Curtiss-Wright Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 992 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of CuRTISS -WRiulrI ' CORPORA'l 'ION aIId INTERNATIONAL
UNIONS UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFP &-,, AGR[CUL 'rURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 753
Case No. C-2033.-Decided March, 23, 1941
Jurisdiction : aircraft manufacturing industry
Unfair Labor Practices
In General: employer held responsible for activities of "leadmen" found to be
supervisory employees; fact that they do not possess power to hire and dis-
charge held immaterial as test of employer's liability for their conduct which
is dependent upon whether their relation to the employer is such that em-
ployees have just cause to believe that they represent'the employer and that
they translate to them the wishes, desires, and orders of management ; alleged
claim that supervisory employees were instructed to remain neutral held
not to avoid employer's responsibility for their activities where these em-
ployees despite such instructions did not remain neutral and where employer
took no effective means to interdict their unlawful activities.
Company-Dominated Union: continued domination of, contribution of support
to, and interference with the administration of "inside" organization which
respondent dominated prior to effective date of Act-participation by repre-
sentatives of management in administration of : by functioning as repre-
sentatives, council members, and talking in favor of, soliciting membership
in, distributing insignia of, and facilitating the distribution of the organiza-
tion's literature on company time and property-contributing financial and
other support by,; renewing dues-matching provision of prior contract after effec-
tive date of Act, and monies derived with respondent's aid from sale of candy,
gasoline, and other articles; despite alleged failure of "inside" organization
to realize a profit from sale of articles on respondent's property, organization's
prestige unlawfully enhanced by respondent permitting the use of its prop-
erty for such purposes ; failure to curtail illegal use of facilities for "inside"
union activities when such facilities have been granted for the maintenance
of a Federal Credit Union-project of "inside" union-itself legitimate and
in no mariner violative of the Act-interference in internal management:
pursuant to contract executed prior to effective date of Act in which "inside"
organization's constitution was made part of contract and which provided
that no amendments could be made to the constitution without its consent,
respondent dictated the form of that article of the constitution which dealt
with the selection of its council members and officers, participated in the
formulation of the article determining eligibility to vote upon strike ques-
tion, and after attempting unsuccessfully to induce the organization to delete
from the constitution the provision reserving the right to strike, neverthe-
less secured assurance that such provision would not be binding upon it;
respondent's action held not justified because organization insisted that the
constitution be part of the contract since the respondent under the Act had
i9 N.L.R B,No 194.
992
CURTISS-WRICHT CORPORATION 993
the positive duty not to interfere with the internal management or adminis-
tration of the organization or to dominate or seek to dominate the organiza-
tion-alleged militancy of "inside" organization and securance of benefits for
employees held cannot and does not cleanse the organization of its illegal
taint; the effects of the employer's unlawful acts, and its interference with
and control of the organization are not thus nullified.
Remedial Orders : dominated organization disestablished; order requiring re-
spondent to cease and desist giving, effect to contract with dominated organi-
zation held not to operate to interfere with or suspend any legitimate social
activities carried on by the dominated organization or with the legitimate
function of a Federal Credit Union which it sponsored.
Mr. Peter J. Crotty, for the Board.
Spence , Windels, lValser, Hotchkiss & Angell, by Mr. Thomas Shaw
Hale, of New York City , and Mr . Burt G. 1;Veber and Mr . Henry A.
Lytle, of Buffalo , N. Y., for the respondent.
Mr. Edward W. Hamilton' and Mr . J. Lester Kinney of Buffalo,
N. Y., and Mr. Robert P. Galloway , of Silver Creek , N. Y., for The
Aircraft.
Mr. Maurice Sugar, of Detroit, Mich ., and Liebman , Leider cC 1Vitt,
of New York City, by ' Mr. Harold I . Cwmmer , of New York City,
for the Union.
