Chicago Molded Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1942

38 N.L.R.B. 1111 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of CHICAGO MOLDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION and NA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DIE CASTING WORKERS AFFILIATED WITH
THE C. I. 0., AND INDEPENDENT PLASTIC WORKERS UNION OF CHICAGO,
PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
Case No. C-1984.-Decided February 10, 1942
Jurisdiction : Manufacture and sale of synthetic plastic materials.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: attempt to induce employees to form
"grievance committees" rather than to affiliate with an "outside" organiza-
tion; derogatory remarks concerning "outside" unions in general and the
officials of the charging union in particular ; expressed hostility to the charg-
ing union; announcement of intention to resist efforts to organize and bar-
gain collectively through the charging union ; soliciting and urging individual
employees to return to work during the strike.
Company-Dominated Union: charges of, dismissed.
Remedial Orders: employer ordered to cease and desist unfair labor practices.
Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board.
Mr. Otto A. Jaburek, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Allen R. Bloch, of Chicago, Ill., for the Independent.
Mr. George A. Koplow, of counsel to Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by National Association of Die
Casting Workers, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, herein called the NADCW, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated July 12, 1941,
against Chicago Molded Products Corporation, Chicago, Illinois,
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 notices of hear-
38 N L. R B., No. 208.
1111
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, the NADCW,
and Independent Plastic Workers Union of Chicago, herein called the
Independent, party to a contract with the respondent, alleged in the
complaint to be dominated by the respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in
substance that the respondent (1) since about July 15, 1940, instigated,
sponsored, interfered with, and dominated the formation of the Inde-
pendent, and declared that it would deal with an inside labor organ-
ization and not with the NADCW; (2) from about October 1, 1940,
campaigned and solicited on behalf of the Independent and allowed
solicitation on company time and property while denying said privi-
lege to the NADCW; (3) dominated and interfered with the admin-
istration of the Independent and contributed support to it; (4) on
April 14, 1941, entered into an exclusive bargaining contract with the
Independent as part of a preconceived plan and course of action to
combat and interfere with self-organization of its employees, for which
reason said contract is invalid; (5) from July 15, 1940, warned, dis-
couraged, and questioned its employees about their union affiliations
and activities, threatened employees with discharge or wage reduc-
tions if they become or remained members of the NADCW, disparaged
said union and its leadership and informed its representatives that
the respondent would not deal with the NADCW, and promised one
employee a better job if he gave up said union; and (6) urged and
solicited its employees engaging in a strike called by the NADCW to
abandon the strike and return to work.
The respondent filed its answer dated July 23, 1941, denying the
commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
The Independent filed its answer dated July 24, 1941, denying all
allegations in the complaint that it was instigated, sponsored, main-
tained, or dominated by the respondent. Both answers admit the
execution of the contract with the respondent, set forth in the com-
plaint, but deny that it was the result of any unfair labor practices
by the respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on July
28 and 29, and August 1, 2, 4, and 5, 1941, before J. J. Fitzpatrick,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Exam-
iner. The Board, the respondent, and the Independent were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the con-
clusion of the Board's case in chief the Trial Examiner granted
without objection the motion of Board counsel to conform the plead-
ings to the proof in so far as names and spelling were concerned.
After the conclusion of the Board's case the Trial Examiner denied
the respondent's motion to strike certain testimony of the witness
CHICAGO MOLDED PRODUCT'S CORPOR'ATI'ON 1113
LaLonde on the ground that the evidence was hearsay and had not
been connected with the respondent. The respondent at this time
also moved to strike the complaint as a whole and certain specific
allegations thereof. These motions were denied with the exception of
the motion concerning the allegation that the respondent "did prom-
ise one employee that he would be promoted to a better job if he gave
up the union," which motion was granted and said allegation stricken
from the complaint. At the conclusion of the respondent's case the
Trial Examiner denied the Independent's motion to strike the entire
complaint. The Independent then moved to strike certain portions
of the complaint alleging that the respondent instigated, sponsored,
interfered with, and dominated the formation of the Independent,
dominated and interfered with its administration, and contributed
financial and other support to it. The Trial Examiner reserved his
ruling at the hearing and denied the motion in his Intermediate
Report. The Trial Examiner also denied the Independent's motion
to strike portions of the complaint alleging that the contract with the
Independent was invalid because it was entered into as part of a
plan to interfere with the employees' self-organization. At the con-
clusion of the hearing the respondent again moved to dismiss the
complaint as to the allegations that the Independent was dominated
by the respondent and that the contract with it was invalid. The
Trial Examiner reserved his rulings at the hearing and denied the
motions in his Intermediate Report. During the course of the hear-
ing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Each of the
parties filed a brief with the Trial Examiner after the termination
of the hearing.
