeding was
within the bar of the amendment to the 1944 Appropriation Act,
since the application of that amendment is now moot, having been
superseded by an amendment to the 1945 Appropriation Act.' The
current amendment provides as follows:,
No part of the funds appropriated in this title, shall be used in
any way in connection with a complaint case arising over , an
agreement, or a renewal, thereof, between .management and labor
which has been in existence for three months or longer without
complaint being filed by an employee or employees of such plant :
Provided, That, hereafter, notice of such agreement, or a re-
newal thereof, shall have been posted in the plant affected for
said period of three months, said notice containing information
as to the location at an accessible place of such agreement where
said agreement shell be open for inspection by any interested
person : Provided, further, That these limitations shall not apply
to agreements .with labor organizations formed in violation of
Section 158, paragraph 2, title 29, United States Code.
We hereinafter find that the Association was formed in violation of
Section 8 (2) of the Act; accordingly, the instant proceeding is not
" The Association and the National Committee filed a joint statement.
5 Public Law 373 of the 78th Congress , Second Session.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED / 1181
barred by the amendment to the Board's current 1945 Appropriation
Act. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and, insofar;
as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 'is a New York corpora-
tion having its principal office in New York City. It is a subsidiary,
of American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and has subsidiaries
in various foreign countries. It is engaged in the manufacture, pur-
chase, and sale of communication equipment for the` Bell Telephone
System. Its principal manufacturing department locations are in
Chicago, Illinois; Kearny; New Jersey; Middle Village, Long Island,
New York; and Point Breeze, Maryland. It maintains sales offices in
many of the principal cities of the United States.
The instant proceeding concerns the respondent's plant at Point
Breeze, Maryland. The estimated value of total purchases for the
respondent's Point Breeze Works for the year 1942 amounted to
$23;832,000. Of these purchases, approximately 80.5 percent was
made outside of the State of Maryland. During the same period the
total value of finished products shipped from the Point Breeze Works
amounted to $40,800,000. Approximately all of these finished prod-
ucts was shipped outside the State of Maryland. A large share of the
respondent's facilities is, at the present time, devoted to furnishing
various types of combat and communication equipment to the United
States Government.
The respondent concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization af-
filiated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to member-
ship employees of the respondent.
Point Breeze Employees Association is a labor organization affili-
ated with the National Committee of Communication Equipment
Workers ,6 admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
6 The National Committee was formed in 1939. It has as affiliates, in addition to the
Association, six other organizations in other plants of the respondent The National Com-
mittee conducts bargaining negotiations with the respondent on behalf of these organi-
zations.
I
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III'. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference with, domination and support of, the Plan
The facts in the record are not substantially in dispute. IiI August,-
1933, the respondent established and sponsored the Plan at its several
plants; to provide "a-means whereby employees, through representa-
tives of their own choosing may deal collectively with Management
and have a voice in the consideration of matters of material interest,"
for the purpose, among others, of "developing the facts relating to
wage and working conditions from the viewpoints'of Employees and
Management."
The Plan provided for three different types of joint committees,
each composed of not less than two representatives elected by the em-
ployees, and not more thantwo supervisors appointed, by management.
;These three types of comiittees were (1) "Joint Committees of the
first level," whose employee representatives were elected by employees
in the several voting districts into which the plant was divided, (2)
"Joint Committees of the second level," the employee representatives
on which were elected by the employee representatives on the "Joint
Committees of the first level," and (3) "Point Breeze Joint Commit-
tee," whose-members were elected by employee representatives on the
"Joint Committees of the second level." It was provided that the
works manager should be a member of the Point,Breeze Joint Com-
mittee.
The Point Breeze Joint Committee determined the number of vot-
ing districts, the number of representatives to be chosen from each
district, the number of second level Joint Committees to be estab-
lished, and the number of employee representatives from each Joint
Committee who should serve on the Point Breeze Joint-Committee:
Only employees who had been in the continuous employ of the re-
spondent for at least 1 pear were eligible to election as employee repre-
sentatives of such committees.
It was the duty of the Point Breeze Joint Committee to consider
all matters referred to it by Joint' Committees of the lower levels.
Matters not settled by the Point Breeze Joint Committee were referred
to the; higher officers of the respondent for review. The Plan did not
confer authority on'any of the Joint Committees to bind the manage-
ment, the functions of the committees being merely advisory.
The Plan made no provision for any meetings of the employees, or
of the elected representatives by themselves apart ,from representa-
tives appointed by the management; nor was there any provision for
becoming a member of the organization (as distinguished from auto-
matic participation by all employees), or for dues or any other form
of financial support. Voting was conducted and all committee meet-
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1183
ings were held during working hours. The respondent bore all ex-
penses of the Plan:
`In 1934, the Plan was revised to integrate its operations in the re-
spondent's four plants and to provide a means whereby important
matters might be laid before the general management. The Plan, as
revised, was submitted to a -vote of, and adopted by, the employees as
a whole.
