A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1940

22 N.L.R.B. 663 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORA-
TION and UNITED GRAIN PROCESSORS, LOCAL 21490 AFFILIATED WITH
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-1180.-Decided April , 1940
Crain Pioee.ssing Industry-Interference, Restraint , a4nd Coercion: use of
grievance machinery set up in conjunction with company -dominated organiza-
tion as a device to discourage membership in other labor organizations-Com-
pany-Dominated Union: domination of, interference with, and support of three
successive labor organizations ; second organization a mere revision of the first;
no hiatus between termination of each organization and formation of succes-
sor ; identity of employee leaders in each organization ; employee realization of
employer preference shown at time of formation of third organization ; refusal
to post neutrality notice at request of outside union ; payment to accountants
for certification of inside union ; payment of employee representatives for non-
working time spent in conference , third successive organization ordered disestab-
lished, refuse recognition ordered as to, other two organizations--Check-Off: for
company -dominated unions ; employer ordered to reimburse employees for
amounts deducted from earnings as dues for company-dominated unions.
Mr. Robert R. Rissrnan, for the Board.
LeForgee, Samuels d Miller, by Mr. Carl R. Miller, of Decatur,
Ill., for the respondent.
Hayes, Downing ct Rosenberg, by Mr. Edward A. Hayes, of Decatur,
Ill., and Mr. Francis R. Wiley, of Decatur, Ill., for the I. S. W. U.
Pines, Stein cC Beber, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Robert A. Wilson,
.of Washington, D. C., for Local No. 21490.
Mr. Woodrow J. Sandler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been duly filed on March 4,
1938, and November 30, 1938, respectively, by United Grain Processors
Local No. 21490, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called Local No. 21490, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated December 2,
22 N. L. R. B., No. 31.
663
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1938, against A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company, a corporation,
Decatur, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and
accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respond-
ent, Local No. 21490, and upon Independent Starch Workers' Union,
herein called the I. S. W. U., a labor organization allegedly dom-
inated by, interfered with, and supported by the respondent.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended
at the hearing, alleged in substance that the respondent dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of and con-
tributed financial and other support to Employees' Representation
Plan, herein called the E. R. P., a labor organization, later known
as Staley Employee's Organization, herein called the S. E. 0., that
subsequent thereto the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of and contributed financial and other
support to the I. S. W. U.; and that by the aforesaid and other acts,
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer, in which, as amended
at the hearing, it admitted the allegations of the complaint as to the
character of its business, but denied that it had engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Decatur, Illinois, on
December 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 1938, before Thomas S. Wilson, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the re-
spondent, and the I. S. W. U. were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing
the I. S. W. U. filed a petition for leave to intervene in the proceed-
ing,' wherein it denied that it was dominated or supported by the
respondent, and wherein it requested certification by the Board as
the collective bargaining agent of the respondent's employees. The
'Trial Examiner granted leave to the I. S. W. U. to intervene on the
issue of the respondent's alleged domination and support of the
I. S. W. U., but denied it intervention for the purpose of certification.
This ruling is hereby affirmed.
Both at the close of the Board's case and at the end of the hear-
ing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for
1 The I. S. W. U. had previously filed a similar petition with the Regional Director, on
December 10, 1938. The petition was refiled with the Trial Examiner at the suggestion
of the Board's attorney.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 665,
lack of evidence and counsel for the L'S. W. U. moved to dismiss
the complaint as to it for the same reason. On these motions the
Trial Examiner reserved decision. Subsequently, in his intermedi-
ate Report, the Trial Examiner granted the motion of the I. S. W. U.,
but denied the motion of the respondent except in so far as said
motion related to the respondent's alleged domination of, interfer-
ence with, or support of the I. S. W. U. To the extent indicated
below and for the reasons indicated below, these rulings are hereby
reversed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Trial Examiner
granted a motion of the Board's attorney to conform the pleadings
to the proof. This ruling is hereby affirmed. During the course of
the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numerous other rulings on mo-
tions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed.
After the close of the hearing, the respondent and the I. S. W. U.
filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. On February 1, 1939, the Trial
Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, in which he found that
the respondent had dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the E. R. P. and the S. E. O. and had con-
tributed financial and other support thereto, and had thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and recommended that
the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and
take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act. He further found that the allegations of unfair labor prac-
tices with respect to the I. S. W. U. were not sustained by the evi-
dence, and accordingly recommended that the complaint be dismissed
as to these allegations. Thereafter, Local No. 21490 filed its excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report.
On October 19, 1939, pursuant to request therefor by the respond-
ent, and notice thereof to all the parties and their attorneys, a hear-
ing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose
of oral argument. Counsel for the respondent, the I. S. W. U., and
Local No. 21490 appeared and participated therein. At the oral
argument the I. S. W. U. moved to consolidate the instant case with
a representation proceeding instituted on August 11, 1939, by Local
No. 21490,2 wherein Local No. 21490 requested certification by the
Board as the sole collective bargaining representative of the respond-
ent's employees. The I. S. W. U. further moved to stay further action
in the instant case, and requested that an election be held among the
respondent's employees. The motions of the I. S. W. U. made at the
oral argument are hereby denied.
2 The petition in that proceeding was filed on behalf of Local No. 21490 by an affiliate
organization, National Council of Grain Processors, affiliated with the A. F. of L.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, briefs were filed with it on
March 27, March 28, and April 6, 1939, by the I. S. W. U., Local No.
21490, and the respondent, respectively. In its brief, Local No. 21490
asked leave to introduce additional evidence as to the alleged super-
visory duties of one Harry Bell, one of the respondent's employees.
