Continental Roll and Steel Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 720 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of CONTINENTAL ROLL AND STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY,
A CORPORATION and LODGE 1026, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON,
STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, THROUGH STEEL
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS
OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1256.-Decided January 20, 194.0
Steel Castings and Heavy Machinery Industry-Interference , Restraint, and
Coercion : use of labor spies ; questioning employees about the union ; disparaging
remarks about the union-Company-Dominated Union: charges of, dismissed-
Discrimination : charges of , dismissed.
Mr. Robert R. Rissman, for the Board.
Winston, Stranvn d Shaw, by Mr. George B. Christensen and Mr.
Thomas L. Tyler, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
McAleer, Dorsey, Travis & Young, by Mr. Raymond B. Young, of
Hammond , Ind., for the Independent.
Mr. Henry Shore, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by Lodge 1026, Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, through
the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, herein called Lodge 1026, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its
complaint dated January 17, 1939, against the Continental Roll and
Steel Foundry Company, East Chicago, Indiana, a"corporation, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in
substance : (1) That the respondent had on or about June 1, 1937, in-
stigated the formation of a labor organization among its employees
19 N. L. R. B., No. 78.
720
CON'TINNENTAL 'ROLL AND STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 721
known as the Employees' Independent Labor Organization of the
Continental Roll and Steel Foundry Company of East Chicago, Lake
County, Indiana, corporation, herein called the Independent, and from
that date down to and including the filing of the complaint did advise,
urge, and warn its employees to join the Independent, did otherwise
foster, promote, and encourage the formation and growth of the Inde-
pendent, did dominate and interfere with the administration of the
said Independent, and did contribute financial and other support
thereto; (2) that the respondent discriminatorily discharged and re-
fused to reinstate Charles Behary,1 James Butcher, Joseph Laven-
dusky, Matt Stimos,2 George Olari, and George Sackwar, because they
joined and assisted Lodge 1026 and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees of the plant for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid and protection; (3) that the respondent
from on or about September 1, 1936, down to and including the date
of the filing of the complaint did advise, urge, and warn its employees
against joining and/or retaining membership in Lodge 1026, did in-
terrogate its employees regarding their union 'affiliations, did threaten
its employees with discharge if they became and/or remained members
of Lodge 1026,,did employ the services of a detective agency for the
purpose of spying upon and keeping under surveillance the union
activities of its employees, and did spy upon and keep under surveil-
lance the meetings and meeting places of Lodge 1026. Copies of the
complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon
the respondent, Lodge 1026, and the Independent.
On January 23, 1939, the respondent filed a motion with the Re-
gional Director for the Thirteenth Region to strike the amended
charge for the reason that the person who signed the charge had no
personal knowledge of the respondent's actions and that the Rules
and Regulations of the Board require charges to be sworn to by per-
sons having personal knowledge thereof, or, if the charge is to be based
upon hearsay, information, and belief, that it be so stated. On the
same date the respondent also filed with the Regional Director a mo-
tion to dismiss the complaint for the reasons that the complaint con-
tained allegations beyond those set forth in the amended charge, that
the amended charge did not conform to the Rules and Regulations of
the Board, that the amended charge did not contain a clear and concise
statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices,
particularly stating the names of the individuals involved, that the
1 The name of Charles Behary was incorrectly spelled in the complaint as Charles
Beharg. At the hearing the complaint was amended upon motion of Board's' counsel so
as to spell the name correctly as Charles Behary.
' The name of Matt Stimos was incorrectly spelled in the complaint as Matt Stimas.
At the hearing the complaint was amended on motion of Board's counsel so as to spell the
name correctly as Matt Stimos.
722 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amended charge did not name the officers and agents through whom
the respondent is alleged to have acted , that the amended charge con-
tained vague , indefinite , and insufficient conclusions of law, and that
the complaint contained allegations based upon conclusions of law set
forth in the amended charge . On January 23, 1939, the respondent
also filed with the Regional Director a motion for extension of time
within which to file an answer to such time as the motion to strike the
amended charge and the motion to dismiss should be considered and
acted upon by the Board and the respondent advised of the action
taken with respect thereto . On the same date the Regional Director
signed an order extending the time for filing the answer to January 25,
1939, copies of this order being received by the respondent , Lodge 1026,
and the Independent.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in East Chicago, Indiana,
on January 26, 27, and 31, and February 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, and 20 , 1939, before Thomas H. Kennedy , the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. At the
commencement of the hearing the Trial Examiner denied the re-
spondent 's motion to strike the amended charge and to dismiss the
complaint , which had previously been filed with the Regional Direc-
tor, and also denied the respondent's motion to make the complaint
more definite and certain , which motion was made at the commence-
ment of the hearing. The rulings of the Trial Examiner on these
motions are hereby affirmed.