After July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act, the Plan continued
in operation without change until April 1937. We find, as did the
Trial ,Examiner,,,that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the administration of, and contributed financial and other support to,
the Plan, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its Point
Breeze employees in the rights guaranteed in Section,7 of the Act.'
B. Inte? ference with, domination and support of, the Association;
interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Formation of the. Association
On April 12. 1937, the Supreme Court of the United States decided
that the Act was constitutional.8 On the-next day Hicok, the respond-
'cllt's superintendent of industrial relations, informed H. D. Scar-
borough, chairman of the Plan, that a pending meeting between
representatives of the respondent end the Plan would not be held
because there was doubt as to the legality of the Plan. About April
16, 1937, most of the 17 employee representatives under the Plan met
in the office,of W. H. Meese, the respon'dent's vice president and works
manager, who told the representatives that because of the recent de-
cision of the Supreme Court the respondent could no longer "deal"
with them. Meese's statement was reported by the representatives
to their constituents in the various departments of the plant and it
became a matter of general information. In general, the represent
atives told the employees that the respondent would no longer,recog-
nize the Plan, and that the Plan was "out." " It is not contradicted.
however, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent
itself did not, by oral statement of any officer or other supervisory
employee, by written notice or otherwise, convey to its employees as a
whole, as distinguished from the 17 Plan representatives, the respond-'
ent's intention no longer to recognize the Plan or to meet with its
iepresentatives. On the contrary, and in spite of Meese's statement'
1 See lVesttinghouse Electric & Hfy Co v N L R B., 312 U S 660, affirming per
-curium ) 112 F ( 2d) 657 , enforcing as modified 18 N L R B 310
9 See : National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 301 U. S.
1, and related cases
g Actually , as is hereinafter found , the 'respondent met with Plan representatives on
three occasions subsequent to Meese's statement and continued discussions of wages and
-other working conditions '
'1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
that the -respondent would no longer deal with the 17 Plan represent-
atives as representatives bf the employees, the respondent continued
to meet with them. - At meetings on April 15, 20, and 22, 1937, problems
pertaining to wages and other working conditions were considered and
several grievances discussed and adjusted. No further bargaining'
conferences 'appear to have been held' until after the organization of
the Association, in June, hereinafter related.
On several occasions during a period of several days immediately
following the meeting in Meese's office, the 17 Plan representatives met
at their homes and in local restaurants where they discussed the forma-
tion of a new organization. They agreed that if an organization were
formed, it R'ould be confined to the respondent's plant. The represent-
atives clearly announced this policy in an "Invitation" dated April
19, 1937, which they circulated among the weekly rated employees,10
from which the following are excerpts : -
The Plan under which we have been operating has probably
been invalidated by the 'recent ruling of the Supreme Court, in
that it was conducted with financial assistance from the manage-
ment. . . . We propose to bind ourselves together in our own
Association, and pay the running expenses of it ourselves
The reasons for such an association : We will do our own
bargaining with the management, we will know how our dues
are spent; we will -known who our officers are and why; we will
call a strike when we' think a strike is necessary and not before.
(Emphasis in original.)
This is not the formation of a body of'radicals whose object is
the destruction 'of life, property or wages, if such be necessary
to fill their coffers, but a progressive step toward the retainment
of the wholesome relationship between us and our employers.
The 17 Plan representatives decided to hold an,election to deter-
mine whether a new organization should be formed and to submit
their names as agents (1) to form a new organization, and (2) to
bargain with the respondent during the, period of its formation.
Accordingly, on April 21, 1937, copies of the following circular, to-
gether with ballots, were distributed among the employees :
The Employee Representation Plan under which we have been
dealing with the management is no longer permitted because
the management has been helping to pay the expense of it
"It was originally intended to include weekly rated employees, including clerical em-
ployees; iii the proposed organization. This plan was subsequently abandoned.
1
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1185
It: is necessary for us to form a New Plan or to have 'none at
all. If we don't form a New Plan the chances are some union
will come in and organize us into an outside Union..
Iii return for the money we would pay them in dues-what we
would rehlly get would be strikes, loss of wages, ill felling (sic) be-
tween us and our employer and most probably, the loss of-sick
benefits, and pay for holidays and vacations.
* * * * * * *
Now to form an Organization that will pay its own way is
going to take some time and cost some money. It is necessary
for someone to take the lead-'and naturally we believe that you
expect us, your elected representatives, to take that leadership
until you have had a chance to vote for the ones you want to
serve you in the new Organization. With the firm belief that
that is what you expect of us, we place the following, proposition
before you.
1. That you authorize the following men (here the names of the
17 Plan representatives were set forth) to act as your only Agents
to bargain with the management during a period not to- exceed
sixty days from April 22,1937, during which time the afore-named
men are to submit a contract which will be our bond of organi-
zation.