This motion is hereby denied. The Board has considered the excep-
tions filed by Local No. 21490 to the Intermediate Report and, to the
extent in in the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
hereby sustains them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
A., E, Staley Manufacturing Company, the respondent , is a Dela-
ware corporation engaged in the manufacture, - preparation, process-
ing, sale, and distribution of corn and soy-bean products, having its
main office and principal place- of business in Decatur, Illinois. The
respondent is the second largest enterprise in the corn milling wet
process industry. It maintains sales offices in Chicago, New York,
Boston, and Atlanta, and warehouses its products in approximately
150 warehouses located throughout the United States.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent are corn and
soy beans; the principal supplies are coal, bags, cans, shipping cases,
and chemicals. In 1937 the total value of all raw materials and sup-
plies purchased by the respondent was in excess of $21,000,000. Ap-
proximately 90 per cent of the corn, 95 per cent of the soy beans,
and all the coal purchased by the respondent are obtained by it within
the State of Illinois. Approximately 50 per cent of the respondent's
remaining supplies are obtained from points outside the State of
Illinois. The respondent's principal products are corn starch, corn
syrup, crude corn sugar, gluten -feed, corn oil, soy-bean meal, and
soy-bean,-oil., The respondent annually sells and ships products rang-
ing in value from $16,000,000 to $24,000,000. Approximately from 80 to
871/2 per cent of its products are sold and shipped by it to points
outside the State of Illinois. During the 5 years preceding the hear-
ing, the respondent has exported to foreign countries from 4 to 8
per cent of its products.
At its plant the respondent employs from 1,100 to 1,200 hourly
paid workers and approximately 110 salaried foremen and assistants.
In its administrative offices the respondent employs approximately
200 departmental supervisors, assistants, and clerks, and approxi-
mately 30 sales executives and assistants, all on a salaried basis-.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
667
United Grain Processors Local No. 21490, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, admitting to its
membership all hourly paid employees of the respondent.
Employees' Representation Plan is an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion, admitting to its membership all hourly paid non-supervisory
employees of the respondent.-
Staley Employee's Organization is an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion, admitting to its membership all hourly paid employees of the
respondent.'
Independent Starch Workers' Union is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation, admitting to its membership all employees of the respondent in
respondent's processing, mechanical, and service departments, excluding
executives and foremen.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of, interference with, and support of labor
organizations
1. The E. R. P.
Just-prior to July 1935, United Grain Processors, Local 20014,' af-
filiated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called Local
No. 20014, began to organize the respondent's employees. Before that
time, the respondent had never dealt with any labor organization in its
plant, nor had the respondent ever been asked to do so by any labor
organization.
Andrew J. Percival, the respondent's personnel manager, had for
some months suggested to the respondent the formation of an em-
ployees' representation plan, but the respondent had objected to
doing so. Early in July 1935 Percival called Augustus E. Staley,
Jr., the respondent's president, to his office, stating that Leo Richards,
an employee who was in Percival's office, was interested in the for-
mation of an employees' representation plan. Richards then asked
Staley what the respondent's attitude would be toward such a plan 5
and Staley replied that the respondent had no objection thereto if
the employees desired it. At that time Staley knew of the organi-
6 Both the E. R. P. and the S. E O. were superseded by the I. S. W. U . and are no longer
recognized by the respondent . However, It is not clear whether either the E. R. P. or the
S. E. O. was ever formally dissolved . We are therefore treating those organizations as
technically still in existence.
4 This local conducted the organizational activities at that time , and not Local No. 21490.
6 Staley testified that, prior to this conversation with Richards , no one but Percival had
ever , to his knowledge , suggested the establishment of an employees ' representation plan
in the respondent 's plant. Staley also testified that he did not know how Richards hap-
pened to be in Percival 's office, nor where Richards had got the idea of a plan.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
zation of the respondent's employees by Local No. 20014. Shortly
thereafter, petitions addressed to the respondent requesting the estab-
lishment of an employees' representation plan were circulated among
the employees. The petitions were prepared on the respondent's
mimeograph -machine and were circulated by employees during work-
ing hours, with Staley's consent. On July 11, 1935, while these peti-
tions were being circulated, the respondent distributed a letter to all
its employees, in which it stated that there was no obligation to sign
the petitions. Endorsing the. plan, the respondent added in the
letter, however :
All that the company can say is that if you men do want the
plan, we will assist in putting it in and we are inclined to believe
that it will prove to be a benefit both to all the employees and
to the management as well.
Some time prior to July 26, copies of a question-and-answer brochure
entitled "What is an Employee Representation Plan?" were dis-
tributed to each department in the plant. This brochure was pre-
pared by Andrew J. Percival, the respondent' s personnel manager,
with Staley's consent and approval, and was submitted to Staley
before it was distributed. In the following excerpts from this bro-
chure, the respondent pointed out to its employees the alleged ad-
vantages of an employee representation plan over "unionism":
Q. How does an employee representation plan differ from
"unionism"?
A. An employee representation plan differs from "unionism"
in four important particulars. (1) It is truly representative of
the employees in that it is free from control or pressure by out-
side interests or by employees in competing plants .. .
Q. What objections do unions have against the plan of em-
ployee representation?
A. They contend that since the employee representatives may
receive their regular wages while attending meetings, their free-
dom of action is thereby limited as compared with that of an
outside representative whom the employees themselves pay. If
all of the time of the conferences were taken up for discussion
of wages and hours, this criticism would be important. Actu-
ally, the meetings deal largely with safety measures , sanitation,
efficiency of operating methods, personnel problems, and similar
matters, for which work the employer would have had to pay
others if it were not handled by these representatives.
Q. Then what is the primary purpose of a representation
plan?
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 669
A. It is to provide means for peaceful settlement without
being drawn into outside battles .. .
Q. What is the strong feature of an employees representation
plan?
A. For both the management and the men it is a fact that
it settles local problems without getting involved in outside com-
plications .. .
