Corn Products Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1940

22 N.L.R.B. 824 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY and UNITED
CANNERY, AGRICULTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 169
Case No. C-1302.-Decided April 9, 1940
Corn Products Manufacturing Industry-Settlement Agreement: signed by
respondent and approved by Regional Director for the Board; although contain-
ing no express provision that charges thereby settled, given effect as a settlement
in order to carry out intent of agreement and to effectuate the policies of the
Act, upon performance by the respondent, who was found not to have engaged
thereafter in unfair labor practices (Smith, dissenting) refusing to give agree-
ment effect as a settlement under special circumstances of case, and finding that
respondent dominated and interfered with the formation of Employees' Asso-
Tiation and contributed support thereto prior to agreement and engaged in unfair
labor practices after execution of alleged settlement agreement-Complaint:
dismissed.
Mr. Herbert N. Shenkin, for the Board.
Miller, Elliott c Westervelt, by Mr. Frank T. Miller and Mr. Donald
0. Beste, of Peoria, Ill., and Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, by Mr.
Richard Grossman, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Winston, Strawn c Shaw, by Mr. G. B. Christensen and Mr. Thomas
S. Tyler, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association.
Meyers & Meyers, by Mr. Ben Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND,
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Cannery, Agricul-
tural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, Local 169, herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by Leonard C. Bajork, Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated October
8, 1938, against Corn Products Refining Company, Argo, Illinois,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2
22 N. L. R. B., No. 56.
824
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 825
(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 that the respondent (1) instigated the formation of a labor
organization known as the Employees Association of the Corn Prod-
ucts Refining Company of Argo, Illinois, herein called the Association,
and dominated and interfered with its administration; (2) advised,
urged, and warned its employees to refrain from joining or retaining
their membership in the Union, spied upon its meetings, and in various
other ways discouraged its employees from joining or retaining their
membership in the Union ; and (3) by the foregoing acts and in other
ways interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of
the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the re-
spondent and the Union.
On October 17, 1938, the respondent filed an answer, denying the
material allegations of the complaint, and accompanied the answer
by a separate written motion to dismiss in which it asserted, among
other things, that such allegations were settled on or about January 3,
1938, by an agreement made with the Board and by the performance
of the respondent's undertakings therein.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on
various dates from December 5, 1938, to January 7, 1939, before Gustaf
B. Erickson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At
the opening of the hearing, the Association moved to intervene; the
Trial Examiner allowed the motion together with permission to file
an answer; and the Association answered denying the material allega-
tions of the complaint.' The Board, the respondent, the Association,
and -the Union were represented 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. The Trial Examiner denied a motion of the Association
for a bill of particulars with respect to the allegations of the amended
charge and complaint relating to unfair labor practices. At various
stages of the proceeding counsel for the respondent and for the Asso-
ciation moved that the complaint be dismissed. The Trial Examiner
denied certain of these motions and reserved rulings on others. At
the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted motions of coun-
sel for the Board for leave to amend the complaint to conform to the
proof as to dates and spelling of names, and to make certain other
1 On October 19, 1938, the Regional Director had denied a prior application of the
Association , made October 18, to intervene , and the Board , on November 2, 1938, had
denied a request of the Association , made October 27, for review of the Regional Director's
action. The order of the Board , however , recited that it was made without prejudice to
the right of the Association to renew its application for intervention at the hearing.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
corrections in the transcript. The Trial Examiner also allowed a
motion of the respondent to take depositions of certain witnesses.2
Numeious other motions and objections to the admission of evidence
were made and ruled upon at the hearing. The Board has reviewed
these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Pursuant
to leave, counsel for the respondent, the Association, and the Union
filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
dated June 3, 1939, copies of which were duly served upon the re-
spondent, the Association, and the Union. In the Intermediate Report,
the Trial Examiner sustained the contention that the respondent and
the Board had settled by agreement the alleged unfair labor practices
occurring prior thereto and, therefore, he made no findings concerning
the allegations of the complaint with respect to such unfair labor
practices. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had not
engaged in any unfair labor practices thereafter, granted the motions
of counsel for the respondent and for the Association to dismiss, and
recommended dismissal of the complaint. On June 17, 1938, the Union
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the rulings of the
Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument upon
the exceptions was held on March 5, 1940, before, the Board in WTash-
ington, D. C. The respondent and the Union were represented by
counsel and participated in the argument; the Association submitted
a brief in the form of a letter to the Board.