After the Trial Examiner had ruled on the foregoing motions the
respondent filed an answer to the complaint , in which it admitted
the allegations as to the nature of its business , but denied the allega-
tions concerning the alleged unfair labor practices . At the com-
mencement of the hearing the Independent filed with the Trial
Examiner a motion and petition to intervene . The Trial Examiner
granted this motion, limiting the intervention to that phase of the
case relating to the charge of domination of the Independent. The
ruling of the Trial Examiner regarding the intervention of the In-
dependent and the scope thereof is hereby affirmed . Thereafter the
Independent was represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing within the limitation noted . Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the hearing counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the
complaint in so far as it alleged . that the respondent had discrimi-
nated with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Joseph
Lavendusky . Counsel for the Board also moved that the complaint
CO\'TINE\TAL ROLL AND -STFLL FOUNDRY COMPANY 723
be conformed, to -the proof.- -,The,Trial-Examiner. granted these mo-
tions and his rulings are hereby affirmed. Throughout the hearing
the Trial Examiner ruted'_ -on :Other- notions and on objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed his
rulings and; finds that no - prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings, are hereby affirmed. At the end of the hear-
ing the respondent made several • motions to dismiss the allega-
tions of the unfair labor practices contained in the complaint. The
Trial Examiner reserved his -rulings on said motions for the Inter-
mediate Report. The Independent also made a motion to dismiss
the complaint in so far as it alleged that the Independent was formed,
dominated, and supported by- the respondent. The Trial Examiner
also reserved his ruling on this motion for the Intermediate Report.
The respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. - .
. On April 10, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his intermediate Re-
port, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices within.- the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended, inter
alia, that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in the activi-
ties constituting the unfair labor practices, and that it withdraw all
recognition from the Independent as representative of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish the
said Independent as -such representative. As to the discharges of
Charles Behary, James Butcher, Matt Stimos, George Olari, and
George Sackwar, the Trial Examiner found'that the evidence did
not sustain the allegations of the complaint and recommended that
the complaint be.dismissed as to these named individuals. Copies
of.the Intermediate Report were duly served upon the respondent,
Lodge 1026, and the Independent.
On April- 27, 1939, the Independent' filed its exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and other parts of the rec-
ord. - On April 28, 1939, the respondent filed its exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and other parts of the record and also filed a
brief with the Board-in-support of its exceptions. On June 19, 1939,
the respondent `filed a supplemental brief in support of its excep-
tions. The respondent waived its right to oral argument, said
waiver being conditioned upon acceptance of its brief by the Board.
No other requests for oral argument were made.
The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and has considered the briefs filed in support of them and, save for
those exceptions which are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order hereinafter set forth, herewith sustains them.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged in the design,
manufacture, sale, and distribution of steel castings, various types
of rolling-mill rolls, and heavy machinery. Its principal office and
place of business is in East Chicago, Indiana. The respondent also
owns and operates manufacturing plants at Coraopolis, Pennsyl-
vania, and Wheeling, West Virginia, and maintains offices at Chi-
cago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washington, D. C.; Phila-
delphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Louis, Missouri. The
only plant involved in this proceeding is the East Chicago, Indiana,
plant of the respondent, where general foundry and rolling opera-
tions are carried on. Approximately 750 persons were employed in
this plant at the time of the hearing.
During the period from January 1, 1938, to and including Decem-
ber 31, 1938, the respondent purchased $605,894.61 worth of raw
materials , parts, and supplies, of which 76.6 per cent were shipped
to the East Chicago plant from places outside the State of Indiana.
During the same period the total value of the finished products
manufactured at the plant and sold and distributed by the respond-
ent was $3,056,875.44, of which 71.82 per cent represented the value
of products shipped to places outside the State of Indiana.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Lodge 1026, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin
Workers of North America, is a labor organization affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
The Employees' Independent Labor Organization of the Continen-
tal Roll and Steel Foundry Company of East Chicago, Lake County,
Indiana, corporation, is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting
to membership employees of the respondent. The Independent is
incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
About January 1936 the respondent bought the services of tile
Thiel Service Agency. According to M. F. Sternberg, the manager
of operations, the Thiel Service Agency was employed for the pur-
pose of supplying men to work in the plant in order to find out the
CONTINENTAL ROLL AND STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 725
"feelings and attitude of the employees" and "how the foremen were
acting." Three operatives were supplied by, the agency. Each of
them worked at different times and in various departments through-
out the plant. The operatives reported to the agency, which in turn
delivered typewritten reports, sometimes daily reports, to the
respondent. The respondent destroyed these reports prior to the
hearing.