By July 19, 1935, 85 per cent of the non-supervisory employees had
signed the petitions, and the respondent suggested the next "logical"
procedure, in a memorandum distributed to all employees on the
respondent's letterhead. The "suggested procedure" was as follows:
(1) That each department in the plant elect a temporary
representative.
(2) That these representatives meet in the plant cafeteria or
elsewhere on Friday, July 26, at 9 a. m.
(3) That these temporary representatives then draft a plan
setting forth a plan and method for the election of regular rep-
resentatives.
(4) That this plan and method for electing your regular rep-
resentatives be then submitted by your temporary representa-
tives to a vote by all employees to determine whether or not it is
satisfactory.
(5) That if this plan and method is satisfactory, you then
elect your regular representatives in accordance with the plan
adopted by you.
This procedure was followed in detail. Temporary representatives
were elected during working hours by the employees in each depart-
ment of the plant. The first meeting of the temporary employee
representatives was held in the plant cafeteria on July 26, from 9
a. m. to 3 p. m. Staley addressed the meeting. Andrew J. Percival
was present, having been "invited into the meeting in an advisory
capacity only." The extent of his participation, however, was de-
scribed by witness John W. Talley as follows : "As a rule he done
most of the talking." The second meeting, which lasted all day, was
held in the same place, on July 30. At this meeting it was an-
nounced by the chairman that at the request of an employees' com-
mittee, Mr. Staley had agreed to meet the expenses of the formation
of the plan. As a result of this meeting, "Part I" of the plan,
which dealt with the internal structure of the E. R. P., was drafted.
Part I provided that for the purpose of representation, the plant
was divided into 29 departments, each with one employee representa-
tive. No dues were provided for, nor was any provision made for
full membership meetings.
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 16, 1935, the employees voted to adopt Part I of the
plan. This election was held at the plant; employees moved
throughout the plant without interference by supervisors ,and col-
lected ballots from the men who were working. The ballots were
counted in the respondent's safety director's office, in the presence
of Andrew J. Percival and Bart Wilson, a foreman. One employee,
Velma Nelson Breuer, was expressly granted permission by his fore-
man to carry a ballot box among the employees during working
hours. In addition, he was paid by the respondent at his regular
wage rate for one hour of his off-time spent counting ballots on the
following day. On August 20, 1935, the permanent employee repre-
sentatives were elected.
By September 4 "Part II" of the plan, which set forth the pur-
ported collective bargaining procedure, had been agreed upon by
the respondent and the employee representatives. A "Plant Con-
ference Board" was created thereunder, consisting of an equal num-
ber of employee and management representatives. The "Plant Con-
ference Board" had three standing committees, which were organ-
ized in the same fashion, called the "Plant Conditions Committee,"
the "Health and Safety Committee," and the "Planning Committee."
These joint committees had been suggested by Staley, even as to
names. Part II provided for a grievance procedure, whereby through
successive appeals, a grievance could finally be brought before the
"Plant Conference Board," the committee of final appeal. Decisions
even of this joint committee, however, could be set aside by the re-
spondent's own Executive Committee, subject thereafter to arbitra-
tion, provided that the respondent would agree thereto.
The expenses of the formation of the E. R. P. were met by the
respondent, as promised, and the respondent furnished materials
and mimeographing services to the E. R. P. without charge. The
employee representatives were paid by the respondent at their usual
hourly rates for their time spent on E. R. P. matters, whether in
discussions with the management or otherwise, and whether or not
during working hours. No membership meeting of the E. R. P.
was ever held, but the various committees set up under Part II
functioned during the life of the E. R. P.
2. The S. E. O.
After the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., °
on April 12, 1937, and following the issuance of certain Board de-
• N. L. R. B . v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, rev 'g 83 F. ( 2d) 998, and
enf'g Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation and•Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Beaver Valley Lodge No. 200, 1 N. L R . B. 503.
A. E. STALEY - MANUFACTURING COMPANY 671
cisions interpreting Section 8 (2) of the Act, Staley feared that the
E. R. P. was "illegal," and decided to withdraw the respondent's,
financial support from the organization. In addition E. R. P. mem-
bers were complaining to the respondent that the E. R. P. grievance
procedure was too cumbersome.
On June 10, 1937, the E. R. P. employee representatives wrote to
Staley that they had unanimously agreed that Part I and Part II
of the E. R. P. should be "revised" as soon as possible. They formed
a "committee to revamp", whose duty it was to get information as to
the attitude of the respondent toward changing Part II. According
to Talley, a member of the committee, "We asked Mr. Staley how far
we could go in changing Part II of the plan." Staley told them to go
as far as they desired. However, but few changes were made.
The "committee to revamp" was replaced by a "legal committee"
of E. R. P. employee representatives, which drew up a set of by-
laws for the S. E. 0., and on or about July 1, 1937, the E. R. P.
employee representatives adopted these bylaws. The bylaws cor-
responded to "Part I" of the E. R. P. They provided for dues of
25 cents per month. No new basis for representation was provided.
Again, no provision was made for membership meetings. 7
On July 1, 1937, the E. R. P. employee representatives, acting
on behalf of the S. E. 0., negotiated a "Joint Agreement" with the
respondent. The final working draft of this agreement, which was
mimeographed by the respondent, refers to the revised organization
as "Employee Representation Plan." This was changed to read
"Staley Employees' Organization" in the final agreement. The agree-
ment, which was never signed, was in fact merely a revision of Part
II of the E. R. P. Many of the working rules and conditions which
had been adopted by the E. R. P. Plant Conditions Committee and
Plant Conference Board were readopted bodily by the management
and employee representatives. Although the respondent did not ask
for any proof that the S. E. O. 'represented a majority of its em-
ployees at that time, and in fact had no evidence of such a majority
until a month thereafter, it recognized the S. E. O. in the agreement
as the collective bargaining representative of a majority of its em-
ployees. A "Plant Conditions Committee," "Health and Safety Com-
mittee," and "General Committee" were provided for, each to consist
of not more than six employee and six management representatives.