On October 13, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, find-
ing that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act. He accordingly recommended that the respondent
cease and desist therefrom and from giving effect to its contract
with the Independent, and that it take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act, including the disestablishment of
the Independent and the reimbursement of employees for checked-off
dues. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support
of such exceptions were filed by the respondent and the Independent,
and the respondent requested permission to argue orally.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., on December 2, 1941, for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. The respondent and the Independent were represented by
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
counsel and participated in the hearing. The Board has considered
the exceptions and briefs of the parties, and in so far as the exceptions
are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, sustains
them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is an Illinois corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the
design, manufacture, and sale of many types of synthetic plastic
materials. For the year ending November 30, 1940, the total value
of raw materials purchased for use by the respondent was approxi-
mately $400,000, of which approximately $350,000 represented the
value of materials transported to the plant from points outside the
State of Illinois. During the same period the total value of finished
and semifinished products manufactured and sold by the respondent
was approximately $1,200,000, of which about $700,000 represented
the value of products transported from the plant to points outside
the State of Illinois. The respondent employs about 500 production
workers.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
National Association of Die Casting Wrorkers , affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Independent Plastic Workers Union of Chicago is an unaffiliated
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference with and domination and support of the
Independent
The first union activity in the respondent 's plant began in 1936
when the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of Amer-
ica, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called
the IBEW, began organizing . In the fall of that year the IBEW
called a strike in the respondent 's plant which lasted about 2 weeks.
Thereafter the IBEW became inactive . In 1938, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, attempted to organize the plant with some success. After
5 or 6 months this organization also became inactive . So far as
CHICAGO MOLDED PRODUCTS CORPOIR!ATTON 1115
the record discloses there was no union activity of any kind in the
respondent's plant from that time until the early summer of 1940
when David LaLonde and Joseph Randel, molders in the plant,
were instrumental in arranging a meeting of about eight of the
respondent's employees. At this meeting, held on July 10 or 11, 1940,
the group attending agreed to solicit other employees of the respond-
ent for the purpose of forming a union to be affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations. This solicitation met with con-
siderable success and the NADCW emerged in August 1940 as
permanent organization.
Randel testified that in the latter part of July 1940, Edward F.
Bachner, treasurer and general manager of the respondent, sent for
him. When he reported at Bachner's office the latter said that he
had heard that there were union activities going on in the plant
and wanted to know if Randel knew anything about them. In con-
nection with this talk Randel testified further as follows : "The dis-
cussion was on Union activities, Mr. Ed Bachner wanted to know
why the fellows didn't organize grievance committees to come to see
him on any grievance that was in the plant, and he didn't think
we ought to pay outsiders to bring them in to organize our men in
the plant, and that he thought that he treated the workers well."
According to Randel, Bachner then asked Randel if he was going to
attend a union meeting the following Sunday; when Randel replied
in the affirmative, Bachner said that it would be advisable for Randel
to attend the meeting and find out what it was all about. Bachner
denied that he ever sent for Randel to come to his office or that he
ever had a conversation with Randel as set forth above. The Trial
Examiner did not credit Bachner's denial, nor do we. We find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that in July 1940, Bachner sent for and had
a conversation with Randel subtantially as set forth above.
In early September 1940, Chester Christian and Rudolph Meyers,
both veteran employees of the respondent and former A. F. of L.
members who had participated in the strike of 1936, spoke to several
other employees, all of more than 6 years service with the respondent
and who had been in the 1936 strike, and suggested the formation
of an unaffiliated union. The group met in Christian's home and
laid plans for a membership drive. They retained an attorney on
the recommendation of William Brown, another veteran employee
of the respondent. Forms of application for membership in the
Independent were prepared and organizational activity began in
active competition with the NADCW. Thereafter circulars adver-
tising a general meeting of the Independent were distributed. This
meeting was held on October 14, 1940, outside the plant. At that
time temporary officers were elected. Later, permanent officers were
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elected and the organization was named Independent Plastic Workers
Union of Chicago.
On October 14, 1940, A. C. Skinner, organizer and national repre-
sentative of the NADCW, wrote the respondent that a majority
of its employees had become members of the NADCW and had
elected a bargaining committee. The letter requested that the respond-
ent meet with this committee, together with the national representa-
tive of the NADCW, to discuss a collective bargaining agreement.