The reports contained, among other things, information on the gen-
eral labor situation at the plant and references to the C. I. 0., with
which Lodge 1026 was affiliated, including references to meetings of
the C. I. 0. The respondent terminated the use of this agency about
March 1, 1937. We find that the respondent hired and retained the
Thiel Service Agency for the purpose of securing reports on the union
activities of its employees.
About July of 1937, John Slivka, president.of Lodge 1026, was
in the office of M. F. Sternberg, who said to him, "John, why is it
that the men are joining the C. I. 0.?" Slivka said, "Why did you
ask, Matt?" Sternberg replied, "Well, I just wanted to know."
Slivka explained, "Well, the men felt that it was their perfect right
to join any union they wished to have for their collective bargaining
agent." When Sternberg queried, "Hasn't this company treated the
men pretty fair?" Slivka answered in the affirmative. Slivka again
asked Sternberg his reason for asking "why the men were joining
the C. I. 0.," and Sternberg told him that "lie didn't think the C. I. 0.
was a liable union." This conversation was not denied by,Sternberg,
who testified that he recalled discussing "the C. I. 0." with Slivka
and telling him "the C. I. 0. was not a liable organization."
In the early part of April 1937, John Johnson, the respondent's
superintendent at No. 1 foundry, approached ,Slivka while he was at
work and asked to see the union button he was wearing on his cap.
After Slivka showed him the button Johnson asked, "What did you
join this union for?'" Slivka replied, "Just for the rights it is going
to give us in the plant." When Johnson asked for a further explana-
tion, Slivka added, "There is a benefit in. it too-it also protects our
job and also has a benefit in it, sick benefit. Johnson asked how much
it paid and Slivka told him he did not know but that it was in the
bylaws. Johnson then said, "John, why are you asking these ap-
prentice boys in here to join the organization?" Slivka denied that
he had asked any of the apprentices to join. Johnson said, "You
know, John, that that dollar that they have to spend for dues they
could buy themselves a, pair of shoes, that they are all poor boys."
We find that the respondent, by employing the Thiel Service
Agency for the purpose of receiving reports in part about the union
2830510-41-vol. 19-47
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities of its employees, by questioning its employees about Lodge
1026, and by making disparaging remarks about it, has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Remarks made by Martin Rintz, the superintendent of one of the
divisions of the respondent's plant, at the regular safety meeting of
May 31, 1937, were apparently held by the Trial Examiner to have
constituted an interference with the self-organization of the respond-
ents employees. We have considered Rintz's remarks, together with
the other evidence concerning the incident, and find that they did
not interfere with, restrain, or coerce the respondent's employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged domination of and interference
with the Independent
In July of 1933 a letter, to which was attached a proposed Em-
ployees' Representation Plan, was distributed among the employees
at the plant by the respondent. The letter was signed by J. T. Osler,
president of the respondent. At an election held among the em-
ployees at the plant the Employees' Representation Plan was rejected.
Thereafter, some of the employees raised objections to some of the
features in the proposed plan. About a week later, in the early part
of August 1933, another plan was submitted to the employees which
eliminated some of the features of the original plan, this plan also
being accompanied by a letter from the president of the respondent.
Another election was held in the plant by the respondent and the
revised plan was approved by a majority vote of the employees.
Following the adoption of the plan, employee representatives were
elected at the plant. In June of 1934, the plan was again revised,
and on March 16, 1937, following a conference between the president
of the respondent and the representatives of the plan, the plan was
once more revised. When the plan first went into effect, the employ-
ment manager and safety director of the respondent acted as sec-
retary for the plan, but after a few months the representatives under
the plan asked him to cease this function and he did.
The employee representatives were furnished meeting places by
the respondent and were paid for the time spent at such meetings.
The respondent dealt with its employees under the plan, as revised,
until the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act was
sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 12,
1937. A few days thereafter, the representatives of the plan were
called into the office of the president of the respondent and were told
by him that the respondent was complying with the Act and could no
CON'TI\+ENTAL ROLL AND STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 72T
longer permit them to meet on company premises or pay them for
the time they spent at such meetings. Following this meeting the
plan ceased to function and was permitted to become extinct.