The committees, however, did not operate on the basis of a majority
vote. As testified to by Dr. Robert Edman Greenfield, the respond-
ent's assistant general superintendent, "We wished to either arrive
at an agreement, the management members arriving at an agreement,
or not arriving at an agreement ; at least, there would be no voting."
T But one such meetine was ever held.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Committee was the committee of final appeal in griev-
ance procedure. The respondent refused to agree to a mandatory
arbitration procedure and a clause providing for arbitration de-
pendent upon the consent thereto of both parties was included in the
agreement. Staley testified that he could recall only one instance
in which the respondent had agreed to arbitrate any matter. The
"Joint Agreement" was of no specified duration and provided that
it could be terminated "at any time upon written notice to the Gen-
eral Committee signed by two-thirds of the Employee Representa-
tives or by the Management or by a petition signed by a majority
of members of the Employees' Organization."
The only way in which the question of the change of organization
was referred to the E. R. P. members was by the distribution of
S. E. O. membership cards and wage assignment forms to employees
throughout the plant by E. R. P. employee representatives. This was
done openly and no supervisors objected thereto. It is not clear
whether the S. E. O. membership cards were distributed before the
bylaws were adopted and the agreement arrived at, or afterward.
At the time this change in organization was taking place, Velma
Nelson Breuer, an employee, asked his E. R. P. representative, George
Bafford, "why they were changing." Bafford answered that it was
"to make it legal."
The wage assignment forms, wherein the employees authorized a
check-off of their S. E. O. dues from their wages, were signed by a
majority of the employees. On September 1, 1937, the respondent,
at the request of an S. E. O. committee, agreed to honor these author-
izations, subject to certain conditions." During the active existence of
the S. • E. 0., the respondent checked off $2,621.50 in dues to the
organization.
Meetings of the S. E. O. joint committees began on July 27, 1937.
That the S. E. O. was considered merely a revision of the E. R. P.
is further indicated by the following excerpts from the minutes of
the first meeting of the S. E. O. General Committee :
... the first meeting of the General Committee of the Employee
Representation Plan was held at 1: 00 p. m. in the Executive
Committee Room on the Eleventh Floor of the Administration
Building. [Italics supplied]
There was considerable discussion of the proper routine for
presentation and transmission of grievances through the various
parts of the revised Employees Representation Plan. [Italics
supplied.]
6 One of these conditions was "that no employee be coerced or intimidated into signing
such orders or assignments or mistreated in any manner for refusing to sign such orders
or assignments."
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 673
Staley attended several of the committee meetings. The old E. R. P.
representatives remained as employee representatives in the S. E. O.
until August 1937. At that time an election of representatives was
held at the plant. Employees' wages were not docked for the time
spent by them in conducting the election. On September 13, 1937,
the newly elected S. E. O. employee representatives elected the first
officers and committeemen of the S. E. O. The "Staley News," a
newspaper "by and for Staley people," prepared, printed, and edited
by the respondent, in its October 1, 1937, issue, reported the "re-
election" of all the acting officers to "carry on" for the year 1937-8.
Minutes of the joint committees of the S. E. O. were prepared by
1 he respondent on its own "ditto" machine. In at least one instance,
a, stenographer in the respondent's employ typed communications for
the S. E. O. Welfare Committee, which consisted of employee repre-
sentatives only. She was not paid by the S. E. O. for this. Although
on October 1, 1937, the respondent ceased paying the employee rep-
resentatives for the time spent at their own meetings 9 it continued
to pay them for their time spent in conference with the management,
whether or not during working hours. Meetings of the employee
representatives were held on company property, but there is no
testimony that any payment was made therefor.
Local No. 21490 held its first open meeting for the organization of
the respondent's employees sometime in February 1938. John R.
Sanders, the president of Local No. 21490 and an employee of the
respondent, testified that shortly thereafter, S. J. Seibert, the assistant
foreman of the packing house, said to him and one Chester Boyle,
an employee, "If you join the A. F. of L.; A. E. Staley will discon-
tinue insurance and the fellowship club. I believe if we stick with
the S. E. O. that we will be better off." Seibert denied having said
this. Seibert never spoke to Sanders about Local No. 21490 there-
after, none of Seibert's alleged threats was ever carried out, and
Sanders thereafter wore a union button and solicited members for
Local No. 21490 at the plant in the presence of Seibert and the
superintendent and without objection on their part. The Trial Ex-
aminer disbelieved Sanders' testimony that the alleged conversation
took place and credited Seibert's denial, as we do.
3. The I. S. W. U.
'On March 9, 1938, 5 days after the charge had been filed in the
instant case, an examiner from the Regional Office, L. J. Disser,
Jr., visited the respondent's plant to investigate the charge. On
'March 10, 1938, Disser again visited the respondent's plant, inter-
This was done after the General Committee had discussed this matter.
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rogated several of the employees, and recommended to the respondent
that it disassociate itself from the S. E. 0. and withdraw all recogni-
tion therefrom. On March 11, 1938, the respondent addressed a
letter to all its employees, in which it set forth the nature of the
charges, Disser's recommendation, and its disbelief that it dominated
any labor organization. It also therein stated that its labor policy
was one of neutrality,10 that Disser's recommendation had placed it
in a dilemma, and that it had decided to hold its decision thereon in
abeyance." The alleged dilemma was posited as follows :
. . . the request of Mr. Disser for the company to cease col-
lective bargaining with the Staley Employees' Organization
places the company in a difficult position. If we refuse it, we
may be placed in a position of not cooperating with the request
of a representative of the National Labor Relations Board,
which may result in a public hearing and a possible order to take
action now requested. If we grant it, we may be interfering
with the right of our employees to bargain through the Staley
Employees' Organization.