The same day Edward T. Cheyfitz, national executive secretary of
the NADCW, also wrote the respondent that he had been advised
that the local represented a majority of the respondent's employees
and expressed the hope that a mutually satisfactory agreement would
be signed. On October 17 Elmer C. Maywald, vice president and
assistant manager of the respondent, answered Skinner's letter, stating
in part :
We doubt that your organization represents a majority of our
employees, and because of that fact we will not be able to meet
and bargain with your organization until it is established that
your organization does in fact represent the majority of our
employees.
On October 19, 1940, a committee from the NADCW consisting of
LaLonde, Randel, Mary Dziacko, Michael G. Stevens, and William
Kroner called on Maywald and stated that they represented the
NADCW and that they already had most of the plant signed up in
the NADCW. The committee wanted to know if the management
would consent to an election. Maywald refused to give such consent,
and at the hearing admitted that he told the committee, "we would
have to see that there was a majority first." LaLonde testified that
during this conference he asked Maywald if he believed in unions,
and Maywald replied, "No, not the kind that you are in. Why
join an outside union and pay out money to these people that draw
exorbitant salaries, when you can have a shop union, a committee in
the shop inside, people that know your own work. You have got
some mighty good people, some mighty good men in here. In fact,
I have contacted some in the plant that are working on the idea now."
LaLonde further testified that in response to the NADCW's request
that the respondent consent to an election, Maywald replied : "No,
you people joined that union, it is your baby, but I will fight you,
and I will use every legal technicality, fighting you right down to the
last inch. I am a good lover and a hell of a good fighter." Randel
corroborated LaLonde's testimony and testified that Maywald also
said at this conference, "What can them kikes from Toledo do for you
that you can't do yourself?"
CHICAGO MOLDED PRO'DUCTS CORPORIATION 1117
At the hearing Maywald did not deny making the foregoing state-
ments, but testified as follows :
The conversation went something like this:
He [LaLonde] said he had heard through Smith, one of the
molders, that my family had been mixed up in the mine workers,
which was true, . . . He said I ought to understand labor
problems.
I said I did. I said I understood both sides of their problems;
that I knew a lot of good unions and a lot of bad unions; that I was
personally acquainted with some of the good labor leaders and
some of the bad labor leaders, and I had been very much interested
in Bud Pegler's articles about the good and bad leaders, and par-
ticularly the bad ones ; and the conversation went in that vein.
And I said I had no objection to organized labor, providing
it was truly working in the interest of the employees and doing
the job for them; but I said "The record is just full of outfits
that have robbed the constituency blind, and I would certainly
look over anybody that came to me, as a laboring man, to join
an organization, and I would check them up very carefully before
I had anything to do with them." It was something along that
vein.
Maywald further testified that when LaLonde stated that the union
had a majority of the employees and indicated that they were in a
position to force recognition on the respondent he said, "LaLonde,
you will find out I am a good lover and a good hater; and if you are
going to take the nasty tack on this thing, I will fight you down to
the last ditch." He admitted that during this conference Randel
observed that Cheyfitz was a good labor leader and that he replied,
"If that is the same Cheyfitz that I have heard anything about, you
better check with the Dies Committee and find out who he really is,"
and asked, "Do you believe that kike from Toledo?"
On cross-examination, Maywald testified that at this conference
"I confined my discussion with them to a very broad sense of being
sure to hitch up to a sound set-up. My notion is that any corpo-
rate management can get along best with some union organization
providing, there is a decent set-up where the follows are really work-
ing in the interest of the men."
Maywald impressed the Trial Examiner as an evasive witness, while
LaLonde and Randel impressed him as forthright and positive. Be-
cause of their demeanor, Maywald's, failure to deny the statements
attributed to him, and the admissions made in his testimony, the
Trial Examiner credited the testimony of LaLonde and Randel.
We find; as did the Trial Examiner, that the conference of October
19 occurred sustantially as described by LaLonde and Randel.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next meeting of the Independent was held on October 20. On
the same night the NADCW held its first open meeting, which was
adjourned so that the employees could attend the meeting of the
Independent. The Independent gave permission to the NADCW
to bring its organizer into the Independent meeting to discuss in
the presence of adherents of both organizations the relative merits
of the two. A few days later a committee consisting of certain
employees active in the Independent called on Maywald. They also
claimed to represent a majority of the employees and asked the
respondent to bargain with him. Maywald replied that they would
have to prove their majority.