4. That the afore=named Wien will appoint a secretary and
treasurer
5. That under the law a majority of employees in a properly
constituted bargaining unit may name the agent or agents,'tliat
is to bargain for the entire body and that if a majority of the
non-supervisory employee body at the Point Breeze Works of the
Western Electric Co., Inc., vote in favor of the afore-named men,
proceeding with the formation of an Organization as herein de-
scribed, they will proceed to do so
Whether you are for or against the formation of a Plan as
described herein, please have the courtesy toward your fellow,
employees to vote for or against the proposed Plan on the ballot
attached hereto. (All emphasis supplied.)
The ballot was in the following form :
My "X" mark below indicates that I am "For" or "Against"
the formation of an Organization such as described in the paper
attached hereto."
For q - Against q
i' A reference to the circular described above
601248-45-vol 57-76
1186 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Attached to the ballot was a sheet of paper on one side of which
the following instructions appeared : -
If I have marked the attached ballot "For" my signature Hereby
authorizes -the men named below to proceed with the formation
of an Organization such as described in the paper attached
hereto.12 If I have marked the attached ballot "Against" them,
I am against the formation such as described in the paper at-
tached hereto.
(Here were appended the names of the 17 Plan Represent-
atives.) 13
The election was conducted on April 22 and 23, 1937. Ballot boxes
were placed on the sidewalk in front of the plant entrances, and the
employees .voted as they finished work. An election committee com-
posed of several representatives assumed charge of all details con-
nected with the election, including the counting of ballots. The,re-
sults of the election were certified by a Notary Public. Most of the
expenses connected with'the election were paid personally by Scar-'
borough, who was subsequently reimbursed by the Association.
A large majority of the employees voted for the New Plan and for
the 17 representattiyes under the', old Plan. On April 27, 1937, the
17 representatives wrote the respondent a letter announcing the re-
sults of the election and requesting the respondent to bargain with
them during a period of 60 days as sole representative of the employees.
The respondent replied on April 29, 1937, granting the request, uid
asking only that the respondent be furnished with a certified copy
of the results of the election. This was subsequently done. '
Following the election, a committee composed of the 17 representa-
tives met to draft a constitution and bylaws for the new organization.
Scarborough, Plan president, acted as chairman of this committee.
The committee used various forms as models, including the constitu-
tion of the Plan as amended in 1934. 'Walter Schaffer, secretary of
the Plan and a'membee of the committee, testified that'"we used that
for a guide, and I would say about •50 -percent of it we threw out." 11
The Association was incorporated on June 1.1, 1937. Fifteen of the
17 Plan representatives acted as incorporators.
Copies of the proposed constitution and bylaws, prominently dis-
playing the names of the 17- representatives as authors, were -dis-
tributed among the employees. On June 12 and 14, 1937, shortly
J
12 See footnote 11, supra.
1' The employees were requlied_to'vote for or against the 17 representatives as a whole.
No method of writing in any other candidate was provided for.
14 Schaffer did not specify what provisions of the Plan 's constitution were relied upon.
Scarborough testified that the committee "taken some of the history from that and
added to it " °
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1187
before the expiration of the 60-day period during which the 17 Plan
representatives continued to represent the employees, another election
was held 'on the sidewalk in front of the plant. Ballots were dis-
tributed in the' plant during workinb hours. The employees were
asked to vote-on the adoption of the constitution and bylaws and at
the same tine to vote for Association representatives. Two ballots
were given each employee. The first ballot read as follows :
I have received and read the By-Laws of the Point Breeze
Employes' Association Inc. of the Western Electric Co., and
I vote for the Point Breeze Employes' Association, Inc. of the
Western Electric Co., Inc. q
I vote against the Point Breeze Employes' Association, Inc.
of the Western Electric Co., Inc. q
as the collective bargaining agency for the Western Electric
hourly rated employes at the Point Breeze plant.
One side of the second ballot was an application for,membership in
the Association : „ 11
TO VOTE FOR A REPRESENTATIVE, SEE OTHER SIDE
DETACH BEFORE PLACING IN BALLOT BOX
I hereby apply for membership in the Point Breeze Employes'
Association, Inc. of The Western Electric Co., Inc. and agree
to pay the initiation fee and dues as long as I am a member.
Iii the event that arrangements can be made, I also authorize
deduction of the membership fees, and clues from my salary, pro-
vided that membership fee and dues shrill not be collected front
my salary in. the same week.
Name---------------
Dej_jartment------------=--- 0------------
The other side of the second ballot provided for the choice of a
representative:
Having joined the Point Breeze Employes' Association, Inc.
I hereby cast my vote for ----- ------------------------------ as
my representative. '
I am employed in the ---------------'------- Voting District.
It will be observed that in casting their ballots the employees
simultaneously (1) applied,for membership in the Association,' (2)
accepted membership in the Association, (3) approved its bylaws,
(4) authorized a check-off of ineinbership fee and dues, and (5) chose
16' he ballot was perforated and so arranged that the application for membership,
bearing the signature of the voter, could be detached fioni the ballot proper
1188' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives from their voting districts. The election resulted 'in
1685 votes being cast for the- Association and 21 against it. Of the
1711 employees casting votes,16 1709 signed applications for mem-
bership.