On April 14, 1938, 800, approximately 80 per cent, of the respond-
ent's production employees, signed petitions requesting the respondent
to continue to recognize the S. E. 0. as the "collective bargaining
agency" of said employees. These petitions were, circulated by
Walter Rinehart, an employee, who testified that he circulated them
because 'of the respondent's letter of March 11, 1938. At about the
same time, the respondent told Disser that it would not withdraw
recognition from the S. E. 0.12
11 This declaration of neutrality read as follows :
1. Employees shall have the right to self -organization, to form, join , or assist
labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing, or other mutual aid or protection.
2. The company will bargain collectively with any labor organization lawfully
authorized so to act.
3. The company will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administra-
tion of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
4. The company does not care what organization represents the employees, and
has no right under the law to express such preference if it had one. Our policy is
entire neutrality.
5. The company desires to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, and desires to cooperate to the fullest extent with all
lawful authority.
11 Annexed to the letter was a copy of the Board's letter to the respondent , informing it
of the filing of the charge , and also a copy of a letter sent to Disser by the respondent in
reply to his recommendation.
12 There is testimony in the record to the effect that Disser, in the course of his Investi-
gation , told Staley and a few of the respondent ' s employees that no independent union
would be certified by the Board , and that he urged some of the employees to join the
American Federation of Labor. Disser has denied any such statements or activities, in an
affidavit tiled with the Board. ' - -
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY , 675
Sometime in April or early in May 1938, Cleve Ginder, an S. E. 0.
employee representative,13 went to the office of C. C. Martin, an at-
torney, to see "whether there could be an independent organization
organized that would stand.' Thereafter, at frequent intervals,
several other S. E. 0. employee representatives met at Martin' s office
and at each other's homes, with a view to forming a new, independent
organization. As the leaders in the S. E. 0. had all been old E. R. P.
representatives, so most of the organizers of the I. S. W. U., the new
organization, were officers and employee representatives of the
S. E. 0.14
The general feeling among these employees was that the respond-
ent preferred to deal with an inside union. Martin, the attorney,
testified to this as follows :
Q. Was anything said at any of these meetings that the com-
pany desired an independent union in the plant?
A. Now, there was some innuendo in the air that the company
might rather deal with an "independent union," but there was
never any statement made to me that the company had said that
and I don't recall a conversation with anybody or hearing a
conversation in which it was stated the company had said that.
Q. Could you tell me what was said that gave you that
impression?
A. I believe that one or two of them-maybe some more of
them, and I don't know who they are now-said that in their
opinion they thought the company would rather have the
independent union.
Q. Did they say why?
A. No. No, they didn't.
Q. But that was the feeling of the men in the meetings held
in your office?
A. I can't say what the feeling was. It was just an expression
of opinion on the part of two or three that dealt with me there,
and I don't remember who they were.
In addition, the organizers expressed hostility to the idea of join-
ing the American Federation of Labor when this was suggested by
Martin.
la Ginder had also been an E. R P. employee representative.
14 Of the 17 employees who comprised the organization group of the I. S. W. U , 12 were
S. E 0 employee representatives Of these 12, 6 had also been E. R P employee repre-
sentatives . Included in the 12 were Harry Bell , George Hewitt , and W E . Robinson, the
S E O. president , vice president , and secretary, respectively Bell , the S E 0 president,
was chairman of the original I S W. U. organization group. Moreover , of the 9 employee
representatives subsequently elected by the I . S. W. U. members , 6 were former S. E. O.
representatives.
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In May 1938, while the I. S. W. U. was being organized, the
S. E. 0. employee representatives met and voted to dissolve the
S. E. 0. and submit the question of dissolution to the employees.
This meeting was attended by the attorney, Martin, at the request
of S. E. 0. employee representatives,, some of whom were also part
of the I. S. W. U. organization group which had been consulting
with him. Martin was paid by the S. E. 0. for his services in at-
tending this meeting. Talley, an S. E. 0. employee representative,
testified that the reason for the vote to dissolve was that "there had
been some of us working on another organization before this meet-
ing. We wanted it dissolved so that we could organize another
one." A few days thereafter, W. E. Robinson, the secretary-treas-
urer of the S. E. 0., told Talley that he had changed his mind
about dissolution of the S. E. 0. because he and Ben Garner,
another S. E. 0. employee representative, had gone to see Dr. Robert
Edman Greenfield, the assistant general superintendent of the plant,
and said to him, "Doctor, we're on the spot. We don't know what
to do. We want you to tell us what the Company wants to do,"
and that Greenfield had answered, "All right, I will tell, but if any-
body asks anything about it, you are just a damn liar; I didn't tell
you anything. The company wants you to fight it. If you throw this
one out before another one is organized you never will get another
one in." 15 Greenfield admitted at the hearing that Robinson and
Garner had, in substance, addressed the above-quoted remarks to
him, but he denied making the response attributed to him. He tes-
tified that his answer was, "That problem is something for you boys
to work out .for yourself." At any rate, a week after the S. E. 0.
employee representatives had voted to dissolve the S. E. 0., they
met at the plant; under pressure of the members, and rescinded their
action.
. Sometime in June 1938, representatives of Local No. 21490 asked
the'respondent to post a notice to the effect that the respondent had
no objection to its employees joining any organization they chose
to, join. The respondent 'contended that this was unnecessary, in
view of its neutrality declaration of March 11, 1938, and did not post
the notice. Harold Behnke, the secretary of Local No. 21490, told
Staley that there were employees in the plant who, in his opinion,
were afraid to join Local No. 21490, for fear of reprisal by the re-
spondent. Staley told Behnke that if Behnke would show him one
man who felt that way, Staley "would be delighted to personally
assure that man of what his rights were," and also suggested to
"The entire conversation between Gieenfield and Robinson and Garner was testified to
by John Talley , as it had been related to him by Robinson Neither Robinson nor Garnet;
both employees and prominent I. S W. U. members , was called by either the respondent
or the I S W. U. to deny Talley's testimony.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 677
Behnke that he show such an employee the respondent's letter of
March 11, 1938.