On October 30, the shop committee of the NADCW sent a com-
munication to the respondent, advising that they were the duly
selected shop committee of a majority of the respondent's employees
and had been authorized by the membership, after a secret ballot
on all shifts, to request that a consent election be conducted by the
Board immediately to determine the will of the employees regarding
the choice of the union to represent them.' The letter urged that
the respondent consent to such an election, stated that the NADCW
would abide by the result thereof, and requested that the respondent
do the same and bargain with the NADCW if it won the election.
On the same day, the NADCW shop committee, consisting of
LaLonde, Stevens, and others, called on Maywald "to get a final de-
cision as to whether he would give us t consent for an election."
The committee told Maywald that the NADCW had voted to strike
if he did not consent to an election, and Maywald replied that the
matter would have to be taken up with the Board of Directors.
According to LaLonde, during the discussion General Manager
Bachner came into the room and, among other things, said that he
did not approve of the NADCW and "mentioned the term Com-
munism." Stevens corroborated LaLonde's testimony in substance
and testified further that Bachner inquired if the committee were the
"agitators that started the trouble." Bachner denied that he made the
statements attributed to him by LaLonde and Stevens. Bachner's
denial of these statements was not credited by the Trial Examiner.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Bachner made the state-
ments substantially as testified to by LaLonde and Stevens..
On November 1, Maywald wrote the NADCW shop committee that
because of a death in his immediate family, the respondent's counsel
Jaburek, would not be available to discuss the NADCW's letter of
October 30 until some time during the week starting November 4,
at which time the respondent's officers would meet and prepare an
answer to that letter. The respondent's letter requested the in-
'The NADCW had on October 22, 1940 , filed with the Board . a petition for investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
CHICAGO MOLDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1119
dulgence of the NADCW until the respondent had an opportunity to
meet with its counsel. On Sunday, November 3, a meeting of the
members of the NADCW voted that the committee be empowered to
use its judgment with regard to the calling of a strike.
A conference was held in the Chicago Regional Office of the Board
on November 6, 1940, between representatives of the respondent, the
NADCW, and the Independent, and the subject of a consent election
was discussed. The NADCW wanted an election within 10 days or
as quickly as the Board could arrange it. The Independent insisted
that a considerably longer period of time elapse. The respondent
at this time did not object to an election, but took no position as
to the time of holding it, and the conference broke up without
reaching any agreement.
The next evening, November 7, the NADCW called a strike at
the respondent's plant. It established a picket line around the
plant, and approximately 50 per cent of the employees failed to re-
port to work. The plant did not close during the strike and the
respondent almost immediately, by personal solicitation and tele-
phone calls, urged some employees on the picket line and others who
had failed to report for work to return to the plant, offering them
free board and lodging in the plant. During the strike the Inde-
pendent continued its activity, and its members also urged the
strikers and others who had failed to report at the plant to return
to work. By the first of the year 1941, approximately 80 percent of
the employees were back at work.
The hearing on the petition for an investigation and certification
of representatives filed in October by the NADCW was begun on
December 10, 1940. At that time conferences were held between the
respondent, the NADCW, and the Independent in an effort to secure
an agreement on a date for a consent election. After 2 days of
discussion no agreement was reached and the hearing was continued
until December 19. The NADCW at this time asked that no election
be held until a reasonable period had elapsed after the strike and
after the men returned to work. The Independent also reversed its
position and insisted that the election be held within 30 days. The
respondent was non-committal as to the date of the consent election.
Shortly prior to December 19, Maywald received a telephone call
from Frank Ingram, an officer of the Independent, demanding bar-
gaining rights for the Independent. A day or two later Ingram,
supported by a committee from the Independent, called on Maywald
and reiterated the demands. Maywald told Ingram that "he would
have to prove that he had a majority, before I could do anything
with him."
On December 27, 1940, the NADCW filed with the Board a charge
alleging, among other things, that the respondent was discriminat-
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing against the NADCW and was dominating and controlling the
Independent.
On January 17, 1941, the Board advised the parties that the
NADCW had filed a motion to dismiss the representation petition
and that the Board, on January 27, or as soon thereafter as convenient,
unless sufficient cause to the contrary was shown, would enter an
order dismissing the petition. On January 20 the Independent's
attorney, Bloch, wrote the respondent demanding recognition of the
Independent as the exclusive bargaining agent of all production
workers and stating in part that
Since the CIO union has now withdrawn and the employees have
manifested their desire to be represented by the Independent
Plastic Workers Union of Chicago, it is proper at this time
that negotiations between the Company and the Independent
Plastic Workers Union of Chicago be entered into for the pur-
pose of reaching an agreement in keeping with the principles
of the Wagner Labor Relations Act.