Mr . Max W. Jo/intone , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CA SE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on August 14, 1941,= by
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America; Local 753,3 herein called the Union,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York), issued
its amended complaint dated August 14, 1941, against Curtiss-Wright
Corporation,4 herein called the respondent, alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
1 On the sixth day of the hearing, Hamilton withdrew as counsel for The Aircraft '
2The original and the first amended charges were filed on May 17 and August 1, 1941,
respectively
The charges were filed by United Automobile Workers of America, Local 753, affiliated
with the C. I O, which organization later changed its name to that as it appeals above
At the hearing, upon notion, and without objection, the second amended charge and the
amended complaint were amended in confoimrty hereto
4 The respondent was designated in the amended complaint as Curtiss-Wright Corpora-
tion, Airplane Division Upon motion, consented to by all parties, such designation was
changed to that appearing above
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mg commerce , within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1), (2), and (3),R
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called 'the Act. Copies of the amended complaint,
accompaniel by notice of hearing , were duly served upon the re-
spondent, the Union, and upon The Aircraft, a labor organization.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in substance that the respondent (1) since May 1934 engaged
in a. continuous plan and course of action for the purpose of inter-
fering with the self -organization of its employees , discouraging mem-
bership in the Union, and encouraging membership in The Aircraft;
(2) contributed money to The Aircraft in return for services which
that organization was to render the respondent ; ( 3) permitted The
Aircraft to sell gasoline and other fuel, food, and household goods on
the respondent's time and property, the profits from which venture
were retained by The Aircraft; (4) permitted The Aircraft, on the re-
spondent 's time and property , to distribute magazines and pamphlets
of The Aircraft , solicit members for The Aircraft , and transact busi-
ness of The Aircraft; (5) permitted supervisory employees of the
respondent to remain members of The,Aircraft and of its Council;
(6) regulated and controlled the internal affairs of The Aircraft; (7)
threatened its employees with discharge and/or loss of promotion if
they joined the Union ; ( 8) used derogatory and disparaging language
in its attempt to discourage membership in the Union ; ( 9) in further-
ance of its plan and course of action as above indicated , entered into,
from time to time since on or about September 1, 1934, certain: con-
tracts with The Aircraft which are presently in effect; and (10) by
such acts and conduct dominated the administration of, and con-
tributed support to , The Aircraft , and interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the-Act. The a mended-complaint also alleged that by
_reason of the plan and course of action as indicated above, the con-
tracts entered into by the respondent and The Aircraft at various
times since on or about September 1, 1934, are invalid, illegal, and
of no effect.
On or about September 4, 1941, the respondent filed its answer ad-
initting certain allegations of the complaint as to the nature of its
business , but denying the alleged unfair labor practices . The re-
spondent's answer admitted among other things (1) that the respond-
ent, from September 1, 1934, to July 5, 1935, paid to The Aircraft
certain sums of money equal to the amount of membership dues col-
lected by The Aircraft from its members ; (2) that from July 5, 1935,
6 Counsel for the Board did not attempt to introduce any evidence in support of this
allegation contained in the amended complaint , and moved to dismiss that portion of the
complaint The motion was granted without objection
QUALITY AND SERVICE LAUNDRY, INC. 995
to a time in the future not specified, it paid into an escrow account
sums equivalent to the'amounts called for by the dues-matching pro-
visions of the contracts then in effect between the respondent and The
Aircraft; (3) that The Aircraft sued the respondent because of its
refusal to pay over the money called for in the dues-matching clauses
of the contracts; (4) that on May 18, 1938, the respondent paid to
The Aircraft the sum of $13,568.61, pursuant to a judgment entered
in that suit; and (5) that it permitted The Aircraft to sell gasoline
and to operate candy-vending machines on the respondent's property.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from September 8 to
October 21, 1941, inclusive, before Howard Myers, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the opening
of the hearing, The Aircraft filed a written application for leave to
intervene, which application was granted by the Trial Examiner.