The organizers of the I. S. W. U. continued to hold meetings at
their homes and at Martin's office. Martin testified that the personnel
of the committees which visited him kept changing and that he was
often confused as to whether he was attending a S. E. O. or an I. S.
W. U. meeting. In addition to discussing with Martin the forma-
tion of a new organization, the men also discussed with him the
termination of the S. E. O. "Joint Agreement." On June 27, 1938,
eight of the organizers adopted a constitution for the I. S. W. U.
which had been prepared by Martin. After the adoption of the con-
stitution, the drive for I. S. W. U. members started. Open I. S.
W. U. meetings were called, beginning on July 1, 1938, at which the
constitution was read and explained, and members were enrolled.
These meetings were presided over by Jesse Stark, an S. E. O. em-
ployee representative. There is a conflict in the evidence as to
whether Stark, at the opening meeting, told the employees that since
the respondent had been antagonistic toward organized labor for so
long, he believed that the organization that he was sponsoring had
the best chance of negotiating an agreement with the respondent.
During the month of July, Stark, with the permission of his fore-
man, conducted some I. S. W. U. organizational meetings during his
own working hours but deductions were made in his pay for taking
such time off.
The internal structure of the I. S. W. U. as set forth in its "Arti-
cles of Agreement" 16 differed from the structure of the E. R. P.
and the S. E. O. Under the I. S. W. U., the employees were divided
into three groups, processing, service, and mechanical, each group
having three representatives. Dues of 50 cents per month were
provided for.
During the week of July 11, 1938, three S. E. O. employee repre-
sentatives called at Staley's office and requested recognition of the
I. S. W. U. as the collective bargaining agent of the respondent's
employees. Staley told them that he would recognize any labor
organization that submitted evidence to him of its representation of
a majority of the respondent's employees. At this time, the S. E. O.
"Joint Agreement" was still operative, but Staley did not mention
this fact at the conference. On July 18, 1938, the S. E. O. employee
representatives voted to terminate the "Joint Agreement" and so
notified the respondent. The respondent, on the following day,
acknowledged receipt of the notice of termination and withdrew
recognition from the S. E. O. as the collective bargaining agent of
18 These were the bylaw s of the I. S W. U.
233033-41-vol 22--44
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its employees. The question of terminating the S. E. O. agreement
was never voted upon by the S. E. O. membership.
Soon after the termination of the S. E. O. agreement, an
I. S. W. U. committee again requested of the respondent recognition
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. The
committee brought with them a package which they said contained
the I. S. W. U. membership applications of more than 51 per cent
of the employees. Staley suggested to the committee that they take
their evidence of membership to a firm of accountants, Murphy and
Nash and Jones, of Decatur, Illinois, and said that he would send the
accountants a certified copy of the respondent's pay roll, for signa-
ture comparison. This was done, and on August 16, 1938, Murphy
and Nash and Jones certified to the respondent that 754, 63.15 per
cent, of 1,194 hourly paid employees, had signed applications for
membership in the I. S. W. U. The respondent paid the accountants
$100 for their services in this respect. The I. S. W. U. paid no part
of their fee. On August 19, 1938, the respondent granted recogni-
tion to the I. S. W. U. as the exclusive collective bargaining repre-
sentative of its hourly paid employees.
Up to the time of the hearing, no contract had been signed between
the respondent and the I. S. W. U., although they had conducted
negotiations for one on the average of twice a week during August,
September, October, and November, 1938, and had reached a sub-
stantial accord on the general terms of an agreement. The
I. S. W. U. members had a voice in these negotiations through meet-
ings at which employee representatives were given instructions.
The I. S. W. U. employee representatives were paid by the respond-
ent for their time spent in conducting these negotiations, whether or
not during working hours. As to the payments for negotiations
during non-working hours, Dr. Greenfield testified that the respond-
ent had not wished to make them, but that it had done so at the
insistence of the I. S. W. U. after several days of negotiation. As
it had with the S. E. 0., the respondent, at the request of the
I. S. W. U., honored wage assignments, executed by a number of
its employees, authorizing the check-off from their wages of
I. S. W. U. dues. The form of wage assignment used had been sub-
mitted by the I. S. W. U. and revised by the respondent's attorneys.
Up to November 15, 1938, the respondent had checked off $1432.00 in
dues to the organization.
John W. Talley, a member of Local No. 2149017 and an employee
of the respondent, testified that on December 9, 1938, his foreman,
Phil Wills, told him that "we was better off and that things would
"Talley had been an employee representative under the E R P. and the S. E 0, and
was one of the organizers of the I S . W U. Ile left the I. S. W. U. in the early stages
of its formation and joined Local No. 21490.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 679
be a damn sight better under the present administration than they
would be if we had a union in here, because the jobs would fill up
more if we had a union in here." Wills testified that he did not
recall making the statement and that he had been instructed by the
respondent on several occasions not to interfere, in the employees'
union activities. He did not, however, deny making the statement
and we find that it was made as testified to by Talley.
4. Conclusions as to the E. R. P., the S. E. 0., and the I. S. W. U.
In its brief filed with the Trial Examiner, the respondent admits
that ". . . there is no question but what the respondent did certain
acts with reference to the formation of the E. R. P. which the Board
would now consider acts of domination and influence over the
organization." This admission is fully justified by the facts.