After the oral argument the respondent submitted to the Board
a "Supplemental Statement" in the nature of a brief.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and the briefs filed by each of the parties and finds the exceptions to
be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondent , Corn Products Refining Company, is a New Jersey
corporation engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of
products made from corn , including syrups, starches , oils, and allied
products . It owns and operates plants in Argo, Illinois; Pekin, Illi-
2 The depositions, taken before a notary public on January 11, 1939, are hereby made a
part of the record.
3 The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of fact between counsel for
the respondent and counsel for the Board.
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 827
nois; Kansas City, Missouri; and Edgewater, New Jersey, and main-
tains its principal office and place of business in New York City. The
respondent controls affiliated corporations which operate plants in 13
foreign countries. Most of these, affiliates are owned entirely by the
respondent. This proceeding is concerned only with the Argo plant
where the respondent employs between 1300 and 1400 workers.
During the period from November 1, 1937, to November 1, 1938, the
respondent purchased for use in production at the Argo plant approxi-
mately $6,200,000 worth of raw materials. Approximately 55 per cent
of these raw materials were purchased outside the State of Illinois.
During the same period the respondent manufactured at the Argo
plant products having a value exceeding $20,000,000, of which the
respondent sold and shipped approximately 85 per cent from that
plant to points outside the State of Illinois.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of
America, Local 169, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations.
Employees Association of the Corn Products Refining Company of
Argo, Illinois, is an unaffiliated labor organization.
Both organizations admit to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE AGREEMENT COMPROMISING THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The compromise
On November 15, 1937, the Board's Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region advised the respondent by letter that there had
been filed against it a charge alleging "interference with employees in
their right to join" . . . the Union and "domination and assistance
in the formation of a company union," and assigned a Field Examiner
to investigate the matter. The Field Examiner visited the respond-
ent's plant, interviewed employees, and consulted with the manage-
ment. On or about January 3, 1938, a conference took place at which
the respondent was represented by its plant manager, the Union by
an organizer, and the Board by its Field Examiner. As a result of
the Field Examiner's investigation and the conference, the respondent
signed an agreement, dated January 4, 1938,4 which recited as its
object the compromise of differences growing out of the charge and
4The respondent signed a similar agreement , dated January 3, 1938. Since the January
3 agreement omitted any reference to the filing of it charge within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act, the respondent agreed with the Field Examiner to substitute therefor
the agreement of January 4.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the effectuation of the policies of the Act . 5 In the agreement the
respondent undertook to refrain from conduct proscribed by the Act
and to post notices pledging itself to a policy of observance of the law.
The Regional Director noted his approval of the agreement on itsaface;
and the Field Examiner and the representative of the Union signed
the instrument as attesting witnesses to the signature of the respond-
ent's plant manager.
The respondent promptly posted the requisite notices and main-
tained them for at least the period required by the agreement. On
May 18, 1938, the Regional Director wrote the respondent that there
had been filed a charge 6 alleging that the respondent had dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Associa-
tion, and in reply to a request from the respondent for an explanation
of the reopening of the matter, the Regional Director answered on
May 24, 1938, that
The present charge has been filed . . . in view of additional
evidence that the union wishes to present. . . . The allegations
(of the charge) refer to substantially the same matter as was
previously investigated.
Shortly thereafter, the Regional Director designated another Field
Examiner who conducted a further investigation of the charge here
involved. As we have stated above, the filing of an amended charge
and the issuance of a complaint followed on October 8, 1938.
B. Conclusions regarding the compromise
We have heretofore held that we would give effect to an agreement
made in settlement of unfair labor practices allegedly engaged in by an
employer and would refrain from examining the evidence concerning
such practices if an agent of the Board participated in the settlement
and if the employer observed the terms of the settlement agreement and
did not thereafter continue to engage in unfair labor practices.7
5 The agreement in part provided
A charge having been filed with the REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the THIRTEENTH REGION, by the UNITED
CANNERY, AGRICULTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 169 UNION, alleging that the CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 , Subdivisions ( 1), (2), and (3), of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, a meeting of a representative of the Union, the Employer, and an Agent of
the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was arranged , and, for the purpose
of effectuating the policies of the Act and compromising the differences, the Employer
agrees : . . .