On June 5, 1937, Robert Wilson, a bricklayer and a member of an
American Federation of Labor union, held a meeting with a few of
the employees regarding the possibility of organizing an independent
labor organization. This meeting was held at a tavern across the street
from the plant. Wilson suggested the desirability of getting a charter
and was authorized by the group to contact an attorney regarding the
steps necessary to obtain one. At the meeting in the tavern it was
decided that the dues for the organization would be 25 cents per
month. The following evening Wilson went to an attorney, one
Dorsey, and discussed with him the steps necessary to obtain a
charter. Four days later another meeting was held at the Rumanian
Hall, at which about 75 employees were present, and Wilson related
his conversation with the attorney and received authority to apply
for a charter. On June 26,1937, a charter of incorporation was granted
to the Independent by the State of Indiana. On July 6, 1937, a meeting
of the Independent was held and permanent officers were elected.
Lodge 1026 had commenced organizing activities at the plant in
the summer of 1936. About April 1937 its representatives called on
the respondent for the purpose of securing for it an agreement cover-
ing wages, hours, and other working conditions. The respondent's
manager of operations, M. F. Sternberg, told them that he would
recognize Lodge 1026 for its members only, and that if Lodge 1026
set up grievance machinery the respondent would be glad to deal
with it. The respondent did not sign any agreement with Lodge 1026,
but has met with it at all times for discussion of grievances.
The Independent also requested the respondent to enter into an
agreement with it, but the respondent has not done so. The respond
ent dealt with the Independent on grievances in the same manner it
dealt with Lodge 1026. The respondent has not recognized. either
Lodge 1026 or the Independent as the exclusive bargaining agent of its.
employees. Both organizations carried on organizational activities,
in the plant during working hours. The record discloses, however,
that the respondent notified its employees that it was opposed to such
activity and that representatives of both organizations were repri-
manded by supervisors when their organizational activity was
noticed or reported to the supervisors. Both groups openly distrib-
uted literature outside, the entrance to the plant.
Several employees testified to the effect that their supervisors ques-
tioned them concerning their affiliation with Lodge 1026 and suggested
that the employees would better themselves by adhering to the Inde-
pendent rather than to Lodge 1026. These asserted expressions and
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statements were denied by the supervisors . The Trial Examiner, in
his Intermediate Report, stated that there was no reason to believe the
employees rather than the supervisors , and found that the statements
were not established as facts . The record discloses no reason for dis-
'turbing the Trial Examiner 's findings . We find that the statements
were not made.
Prior to the establishment of the Employees ' Representation Plan,
the respondent participated in an arrangement whereby coal dealers
sold coal to its employees and took in payment wage assignments,
which the respondent honored. When the Employees ' Representation
Plan was set up, this coal-purchase arrangement was handled as a
function of the plan . The purchase of coal by this method resulted
in a saving to the employees . Following the organization of the In-
dependent it made an arrangement with the coal company whereby
the coal orders were placed with it. Payment for the coal was made
by check drawn to the Independent Coal Committee by the respond-
ent, and which was in turn endorsed by the committee and paid to
the coal dealer. The respondent reimbursed itself to the amount of
its check by making deductions from the wages of the employees on
the basis of assignments signed by the employees.
The Independent received a. rebate of 5 cents a ton from the coal
dealer for each ton of coal purchased. The respondent was not aware
of the fact that the Independent was getting this rebate from the
dealer. All employees were free to purchase coal under this plan,
whether or not they were members of the Independent , and several
members of Lodge 1026 purchased coal under this arrangement.
Notices dealing with the purchase of coal under this plan were posted
in the plant , but the respondent prohibited the Independent from
using its name on the notices . Lodge 1026 never requested the re-
spondent to grant it the privilege of establishing its own coal plan,
and the respondent never refused to grant Lodge 1026 such a privi-
lege. In fact, the respondent informed one coal dealer that it had
no objection to his selling coal to Lodge 1026 under such a plan.
M. F. Sternberg , manager of operations for the respondent, was
strongly in favor of the incorporation of labor organizations and
expressed this opinion to representatives of both Lodge 1026 and the
Independent . However, the record does not disclose any evidence of
favoritism shown by the respondent to the Independent because of
the fact that it was incorporated. On .the. basis of the evidence, the
respondent accorded equal treatment to both the Independent and
Lodge 1026 with respect to recognition, distribution of literature., and
other organizational activities.