The E. R. P. was organized on company time and property, not
only with the respondent's knowledge and consent, but also with its
active encouragement. In view of the respondent's prior refusals to
entertain the idea of an employees' representation plan, its en-
couragement of and assistance to the E. R. P. coincident with the
attempts of Local No. 20014 to organize its employees, can be in-
terpreted only as a deliberate attempt to frustrate such organiza-
tional activity. The respondent prepared the petitions for the
formation of the E. R. P. and, while the petitions were being circu-
lated, advised its employees that it favored such an organization; its
question-and-answer brochure further indicated its partiality to the
plan and its bias against "outside" unions. The respondent sug-
gested the form of the plan, financed it, prepared its materials, per-
formed services for it, paid its representatives, and dominated it by
means of joint participation in E. R. P. committees and the power to
veto its acts. The E. R. P. collected no dues to support it and its
members never held a meeting. These facts conclusively demonstrate
that the E. R. P. was the responden s creature and incapable of
serving the employees as their genuin representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
We find that the respondent domin ted and interfered with the
formation and administration of the . R. P. and contributed fi-
nancial and other support thereto, an that the respondent thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerce its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 o the Act.
The S. E. 0. was merely the old E. R. P. revamped and revised, and
was so viewed by both the respondent and the E. R. P. employee rep-
resentatives who organized it. The structure of the S. E. O., devised
-by E. R. P. representatives, was essentially the same as that of the
E. R. P., devised by the respondent. The E. R. P. members had no
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
part in the revision and were merely advised of the change in
organization by the distribution to them of S. E. 0. membership
cards. The E. R. P. representatives adopted the S. E. 0, bylaws and
negotiated the S. E. 0. "Joint Agreement" with the respondent, at
which time the respondent did not even request proof of majority
representation. Membership cards and wage-assignment forms were
distributed and elections were held on company time and property
without objection by the respondent. The organization was governed,
as was the E. R. P., by joint employer-employee committees, to whose
decisions the approval of the respondent's representatives was neces-
sary. This participation by the respondent in the administration of
the S. E. 0. rendered the organization incapable of serving as an
effective collective bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.
Again, there was no provision for membership meetings and S. E. 0.
representatives held their meetings on the respondent's property. The
respondent ceased paying them for their time spent in their own
conferences but continued to pay them for their working and non-
working time spent in conference with the management. In addition,
the respondent assisted the S. E. 0. by granting it the privilege of
a check-off of its members' dues. Although this was granted at the
request of the S. E. 0., we find that the respondent complied with this
request as a means of assisting an organization which it dominated
and which it desired to continue in existence. It is thus clear that the
revision and revamping of the E. R. P. in June 1937 to form the
S. E. 0. did not result in the formation of a new organization free
from the respondent's domination and support.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the S. E. 0. and contributed finan-
cial and other support thereto, and that the respondent thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
With respect to the I. S. W. U., we reach the same conclusion. The
I. S. W. U. was the third of an unbroken 18 succession of company,
sponsored and company-dominated labor organizations in the re-
spondent's plant, and was organized by representatives of the S. E. 0.,
the second of such organizations, while the S. E. 0. was still in ex-
istence. In July 1935 when the respondent informed its employees of
its preference for an "inside" union, the employees, encouraged, ad-
vised and financed by the respondent, formed the type of oiganiza- .
tion desired by the respondent. "It is at the stage of `formation' that
employer activity is most effective and harmful.719 The E. R. P.'s
18 In 1937, the transition from the E . R P. to the S E 0 consisted of mere revision.
In 1938, the I. S W. U. claimed its majority the day after the S. E. O. agreement was
terminated.
1D See Senate Committee on Education and Labor Print Comparison of S. 2961, 73d Cong.,
and S 1958 , 74th Cong., p. 27.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 681
and the S. E. O.'s history of the respondent's initiation, participation,
and support inevitably shaped the attitude of the respondent's em-
ployees toward those organizations and their successor, the I. S.
W. U., as well as toward inside organizations generally. This is
clear also from the evidence that in 1937 E. R. P. employee represent-
atives asked Staley "how far we could go" in changing Part II of
the E. R. P., that in 1938 S. E. O. employee representatives asked
Greenfield "what the company wants to do" about the S. E. 0., and
that when they came to Attorney Martin "there was some innuendo
in the air that the company might rather deal with an `independent
union"' and that a few of them said that "in their opinion they
thought the company would rather have the independent union."
The respondent contends that it advised its employees of its im-
partiality in union matters in its letter of March 11, 1938. This
letter, however, was -sent to the employees a month before the
I. S. W. U. was conceived and four months before it was organized
and the S. E. O. agreement canceled; the letter was a lengthy docu-
ment, and concerned itself with matters in addition to the respond-
ent's declaration of neutrality in labor matters. Under the circum-
stances it was not effective as a neutrality declaration. That the
respondent never intended effectively to proclaim neutrality is
indicated by its, 'refusal to post a short, concise declaration of
neutrality in June 1938 at the request of Local No. 21490, when
S. E. O. representatives were organizing the I. S. W. U., particularly
in view of the respondent's expressed preference for an inside organi-
zation over a period of three years.
The leaders and organizers of the I. S. W. U., most of whom
represented the previous company-dominated organizations, adopted
consistently with their past pattern of conduct, bylaws for the new
organization before it was even formed and read them to the em-
ployees as they were enrolled for membership. The respondent's
payment to Murphy and Nash and Jones for the certification of the
I. S. W. U., in the absence of any explanation therefor, its payment
of I. S. W. U. representatives for their non-working time spent in
conference with the management, its regrant of the check-off privi-
lege, when viewed in the light of the respondent's past partiality to
and support of the E. R. P. and the S. E. 0., and its refusal to
reaffirm neutrality, clearly constituted domination of and inter-
ference with the I. S. W. U. by the respondent and contribution of
support to it.