"This charge , as amended , forms the basis for the initiation of the present proceeding
In Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine,
Mill & Smelter Workers, Local No. 26, 11 N. L. R B 885, which involved an .agreement,
participated in by an agent of the Board , for the compromise of certain alleged unfair
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 829
In the present case, although there was no oral or written agreement
that the Union would withdraw the charge or that the Board would
not issue a complaint predicated upon the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices adjusted by the January 4 agreement, we think it plain, as the
respondent contends,8 that implicit in the recital of its objectives was
an understanding that the pending charge would not be pressed as
long as the respondent complied with the provisions of the adjustment,
and did not thereafter engage in any unfair labor practices.9
We pass to a consideration of the question as to whether or not
the respondent did engage in any unfair labor practices after January
4, 1938, the date of the agreement. On January 19, 1938, Sam Lynch,
an extra employee, while wearing a C. I. O. button, applied for work
in the absence of the employment manager's assistant to J. R. Stanley,
the respondent's receptionist and visitors' tour guide, who occupied
a desk outside the glass-enclosed office of the employment manager.
labor practices of the employer, the Board said in support of its decision to refrain from
a consideration of the alleged unfair labor practices and to dismiss the complaint'
Although we do not agree that the compromise agreement estops the Board from
proceeding herein, we believe that effective administration of the Act requires that
the Board's agents have the respect and confidence of labor organizations and
employers with «hoin their work bungs them in contact Repudiation of agreements
entered into and relied on in good faith necessarily impairs such respect and confidence.
See, also, Matter of Hope Webbing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee
of the C 1 0 , Local No 111, 14 N L R B 55, Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Die, and
Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No 21171 and No 2188, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, 12 N L It B 568; Matter of Stromberq-Carlson Telephone Manu-
factitring Company and United Electrical, Radio d Machine Workers of America, Local
No 500, 18 N I R B, 526; Cf Matter of Corinth Hosiery Mill, Inc, and American
Federation of Hosiei y 11'oi kers. 16 N L R B 414, where the Board sustained allega-
tions that the respondent had engaged in discriminatory discharges and acts of inter-
ference within the meaning of the Act and refused to give effect to a settlement agicement,
inasmuch as the employer had thereafter continued to engage in unfair labor practices
See, also, Matter of Ifarry A Half, doing business as the 11alff Manufacturing Company
and International Ladies' Gaiincitt Workers' Union, 16 N I, R B 667, Matter of The
Van Iderstine Company and District #50 of the United Mine Workers of America, 17
N L R B 771; Mattei of Chicago Casket Company and Casket Makeis Union, No.
19306. 4ffiliated lVith tlieAinericon Federation of Labor, 21 N L It B 235
sAt the oral argument before the Board, counsel for the respondent made statements
which might be constined to indicate that the respondent at no time relied upon the
agreement as a settlement of the charge In our opinion, however, by these statements
counsel intended to emphasize the respondent's contention that it had not engaged in any
unfair labor practices, and particularly, that its signing of the agreement should not be
regarded as an implied admission that it had violated the Act Counsel also asserted at
the oral argument that if, in fact. the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices, the
respondent "should not be spared by reason of the agreement" However, in view of the
consistent position that the respondent maintained in its pleadings, at the hearing before
the Trial Examiner, and in its briefs, we do not think that counsel intended at the oral
argument to alter the respondent's position to the extent of waiving the agreement as a
defense to the complaint
e See Matter of J Dunitz, doing business under the firm name and style of Gloray
Knitting Mills and Joint Council of Knit Goods Workers Union, International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, Local No 155, 19 N L R B 712, where, although there was
no express provision in the compromise agreement for dismissal of the charge that the
respondent had previously engaged in certain unfair labor practices. the Board dismissed
such charge without examining the merits, on finding that such a result should be Implied
from the circumstances surrounding the agreement and that the respondent did not engage
thereafter in any unfair labor practice.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lynch testified that Stanley, who was also the Association secretary,
inquired whether the applicant belonged to the Association and that
when he replied in the negative, Stanley stated: "Well, you know that
we have to take care of our members first. All the union people'. draw
a check every week. If you don't belongs (sic) to our union, I don't
know." At the hearing Stanley denied that he made the statement
quoted above and asserted that he had advised Lynch that the respond-
ent followed a policy of seniority in hiring help. We do not'deem it
necessary to resolve this conflict in the evidence in view of our finding
infra that the respondent is not chargeable with Stanley's statements
or acts. In any event, when Lynch evinced an interest in joining the
Association, Stanley produced an Association membership card, en-
rolled Lynch as a member, and hired him to distribute Association
literature outside the plant gates. By prearrangement with Stanley,
Lynch found the literature the next morning alongside Stanley's desk
and a sandwich sign bearing the inscription "Employees Association"
in a locker located in a room used by the respondent's plant doctor.
There was no showing that the respondent's officials were aware of
Stanley's use of the respondent's facilities for such Association equip=
ment. Employment Manager Ben Gibbs, Stanley, and a company
policeman, separately, warned Lynch not to distribute the material
within the plant gates, and on one occasion when he sought refuge in
the employment office from the cold, he was compelled by Gibbs and
Stanley to remove the sign from his person while he remained inside.