Maywald testified that on receipt of this letter he called Bloch
and told him "there wasn't anything we could do right away; they
still had to prove they represented a majority, and with this other
matter pending, our position was going to be that they had to prove
they represented a majority of the employees." 2
On January 28, 1941, the order dismissing the petition was
entered and served upon the parties. After receipt of a copy of the
order, Maywald asked Ingram and others representing the Inde-
pendent how they were going to prove that their organization had a
majority and Ingram suggested that a firm of accountants be hired
to check the Independent's cards against the pay roll of the re-
spondent. Later Maywald agreed, and on February 4 sent the ac-
countants the necessary pay-roll data. The next day, February 5,
the accountants advised the respondent and the Independent by
letter that their check of the Independent's cards and the respond-
ent's records disclosed that the Independent had 448 signed authoriza-
tions out of a total of 575 employees in the plant.
The strike continued until the middle of February 1941, when it
was terminated by the NADCW. On February 18 the Board in-
formed the respondent that the NADCW had filed charges that the
Independent was company-dominated. Nevertheless, contract nego-
tiations which had been started early in February between the In-
dependent and the respondent were continued in various conferences
2 Maywald, in using the term "this other matter pending," apparently referred to the
petition, which had not yet been dismissed, or else to the strike, which was still in progress,
rather than to the charge of domination of the Independent, since he claimed that he was
not apprised of the charge until a later date.
CHICAGO MOLDED PRODUCTS CORPO'RIATION 1121
until April 14, 1941, when a contract was executed granting the
Independent recognition as sole bargaining agency of the respondent's
employees and providing for a check-off of dues of the members of
the Independent.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of, and had
contributed support to the Independent. His findings were based in
part on the statements of Bachner and Maywald in July 1940 and
on October 19 and 30, in which they indicated that they were hostile
to the NADCW and outside unions, that they desired that the em-
ployees form a "shop union," and that Maywald had "contacted some
in the plant that are working on the idea now," and in part on the
contrast between the respondent's treatment of the majority claims
of the NADCW and the Independent.3
While we entertain no doubt that the respondent preferred an
unaffiliated union to the NADCW, and while the circumstances sur-
rounding the formation and administration of the Independent raise
serious questions as to its independence, we find that the evidence
does not establish that the respondent has instigated, sponsored,
dominated, or' interfered with the formation or administration of,
or contributed support to, the Independent. Accordingly, the alle-
gations of the complaint in this respect will be dismissed.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
While we are not convinced that the respondent has dominated, in-
terfered with, or contributed support to the Independent, the evidence
does establish that the respondent pursued a course of action indicating
to its employees its preference for an unaffiliated union and its hos-
tility to the NADCW. We find that by the respondent's attempt in
July 1940 to induce its employees to form "grievance committees"
rather than to affiliate with an "outside" organization ; by Maywald's
derogatory remarks on October 19 to the NADCW committee concern-
ing "outside" unions in general and the officials of the NADCW in
particular ; by the respondent's expressed hostility to the NADCW,
on October 19 and 30; by its announcement of an intention to resist
the efforts of the employees to organize and bargain collectively
through the NADCW; and by the soliciting and urging of individual
S The Trial Examiner also relied upon certain testimony of LaLonde to the effect that two
employees had told him of statements made to them by Bachner and Production Manager
Anderson expressing hostility to "outside unions" and preference for an " inside union "
The two employees denied at the hearing that such statements had been made to them by
Bachner and Anderson, neither of whom was questioned about the matter, or that they
had so informed LaLonde while we credit LaLonde's testimony , as did the Trial Exam-
iner, we do not believe that it establishes that Bachner and Anderson made the statements
438861-42-vol 88--72
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees to return to work during the strike; 4 and by all the afore-
said statements and acts as constituting a consistent pattern of hos-
tility to the NADCW, the respondent has 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
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III B 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 unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. Our order
will provide that the complaint be dismissed in that respect.
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. National Association of Die Casting Workers, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Independent Plastic
Workers Union of Chicago, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed 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.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
* Matter of Tidewater Express Lines, Inc and Freight Drivers cE Helpers Local Union
No 557, 32 N L R. B, No. 136,
CHICAGO MOLDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1123
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, Chicago Molded Products Corporation, Chicago, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing 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) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
at Chicago, Illinois, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1, above;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.