Thirteen of the 17 Plan representatives were chosen as representa-
[ives in the Association, together with 11 others who had, not been
representatives under the Plan. Hence, of a total of 24 Association
representatives elected, former Plan representatives constituted a
Inaj ority.
The constitution and bylaws of the Association, as adopted, re-
tained many of -the essential features of the Plan.17 Twenty-four
voting districts were created instead of the 17 provided for by the
Plan, and a representative and an alternate were to be elected in each
district. All the business of the Association was to be conducted by
a Board composed of these representatives.' The Board was em-
powered to elect all officers from among its own members. No regular
meetings of the Board were provided for except an annual meeting
to be held upon call of the officers or upon -request of one-third of
the representatives. No meetings of the membership as a whole were
provided for other than an annual meeting to be held each May.18
'Whereas the respondent bore the whole' expense of the Plan, the
finances of.the Association were derived- from a membership -fee of
50 cents and monthly dues of 25 cents.19 A principal provision.of
16 Five ballots were not marked.
17 The constitution and bylaws contained a History and a Foreward which , traced the
histoiy of employer -employee relationships at the Point Breeze works. The following
excerpts are pertinent:
Collective bargaining at the Point Breeze Plant of the Westdrn Electric-Company,
Inc , dates back to August 1, 1933 At that time the employes accepted the plan
for employe repiesentation for the puipose of dealing with the-Company as to labor
conditions at this plant
In the Spring of the year 1934 * * * a company wide plan for employe repre-
sentation was written This plan was submitted to the employes of the entire
Company for approval or disapproval * * *- Of the 12,706' who voted, 87.24%
voted in favor of this plan
As a result of the adoption of this dompany -wide plan of collective bargaining,
many matters of labor relations were amicably discussed and agieenients reached,,
which advanced and protected the interests and rights of the employes.
However, on April 16 , 1937 , the Management at Point Breeze notified the elected
representatives under the plan that the Company would no longer be able to deal
with these representatives under the plan because a doubt existed as to its legality
under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act (The History then sets forth
the names of the 17 plan representatives on April 16, 1937 )
The Association is not formed along militant lines * * * It is, therefore, the
pr imary purpose of the organization to decide issues in the clear light of reason * * * -
rather than in the heat and passion of industrial controversy
'18 In practice , these meetings appear to have been largely social Guy Rebok , a member
of the Association since its inception , testified, without contradiction and we find that
he attended the annual meetings in 1939, 11J40 , and 1941 , and that at the first two meet-
ings, Held ' at local taverns , the business part of the meeting lasted for approximately
1 hour 1
it The monthly dues were raised to 50 cents in 1941.
WESTERN, ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1189
the Plan, the Joint Committees in which the management participated,
was eliminated.
After the June election the representatives met and elected officers.
Scarborough, last chairman of the Plan, and the chairman of the com-
mittee to draw up a constitution and bylaws for the Association, was
designated to be the first president of the Association. N. L. Enright
and C. M. Walton, who had been representatives under the Plan, were
chosen vice president and treasurer; respectively, of the Association.
On June 19, 1937, the Association wrote the respondent advising it
of the results of the election, enclosing a copy of the constitution
and bylaws, and requesting a bargaining conference. The respondent
replied to this letter on June 25, 1937, recognizing the Association sub-
ject to verification of its claim to represent a majority of the employees.
This verification was later furnished in the form of a certification by
a public accountant who checked applications for membership in the
Association against the respondent's pay roll. On July 21, 1937, sev-
eral of the Association's representatives, together with H. J. Green, the
Association's attorney, met with representatives of the respondent
and discussed pay-roll ,deductions for Association dues and a 10 1Ser-
cent wage increase, Green warned that if a method of dues deductions
was not agreed upon the Association might "disband and fall in hands
of other labor organizations"; 20 Scarborough stated that the members
"wouldn't pay dues in any other way." The respondent agreed to
devise a method of dues deductions.21 Green declared that there was
"no use going ahead in pay-roll deductions-employees would be
unwilling to pay dues-wouldn't want this kind of organization with-
out 10 percent increase," and that the Association would "break up and
they will attempt to secure more wages through other organizations."
The respondent consented to consider the request and subsequently, at
a meeting on September 24, 1937, agreed to a general wage increase of
approximately 6 percent.
2. Subsequent history of the Association, interference, restraint, and
coercion
During the entire period from June 1937 to the date of the hearing,
the Association has been the recognized bargaining agent of the
respondent's employees'22 and has regularly met with the respondent's
representatives and discussed wages, hours, and other working condi-
tions. Various wage increases and other benefits have been granted.23
20 This and the following quotations are taken from a copy of the minutes of the conference
which is in evid@nce
21 Subsequently , the respondent agreed to deduct dues upon a uurltten assignment of
wages for that purpose. The Assocation agreed to bear the clerical expense entailed.
2' The Association has never asked for or been granted a closed shop.