It is apparent from all the foregoing that the pattern of employee
control, which was initiated with the E. R. P., became firmly in-
grained in the employees' minds, and that they were at all times fully
aware of their own lack of independence. The effect upon the
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the respondent's relationship with the E. R. P. and the
S. E. O. was therefore not eliminated with the abandonment of those
organizations. The I. S. W. U. could have been viewed by the re-
spondent's employees only as the successor to the E. R. P. and the
S. E. 0., and hence as a company-sponsored organization, and it is
thus clear that the respondent's activities and influence with respect
to and its support of the E. R. P. and the S. E. O. persisted in such
fashion as to accomplish directly the organization of the I. S. W. U.20
Not only, however, by the effect of the respondent's influence in the
formation of the I. S. W. U. is its domination of and interference
with that organization made clear, but also by the respondent's
subsequent acts with reference to the administration of that
organization.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the I. S. W. U. and contributed
financial and other support thereto, and that the respondent thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In October 1938 a grievance was filed by the I. S. W. U. and the
respondent was requested by it to put certain jobs "up for bid." 21
Guy Dudley and Raymond Nihiser were cube-machine operators
whose jobs, among others, were as a result put up for bid. The
matter was handled by the respondent as a grievance of the
I. S. W. U., of which neither Dudley nor Nihiser was a member.
However, the respondent claimed at the hearing that they were
entitled to be heard as individuals and that they had been so advised.
There had been a previous request to put these jobs up for bid in
1936, but the respondent had failed to do so. Dudley and Nihiser
protested in vain to the respondent that the jobs should not have been
put up for bid. A few days later they conferred with Bell and
Beals,22 two I. S. W. U. employee representatives. The testimony is
in conflict as to what Dudley and Nihiser were told by the representa-
tives, but it is uncontradicted that Beals told them that he could
represent only I. S. W. U. members, and that Dudley and Nihiser
joined the I. S. W. U. at that time. Dudley testified that he and
Nihiser had joined because Beals had told them, "If you guys will
20 Cf. Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company and Telephone Operators Union, Local
175-A, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al, 12 N. L . R. B. 375. But
see Matter of Magnolia Petroleum Company and Oil Workers International Union, Locals
Nos. 280 and 378, 19 N. L . R. B. 184.
21 Putting jobs "up for bid" was the procedure by which jobs which were "open" were
filled by employees having the most seniority.
22 Beals' named is spelled "Beel" In that portion of the record concerned with this con-
troversy . This is obviously a stenographic error.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING - COMPANY 683
sign up, you can set in on the hearing" (referring to the discussion
between the respondent and the I. S. W. U. with respect to the
posting of the jobs for bids). Beals denied that he had said this, and
testified that he merely told the men that he could represent only
members of the I. S. W. U. Inasmuch as the jobs were posted at the
instance of the I. -S. W. U. and as the grievance was being handled
by the respondent as an I. S. W. U. grievance, we infer and find that
Dudley and Nihiser joined the I. S. W. U. because they felt that it
would be more advantageous to them to be heard as I. S. W. U.
members than as individuals, and that this feeling was prompted by
the respondent's known partiality toward the I. S. W. U.
As we have already found that the respondent dominated -and
interfered with the formation and administration of the I. S. W. U.
and contributed financial and other support thereto,-we further find
that the use by the respondent of the grievance machinery set up
by it in conjunction with the I. S. W. U. operated in this instance
as a device to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act,
and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON' COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and with foreign countries 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 it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the E. R. P., the S. E. 0.,
and the I. S. W. U., and has contributed financial and other support
to these organizations. - We shall order the respondent to cease and
desist therefrom. In order to free the employees from the respond-
ent's domination and interference and their attendant effects, to
restore to them the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and
otherwise -to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall also order
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent to disestablish the I. S. W. U. and to withdraw all
recognition from that organization as the representative of any of
its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall
also order the respondent to refuse recognition to. the E. R. P. and
the S. E. O.
We have found that the respondent deducted from its employees'
wages the amounts of their membership dues in the S. E. O. and the
I. S. W. U. Such deductions resulted from the same employer domi-
nation and interference which gave rise to those organizations.
We shall, therefore, in order to restore the status quo, order the re-
spondent to refund to each employee from whose wages it deducted
or checked off dues in either the S. E. 0., the I. S. W. U., or both,
the amount of such deductions or check-offs. 23
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Grain Processors Local No. 21490, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, Employees' Representation Plan,
Staley Employee's Organization, and Independent Starch Workers'
Union are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Employees' Representation Plan, Staley Employee's Or-
ganization, and Independent Starch Workers' Union, and by con-
tributing financial and other support to said organizations, the re-
spondent has engaged 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
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company, Decatur, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
21 See Matter of Mt. Vernon Car Manufacturing Company, a corporation and Local Lodge
No. 1756, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel 6 Tin Workers of North America, affil-
iated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , 11 N. L . R. B. 500.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 685
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Em-
ployees' Representation Plan, Staley Employee's Organization, or In-
dependent Starch Workers' Union, or with the formation or admin-
istration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing financial or other support to Employees' Representa-
tion Plan, Staley Employee's Organization, or Independent Starch
Workers' Union, or to any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing Independent Starch Workers' Union as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
Jorm, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Independent Starch Workers'
Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and completely disestablish Independent Starch Workers'
Union as such representative;
(b) Refuse to recognize Employees' Representation Plan or Staley
Employee's Organization 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 other conditions of employment;
(c) Reimburse each of its employees whose dues in Staley Em-
ployee's Organization, Independent Starch Workers' Union, or both,
were checked off, for the amounts thus deducted from their wages;
(d) Immediately post in conspicuous places in its plant notices to
its employees and maintain said notices for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and
desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c), and
that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a),
(b), and (c) of this Order;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.