For distributing the leaflets that day Lynch was paid the sum of
$3.00 in cash by Stanley, who took the money from an envelope which
he removed from his pocket. Lynch did not receive any employment
by the respondent after joining the Association, except a few days'
occasional work similar to that which he had received in ,the past as
an extra helper.
There is also testimony given by Alex Munday that some time in
February 1938 he saw a box of Association buttons and some member-
ship cards on Stanley's desk and, on the same occasion, witnessed
Stanley furnishing a supply of such cards and buttons to an Associ-
ation committeeman during working hours when Rudolph Tiachacek,
Gibbs' assistant, was in the employment office. While Stanley admits
that he kept Association paraphernalia on his desk, occasionally dis-
tributed it to Association committeemen, and performed part of his
duties as secretary of the Association in the employment office, he
testified that he took precaution to conceal his activity from company
officials, and Gibbs and Tiachacek testified that they had never ob-
served Association membership cards or buttons on Stanley's desk.
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY - 831
Stanley had no authority to hire any person for the respondent.
Occasionally he handed application blanks to persons seeking employ,
went and answered their inquiries; in certain instances he read aloud
to those assembled in the office 'the names of persons chosen for em-
ployment from a list made up by Gibbs or Tiachacek. While the
circumstances surrounding his Association activities on company time
and property are suspect, Stanley's relationship to the respondent is
not such as to charge it with responsibility for his conduct, and the
evidence does not establish that Stanley acted at the instance of
the respondent or with its approval.
Marshall Garmon, an employee, testified that he overheard Louis
Brandt, refinery foreman, assure Leo Green, an extra employee who
had been recalled to work after' a lay-off, a steady job if he would wear
an Association button. At the hearing Brandt specifically denied this
testimony. Green was not called as a witness. While both on direct
examination by the Board and cross-examination by the respondent,
Garmon maintained that the alleged statement was made in February
1938, on cross-examination by the intervenor, Garmon testified that
Green was recalled to work in April or May 1938, and that the state-
ment was made thereafter. The respondent's records, however, show
that Green returned to work on October 11, 1937. In view of this
fact and the confused state of Garmon's testimony as to the date of
the alleged occurrence, we find that Brandt did not make the state-
ment attributed to him by Garmon.
Both before and after the date of the agreement the respondent
refused to treat with the Union in respect to grievances on the ground
that the employees had designated the Association as their exclusive
bargaining representative. Since the Union did not -represent a ma-
jority of the employees, and consequently did not enjoy status as their
exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining,
under the circumstances the respondent's refusal to discuss grievances
with the Union does not constitute an unfair labor practice io
We find that the respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices subsequent to January 4, 1938. Since the respondent posted
the required notices and maintained them for the period specified in the
agreement and did not thereafter engage in any unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall give effect to the compromise agreement and accordingly
refrain from considering the events which transpired prior to Janu-
ary 4, 1938, in connection with the charge of unfair labor practices,
and dismiss the complaint.
10 See Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills and Local No. 1221, United Textile Workers
of America, 2 N. L It. B 952 , enf'd as mod, Mooresville Cotton Mills v. National Labor
Relations Board, 94 F . ( 2d) 61.
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case the Board makes the following :
CONcrusIONs OF LAW
1. The operation of the business of the respondent constitutes a con-
tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of
America, Local 169, and Employees Association of the Corn Prod-
ucts Refining Company of Argo, Illinois, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) 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 complaint
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting :
I do not concur in the decision to dismiss the complaint. In my
opinion the agreement of January 4, 1938, under the circumstances
of this case, should not preclude an examination of the evidence with
respect to the events which took place prior to its execution. The
agreement made no provision for the withdrawal of the charge, and
so far as the record discloses, the charge was never withdrawn. Ob-
viously, if the charge were true, the agreement was inadequate to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act since it bound the respondent to do no
more than obey the Act in the future. This the respondent was already
under obligation to do. Although the respondent posted notices pledg-
ing itself to a program of observance of the Act, as the agreement re-
quired it to do, it cannot be said that the respondent acted in any sub-
stantial degree in reliance upon the agreement as a settlement of the
charge. Indeed, counsel for the respondent stated at the oral argument
that the respondent did not intend that the agreement operate as a
vehicle for the repair of unfair labor practices. On the contrary, he
argued that the respondent did not regard the agreement as a settle-
ment of the pending charge and urged the Board to ignore the agree-
ment as a defense, if it found that the respondent had engaged in any
unfair labor practices, thus abandoning the position it took prior to
the oral argument.