22 It appears that a number of agreements of a "Piece -meal" character between the
respondent and the Association have been made Those made in 1937 were in the form
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Ed Smith testified that, in November 1941, he was elected
representative, in the following`manner, to succeed an employee retir-
ing from that position because of a promotion to a supervisory posi-
Ition : During working hours one representative distributed ballots to
the employees in Smith's department and another representative fol-
lowed with a small ballot box in which the ballots were deposited.
Smith also testified that the same procedure was followed in an elec-
tion of a representative in the rubber-covered wire- department, late in
1941 or early in 1942, with Smith gassing out the ballots on this occa-
sion. Supervisors J. Sedlak and Clifton H. Whittmore testified'that
they had never observed Smith or any other employee distributing
ballots during working hours. Even though the testimony of Sedlak
and Whittmore be credited, such testimony does riot fully negate the
occurrence of the events testified to by Smith. In view of the entire
record, we find Smith's testimony to be in accord with the course of
conduct displayed by the respondent with respect to the Association ;
we therefore credit Smith's testimony. -
Moreover, Smith's testimony is corroborated by the credible and
undenied testimony of employee Stanley Mileski, a lathe operator,
with respect to a comparable occurrence. Mileski testified that, in
the Spring of 1942, employee Charles Seick; who theretofore had been
the representative of the employees in the machine shop, was promoted
to a, supervisory position and accordingly. was no longer eligible to
of letters or memoranda of agreement signed by, both par ties In December 1941, the
respondent and the Association executed an agreement, effective as of November 15,
1941, which established a plan for the training of apprentices for the machinist trade.
The agreement provided that "either party may terminate this Agreement, on November
15, 1942, or,at the end,of any year thereafter on written notice to the other given at
least 45 days prior to said date or on any such subsequent year" The Association nego-
tiated a second written agreement, dated September 27, 1942, covering wage rates and
wage, administration of the. hourly rated employees. The expiration date of this 'contract
was stated to be October : 23. 1943 Similarly, the National Committee 'engaged in
"piece-meal " collective bargaining between April 1940 and April 1943 negotiating agree-
ments for six of its affiliates , including the Association, with respect to specific employment
relations problems common to the entire system of the respondent A few of these agree-
ments are alleged to be still effective Most of these, however, were superseded by the'
first general collective baigaimng contract executed by the respondent and the National
Committee on April 6, 1943 This agieement extends throughout the respondent's system,
conditioned only upon ratification by the various local affiliates of the National Committee.'
The contract does not cover'wage rates and certain matters which are left to be negotiated
locally by the affiliates at the various plants. On April,8, 1943; the Association served
notice on the respondent of an intention to strike The disagreement, involving conflicting
intrepretations of the respondent's right to determine employees eligible for wage increases
based on merit, pay during the taking of inventory, and the wage rates of two individual
employees, was certified to the' war Labor Board That Boaid on June 29 1943 , issued
its Directive Order upholding the respondent's right to give merit increases without consul-
tation with the Association, and denying the Association 's request foi a change in the
inventory wage rate The Association's contentions were upheld 'only with respect to
the two individual employees No strike took place Negotiations for a single agreement
covering all mattes which,remained to be bargained locally by the Association and which
wen e not covered by the agreement of April 6, 1'943, negotiated through the National
Committee, were begun in' July 1942. but at the time of the heal ung had not yet been
completed '
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1191
membership in the Association. According to,Mileski,,Seick told the
Association members in the shop `during working hours that, in order
to save money for the Association, there would be no need to con
duct a formal election to select the representative to succeed Seick,
but if all agreed, they could appoint employee Misskelley to be their.
representative. Thereafter, Misskelley acted as the representative
of those employees. We find that the respondent afforded further
support to the Association by permitting it to hold elections on coin-
pany property during working hours.
No other labor organization sought to enlist members in the re-
spondent's Point Breeze Works until January or February 1943, when
,the I. A..M. began organizational activities and obtained the member-
, ship of a number of employees.
The record establishes that, following recognition of the Associa-
tion, representatives of that organization were permitted to solicit
members in the plant. Helene Alexander, one of the most active
representatives in this respect, testified that the general practice was
to ask permission of the department foreman to punch out to attend
to Association business. Permission was ordinarily granted and the
time so spent was deducted from wages. The Association later re-
imbursed employees for losses in wages resulting from the conduct
of Association business during working hours. The record; further
establishes that copies of the Association's publication, the P. B. E. A.
News, were distributed in the plant during working hours with the
knowledge of supervisory employees. Employee H. E. Yeakle tes-
tified without contradiction and we find that, in April or May 1943,
when during working hours he was obtaining signatures to a petition
which requested bargaining rights for the I. A. M. among the machin-
ist employees, Supervisor Nevis asked Yeakle if he were "engaged
,in union activities." Yeakle replied in the negative but explained'
what he was doing. Whereupon, Nevis said, according to ^ Yeakle,
that "he thought that was a union activity, and, according to company
rules, lie said it was against the rules to allow union activity on
time. . . . He asked me to stop taking it around. He said he con-
sidered it against the company policy, and I did stop taking it
around." The Trial Examiner found that this incident was not in
point in considering the question of whether the respondent had
accorded to the Association privileges which it denied the I. A. M.,
since Yeakle had not requested permission to punch out on I. A. M.
business. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's evaluation of
the -testimony. In our opinion, the important factor is that Nevis
did not tell Yeakle to punch out if he desired to circulate the-petition
during working 'hours, but instead instructed him to "stop taking
it around." We find that by granting to the Association the privi-
,.l
1192 ''DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
le'ges above related and denying comparable privileges to the I. A. M.,
the respondent afforded further support to the Association.