On the basis of the entire record we find that the respondent has
not dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of
CONTINENTAL ROLL AND STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 729
the Independent or contributed support to it. We shall order that
the complaint be dismissed 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.
C. The alleged discriminatory lay-offs or discharges
Charles Behary and James Butcher were employed in the core room.
They were both laid off on September 3, 1936. Behary was first em-
ployed by the respondent 's predecessors on June 23 , 1922, and worked-
for the respondent at various times thereafter , his last period of con-
tinuous employment being from May 21 , 1935, to September 3, 1936.
The reasons for the several terminations of employment of Behary
during the period of 1922 to 1935 include quitting , force reduction, and
discharge . Behary joined Lodge 1026 in August of 1936. Behary's
union activities consisted of talking to some of the men outside the
plant about joining Lodge 1026, and membership on a committee to
arrange for a union meeting.
James Butcher started to work for the respondent on March 13,
1936, and joined Lodge 1026 about 3 weeks before his discharge. He
engaged in no union activity at the plant but served as vice president
of Lodge 1026 at one time.
In August and September of 1936 a falling off of the respondent's
business necessitated a reduction of force in the core room . This re-
sulted in nine persons being laid off in the core room in August, and
nine more being laid off in September . The respondent asserted, and
we find, that Butcher was selected for the lay-off because of his lack
of seniority and because it believed him to be one of those responsible
for a slow -down of production which was experienced in the core room,
and that Behary was selected for the lay-off because of his unsteady
and irregular employment record.
Matt Stimos entered the respondent's employ on March 3, 1936,
and was employed as a chipper in No. 2 cleaning and finishing depart-
ment. He was discharged on January 17, 1938. Stimos joined Lodge
1026 in April 1937 , and his sole activity consisted of talking to some
of the men outside of the plant about joining Lodge 1026.
In January 1938 a decline in production in the cleaning and finish-
ing department necessitated a reduction in the number of employees
in that department . The hours worked and number of employees
working in that department dropped from 13,428 and 97, respectively,
in September 1937 , to 704 and 22, respectively , in January of 1938-
Twenty-two others in addition to Stimos were taken off the pay roll in
January 1938 , and no people were added to the pay roll from that time
up to the time of the hearing. The respondent asserted , and'we find,
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Stimos was one of those selected to be laid off when production re-
quired it because he was a slower chipper than some of the other chip-
pers in the department.
George Olari and George Sackwar were employed in the machine
shop and both were laid off on March 2, 1938. Olari's last period of
continuous employment was from January 25, 1935, to March 2, 1938.
Olari joined Lodge 1026 in June of 1937. The record does not indicate
that he participated in any union activity.
George Sackwar entered the employment of the respondent on Oc-
tober 18, 1934, and was a member of Lodge 1026 at the time of his
lay-off. He did not participate in any union activities.
A decline in business necessitated a reduction of force in the machine
shop at the time Olari and Sackwar were laid off. The hours worked
in the respondent's machine shop dropped from 23,735 in October of
1937 to 8,509 in March of 1938, and the number of employees working
in the machine shop dropped from 142 in October 1937 to 66 in March
of 1938. Sixteen employees were laid off in the machine shop in March
1938, three of whom had more seniority than Olari and two of whom
had more seniority than Sackwar. The respondent asserted, and we
find, that Sackwar and Olari were selected as two of those to be laid off
because they were less proficient workers than some of the other men
in the machine shop.
We sustain the finding of the Trial Examiner, to which Lodge 1026
did not except, that the evidence does not establish that Behary,
Butcher, Stimos, Olari, and Sackwar were laid off because of their
union activity. Accordingly, we find that the respondent, by laying
off Charles Behary, James Butcher, Matt Stimos, George Olari, and
George Sackwar, did not discriminate in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment and discourage membership in Lodge 1026.
IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III A 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 tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
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. Lodge 1026, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin
Workers of North America, and Employees' Independent Labor Or-
CONTINENTAL ROLL AND STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 731
ganization of the Continental Roll and Steel Foundry Company of
East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana, corporation, are labor organi-
zations, 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
respondent 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) and (3) 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, Continental Roll and Steel Foundry Company, East Chi-
cago, Indiana, and 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 Lodge 1026, Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Immediately post and keep posted for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting,, notices to its em-
ployees, in conspicuous places throughout its East Chicago, Indiana,
plant, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid;
(b) 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.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) and (3)
of the Act.