An examination of the entire record reveals ample evidence, credible
in character, that immediately following the advent of the Union in
the respondent's plant in the latter part of April 1937, the respondent
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 833
engaged in a series of acts calculated to influence its employees against
the Union. The respondent's supervisors 11 questioned the workers
about their participation in the union movement, warned them against
possible loss of benefits because of affiliation with the Union, belittled
the advantages to be gained from the Union, and disparaged it and its
leaders. In addition to the afore-mentioned acts to discourage self-
organization of its employees, on May 25 the respondent posted on its
bulletin board a unilateral statement of employment policy providing
for the maintenance of the status quo in the plant as to wages, hours,
and working conditions. One of the basic reasons for employees form-
ing a labor organization is to obtain representation for the purpose of
collective bargaining with their employer. By posting the statement
of policy in the early stages of the Union's organizational campaign
unilaterally fixing wages, hours, and working conditions, the respond-
ent sought to eliminate the necessity for collective bargaining through
the Union on those matters of primary concern to its employees. The,
intended and necessary effect of the respondent's act, following its out-
spoken opposition to the Union, was to divert its employees from
adherence to the Union.
On May 26, the day following the posting of the statement of policy,
the respondent posted on its bulletin board a notice of a rule pro-
hibiting solicitation in the plant. As appears hereinafter, the rule
was invoked principally to curb the Union. On May 29, within 3
days after the posting of the rule, a group of employees adopted the
respondent's open hostility to the Union and formed the Association
for the purpose, among others, of combatting the Union. This was
accomplished with the aid of almost the same group of supervisory
employees who had previously made known to the employees the re-
spondent's opposition to the Union. Some of these supervisory
employees actively campaigned for Association members in the plant
despite the presence of notices forbidding solicitation on the premises.
By June 4, after a period of 5 days of plant campaigning led by Moe
Williams '12 who. left his work to range among the employees in many
of the respondent's plant buildings, the Association enrolled as mem-
bers "more than 60 per cent" of the employees, and on the same day
requested recognition as their exclusive bargaining representative. On
June 9 the respondent extended such recognition upon proof of major-
ity representation. It is incredible that the Association could have made
such rapid progress in the plant, especially in the face of the company
11 These included top foremen , substitute foremen, and gang leaders. None of them
had the power to hire or discharge employees, but all made recommendations with respect
thereto to their supervisors or to the employment manager.
12 Williams was an employee with a service record of approximately 15 years, whose
duties were divided between acting as chauffeur for company officials, tool-crib attendant,
and pattern caretaker.
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rule forbidding plant solicitation, without the respondent's encourage-
ment and support. Indeed, in printed instructions issued to foremen
in April 1937, the respondent approved their giving employees "advice
or information ... regarding organization." Moreover, while the re-
spondent constantly reminded known or suspected union adherents
of the rule forbidding plant solicitation, it was not until the Asso-
ciation had enrolled a majority of the employees by widespread organ-
izational activity in the plant that the respondent's industrial relations
manager requested the Association's leading promoter, Williams, to
curtail his organizational activity in the plant. While Williams can-
not be classified as a supervisory employee, I am satisfied that the gen-
eral solicitation in which Williams had engaged in the plant did not
-go unnoticed by the respondent and that Williams pursued these
:activities with the management's knowledge and acquiescence.
Even after the signing of the agreement of January 4, 1938, the
respondent pursued its policy of assistance and support to entrench
the Association as the representative of its employees. While its con-
duct thereafter is not shown to have been as serious an interference
with the rights of its employees as its conduct before the agreement,
it did contribute further support to the Association. Thus, J. R.
'Stanley, who occupied a strategic position for organizational purposes
at a desk outside the office of the respondent's employment manager,
where he supplied persons seeking employment with application
blanks, and in at least certain instances notified them of work assign-
ments in the plant, served as secretary of the Association and carried
on Association business on company time and property. Inasmuch
as the respondent knew of Stanley's position as secretary of the Asso-
ciation, it is difficult to believe that activities conducted so openly did
not come to the respondent's attention or that Stanley engaged in
such acts without its approval. A consideration of the entire course
of the respondent's conduct shows that the respondent has discouraged
membership in the Union, has dominated and interfered with the for-
mation and administration of the Association and has contributed sup-
port to it, and I would so find. I would issue an appropriate order
requiring the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices and, affirmatively, to withdraw recognition from the Associa-
tion as a representative of its employees and to disestablish it as such
representative.