According to the undenied testimony of emplbyee Guy Re,bok,
whom we credit, Group Chief Henry Stull told him, during working
hours in the Spring of 1943, "If we got an outside union in there we
would lose our sick disability, our holiday pay, and so forth." Rebok
further testified that when he mentioned his interest in the I. A. M.,
Stull stated that he "couldn't' understand why I would join an outside
organization." At the outset of the hearing 'the parties stipulated
that "all employees . . . classified as group chief, section chief, de-
partment chief, division chief, superintendent, and works manager,
are supervisory employees." Stull's statements are, accordingly,
attributable to the respondent.
Employee. Stanley Mileski testified that, in April 1943, he desired
to leave the respondent's employ but could not obtain an official release.
He further testified that he told Department Chief Edmund Shalla
that his desire to leave the respondent's employ was occasioned by
his fear of the promotion of an Association adherent to a supervisory
position over him, Mileski, who had been opposed to the Association
throughout its 'history. According to Mileski, Shalla replied,
"Stanley, the greatest crime a man can commit is to join an-outside
organization and when you leave here take a tip from me and don't
,get mixed up in any kind of business like this any more." Shalla
did not testify ; Mileski's testimony is undenied and we find it to be
credible.
Employee Marcus Book testified without contradiction and we find.
that, in May 1943, Supervisor W. W. Correll said, "Labor unions
can't make a job for you. When things are bad, working conditions
are bad, a labor union isn't going to get a job for you and you are just
out of luck." According to Book, Correll also stated that "most labor
unions were dishonest."
Employee Virginia Moore testified that, in May 1943, W. D. Pollock,
group chief of the inspectors, asked her if she "belonged to the Union,"
and that when she replied in the affirmative, he told her "to stay the hell
\away from his girls or I would find myself throwed out." Pollock
denied that he had ever questioned Moore with regard to her union
affiliation but admitted that he had heard "talk" that Moore belonged
to the Union. He testified that, in April 1943, Moore 'in jest pinned
an A. F. L. badge on his coat, that, he removed the badge, and that
possibly a conversation, none of which he could recall, ensued. He
stated that he could not yecall telling Moore to "keep the hell away
from my girls," and denied that he had ever discussed unions with
Moore. In view of Pollock's significant admission with regard to the
incident respecting the AFL badge, his failure to deny specifically
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1193
that he ever told- Moore to stay away from' his subordinates, and the
entire pattern of the respondent's conduct with respect to the Asso-
ciation, -we credit Moore's testimony and find that Pollock made the
remarks attributed to him by Moore.
Employee Rhoda Pearson testified that during a conversation with
Supervisor Crowley in June 1943, concerning the cost of living, wage
rates, and the Association, Crowley said, "Why do you call it a com-
pany union? . . . What makes you think it would be any better to
have an outside' union? To pay dues to an outside organization."
According to Crowley, Pearson complained of the labor grades estab-
lished for the department; and when she stated that the grades were
"no good," he replied, "They must be some good or the [Association]
wouldn't have accepted it."- In view of the respondent's efforts, in
the establishment of the Plan and the Association, to prevent an out-
side union from organizing the plant and also of Crowley's admis-
sions with respect to the conversation, we credit Pearson's version of
the colloquy and find that Crowley made the statements testified to
by Pearson.
We find that the respondent, by the statements and activities of
Supervisors Stull, Shalla, Correll, Pollock, and Crowley, set forth
above, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Conclusions as to the Association
As found above, the respondent dominated and interfered with
the administration of, and contributed support to, the Plan until
April 1937, when, as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States declaring the Act to be constitutional,-- the re-
spondent announced to the Plan representatives that it could no
longer deal with them as representing the respondent's employees.
The respondent made no such announcement, however, to its em-
ployees as a whole. Nor did it advise them that it was indifferent
to their organizational efforts. Such information as the employees
obtained with respect to these matters was derived at second hand
from the statements of representatives. These statements lacked the
sanction and authority which attach to pronouncements of an employer
concerning his employees. Such sanction and authority were given
the Plan when created and were continued throughout its life. Any
disavowal of it, to be effective, should have been accompanied by a
comparably clear and unequivocal announcement by the respondent
to the employees themselves that the respondent thereafter would,
have nothing to do with the Plan., 'Lacking such an open disavowal,
the representatives were able to, and did, represent to the employees,
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
without, correction by the.respondent, that the Plan was "out" solely
because the respondent had,been contributing financially to it. They
were told that it ,was necessary to have a "New Plan," financed by
the `employees, or none at all.
In spite of, its declaration that it would no longer deal with the
.Plan representatives, the respondent continued to meet with them
as representatives of the employees up to the election on April 22
and 23, 1937. At this election, conducted by themselves, the 17 repre-
sentatives sought and obtained a renewal of their representative status
for 60 clays, during which time they were.to form a new organization.
No real voice either in determining the nature of the new organiza-
tion or ins selecting those who should form it, ,vas afforded the em-
ployees. They were permitted only to vote for or against the slate
of 17 Plan representatives who were committed ,to the formation of
an "inside" organization,to keep an "outside" organization- out of the
plant.
The respondent promptly and expressly recognized the continuing
and exclusive representative capacity of the 17 Plan representatives
as requested. By this means the respondent, for 60 days, effectively
barred from the plant any organization of its employees other than
the one which the 17 Plan representatives were engaged in forming.
There was not only no break between-the Plan and the Association,
but the very possibility of .any break was effectively insured against.
The constitution and bylaws of the Association were drafted by a
committee whose chairman was•the chairman of the Plan and whose
other members had been representatives under the Plan. The Plan's
bylaws were partly relied upon as a model. Far- from disclaiming
any relationship between the respondent dominated Plan and the' As-
sociation, the latter's constitution and bylaws praised the Plan as the
protector of the employees' rights and interest. The Plan, according
-to the History and Forward, was no longer available only because
"a doubt existed as to its legality." The emplpyees' rights and inter-
ests were now to be protectecPby the Association which, like the Plan,
was "not formed along militant lines." , The language of the History
land Foreward is the language of successorship. Implicit is the con-
ception of the Association as an extension of the Plan, rather than a
new labor organization.24
The constitution and bylaws of the Association, like those of the
Plan, vested all actual 'control, including the election of officers, all
of whom were required to be representatives, in the representatives
themselves. The sole function of the members was to meet once a
24 There was not, at any 'time, the slightest impetus , stemming from the employees,
toward the formation of, an organization other than the proposed Association , nor any
discussion of such ' an organization Cf Providence Gas Company and 'Local No 12133,
District 50, United M ine Workers of America ( C. 1 0 ), 41 N. L R . B 1121.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1195'
year and to participate in the election of representatives. The pro-
z ision that representatives should be chosen from voting districts
and should represent only their respective districts'25 furnishes suffi-
cient insurance against the representatives' becoming genuinely inde-
pendent. The,respondent can deprive a duly elected officer or repre-
sentative of his, office and his representative status by discharging
him,- or by transferring him to another voting district. - The re-
spondent's mere possession of such a power, in and of itself, has been
held to amount to domination and interference with the administra-
tion of a labor organization, for the reason that the respondent never
needs to deal with a representative it does not find sufficiently amen-
able, and because the representative himself knows that he may lose
his right to represent the,employees or to bargain for them if he be-
comes too independent of the respondent's wishes.27
The election in June 1937, at which the employees simultaneously
approved the constitution and bylaws, applied for and received mem-
bership in the Association, authorized wage deductions for, member-
ship fees and dues, and chose representatives, permitted them little
more real choice than had the election in April 1937. So restricted,
'and conditioned over a long period of time to being represented by a
labor organization dominated by the respondent,'the employees, all of
whom had been automatically members of the Plan by virtue of their'
employment, were moved as a mass into the Association.
As a result of the election, 13 of the 17 Plan representatives became
Association representatives and constituted a majority of the Board of
Representatives. Hence, control of the Association was assured to
those who had been representatives under the respondent dominated
Plan.- Scarborough, last chairman of the Plan.and chairman of the
committee which drafted the Association's constitution and bylaws,
became first president of the Association. The employees of the, re-
spondent of necessity must have linked the Association to the Plan -
'5'A revised copy of the Association 's By-Laws, dated January 1, 1942 , was mtieduced
into evidence as Board 's Exhibit Number 41 A representative is defined by these bylaws
,as•"a member duly elected to iepiesent the district of which he or she is a member" An
alternate is defined as "an assistant representative that serves for and instead of a
representative , in case of absence , transfer , or recall until a new election is called in said
district ' l:mplovee Ed South testified , and we find, that in pi actice when it representa-
tive was transferred to a position in a voting district other than the district whose
employees selected him as representative , 'he automatically forfeited the privilege of
representing such employees o
''The Association 's, By-Laws provide that membership in the Association shall be
ter mutated upon the cessation of employment with the respondent , with the exception
"that if , a majority of the elected representatives shall decide , within thir ty - days after
the termination of employment , that such teimmation involved unfair labor practice, or
for any other reason the membership of any employee shall not be terminated and said
employee shall be entitled to the baigarning services of this Association . "
'T See W'estsnglrouse Electric d 31fg Co v N. L R. B, Ibid ; National Labor Relations
Board v. Pennoylvanrd Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U S 261 , Southern Bell Telephone d
Telegraph Co v. N L R. B , 319 U. S. 50.
1
i
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and thus to the respondent because of the identity of leading figures
in the Plan and the Association.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, we find, as-did the Trial Ex-
aminer, that the employees at the Point Breeze Works were not freed
from the respondent's domination of the Plan, and that their accept-
ance of the Association, under the circumstances recited, was not their
free and voluntary act, but was the product of the respondent's con-
tinuing interference with and domination of their efforts toward
self-organization?
, The respondent contends that irrespective of the origin of the Asso-
ciation, the evidence shows that the Association is not now dominated
by the respondent, and cites certain benefits which the employees have
received, allegedly as the result of the Association's efforts of collec-
tive bargaining through the National Committee. We cannot agree
with this contention. As found above, the respondent afforded sup-
port to the Association in 1941 and 1942 by permitting it to hold elec-
tions for representatives in the plant during working hours and ac-
corded it privileges, denied the I. A. M„ regarding union activities
during working hours. Moreover, shortly after the I. A. M. com-
menced its organizational activities among the respondent's employees
early in 1943, the respondent, by various supervisory employees, as
set forth above, questioned employees as to their membership in the
I. A. M., made statements laudatory of the Association, and dis-
paraged, and warned employees not to join, "outside" unions. In any
event, it is an established principle that the procurement of benefits
by a labor organization is immaterial if, in fact, the employer has
interfered with, dominated, or supported the organization.' As the
court said in the Virginia Electric and Power Company case '30 "It is
manifestly impossible to say that greater benefits might not have been
secured if the freedom^of choice of a bargaining agent had not been
interfered with."
The respondent also contends that the disestablishment of the Asso-
ciation would impair the'war effort. This is pure'speculation.31
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire record in
the case, we find, as did the'Trial Examiner, that the Association stands
in the same position as the Plan, which we have found to have been
dominated and supported by the respondent; that the respondent
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of,
28 1Vesttnghouse Electric if 41fq Co., Ibid and cases cited thereunder See a1so,,N. L. R. B.
v Standard Oil Co, 138 F (2d) 885 (C C A. 2), enforcing 43 N. L R B 12 '
29 Southern Bell Telephone if Telegraph Co v Al. L R B , Ibid
° Virginia Electric if Power Co . v. N L. R B , 319 U. S. 533.
31N L R B. v. Condenser Corp ., 128 F. ( 2d) 67 (C. C A. 3), enf. as mod . 22 N. L.
R B 347.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED , 1197
and contributed support to , the Association and is dominating and
interfering with the administration thereof ; and that the respondent
.has been and is interfering with; restraining , and coercing its
employees at the Point Breeze plant in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. I
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRA C TICES UPON COMMERCE
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 unfair
labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association and has con-
tributed support to it. The respondent's acts render the Association
incapable of serving the respondent's employees as a genuine bargain-
ing representative and render its continued recognition by the respond-
ent an obstacle to collective bargaining through freely chosen repre-'
sentatives. We shall accordingly order that the respondent withdraw
all recognition from the Association and disestablish it as a represent-
ative of the employees in the Point Breeze plant for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
Having found that the respondent entered 'into contracts with the
Association embodying recognition of the Association as such repre-
sentative, we 'shall order that the respondent cease -and desist from
giving effect to or performing any and all contracts between the
respondent and the Association relating to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment, now existing, and
to refraiii from entering into, renewing, or extending any contract
with the Association relating to such matters., Nothing in such order,
however, shall be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage,
hour, and other substantive features of its relation with the employees,
if any, which the respondent has established in performance of any
contracts as extended. renewed. modified, sunDlemented, or superseded.
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists,, A. F. L., and Point
Breeze Employees Association, Inc., are labor organizations, and Em-
ployee Representation Plan vas a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of, and contributing support to Employee Representation Plan
and Point Breeze Employees Association, Inc., the respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging 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 re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
.'Upon the basis of the above findings of fact.and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Western Electric Company, Incorporated, Point Breeze, Mary-
land, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with' the administration of, or con-
tributing support to Employee Representation, Plan or Point Breeze
Employees Association, Inc., and dominating and interfering with
the 'formation or administration of, or contributing support to, any
other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Employee Representation Plan or Point Breeze
Employees Association, Inc., as the representative of any of its em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or conditions of work;
(c) Giving effect to any and all contracts with Employee Repre-
sentation Plan or Point Breeze Employees Association, Inc., or to any
extension, renewal, modification,' or supplement thereof, or to any
superseding contract with Employee Representation Plan or Point
Breeze Employees Association, Inc., which may now, be in force;
'WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1199
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of Ma-
chinists, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities,. for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
'effectuate the policies of the Act: '
(a) Withdraw all recognition from, and completely disestablish,
Erimployee_Representation Plan and Point Breeze Employees Associ-
ation, Inc., as the representative of any of its employees for the pur-
poses of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages; rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of work;
(b) Immediately post notices in conspicuou's places in the Point
Breeze Works, 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'iri the conduct from which
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d)
of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) ' of this Order ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days' from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.