Thereafter, on or about September 15, 1941, The Aircraft filed an
answer denying that it was dominated or supported by the respond-
ent but admitting that the respondent (1) had paid The Aircraft
various sums of money in consideration of certain services rendered
to the respondent by The Aircraft; (2) had permitted The Aircraft
to sell gasoline, food, and fuel and to distribute certain literature of
The Aircraft on the respondent's property, but denying that the re-
spondent had permitted it to distribute such literature on the respond-
ent's time; and (3) has since July 5, 1935, recognized The Aircraft
,as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees. The answer
affirmatively alleged that The Aircraft had secured several wage in-
creases for all the employees; handled thousands of grievances for
all the employees; initiated a credit union, group accident insurance,
and group hospitalization service; published a plant magazine, "Look-
ing Forward," and a weekly newspaper, "The Aircrafter"; and carried
on various other activities for the benefit of all the employees.
The Board, the respondent, The Aircraft, and the Union 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-
elusion of the Board's case, counsel for the respondent made several
motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, or, in the alternative,
to dismiss certain portions thereof and counsel for The Aircraft moved
to dismiss all the allegations of the complaint which charged the re-
spondent with violating Section 8 (2) of the Act. These motions were
denied by the Trial Examiner. At the conclusion of the hearing,
counsel for the respondent' and for The Aircraft renewed their respec-
tive motions to dismiss all or portions of the complaint. Decision on
these motions was reserved by the Trial Examiner who denied them
in his Intermediate Report. Counsel for the respondent and for The
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aircraft also moved to strike certain portions of the testimony, some
of which motions were denied in part and on some of which ruling was
reserved by the Trial Examiner and denied by him in his Interme-
diate Report. Counsel for the respondent and for The Aircraft also
excepted to the receipt in evidence of an excerpt from the typewritten
transcript in a representation case involving the respondent's Colum-
bus, Ohio, plant.6 - In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner
overruled the objections and admitted the exhibit in evidence. We
shall exclude from evidence the exhibit and do not consider it in
resolving the issues herein. At the close of the hearing counsel for the
Board moved to conform the complaint to the proof, and counsel for
the respondent and for The Aircraft moved to conform their respec-
tive answers to the proof, all of which motions were granted by the
Trial Examiner without objection. During the course of the hearing,
rulings were made by the Trial Examiner on various other motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. Except as noted above, the rulings of the Trial Examiner
are hereby affirmed.
At the conclusion of the hearing all the parties were afforded an
opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner. Counsel for
the Board, the respondent, and The Aircraft availed themselves of
such opportunity and presented oral argument. Briefs were filed
with the Trial Examiner by the respondent, The Aircraft, and the
Union. ,
On December 17, 1941, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, finding
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 Act. He accord-
ingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom,
and cease and desist from giving effect to its contract of September
1, 1934, with The Aircraft, or any revision thereof, or to any other
extension, renewal, revision, modification or supplement thereof, or
to any superseding contract which might be in force, and further
recommended that it withdraw and withhold all recognition from
The Aircraft and completely disestablish The Aircraft as the ex-
clusive representative of all its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay,-hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and that it post appropriate notices. ,
Thereafter the respondent, the Union, and The Aircraft filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report. The re-
Matter of Curtiss-Ztii»ht Corporation and The Aircraft, Case No. Ix-R-5S4
CURTISS-WIRIGHT CORPORATION 997
spondent, the Union, and The Aircraft also filed briefs with the
Board. At the respondent's request oral argument was held on
February 19, 1942, before the Board in Washington, P. C. The Air-
craft, the respondent, and,the Union were represented by counsel'
and presented oral argument. Thereafter the respondent and The
Aircraft filed reply briefs.
The Board has considered the briefs filed with the Trial Examiner
and the briefs filed with the Board. The Board has also considered
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, insofar as they are
inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a corporation organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. It was incorporated in
1929, and since 1934 has been authorized to do, business in the State
of New York. Its executive offices are located in New York City.
It owns and operates plants for the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of airplanes and airplane parts at Tonawanda and Cheektowaga,
New York, Columbus, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, and elsewhere. Only
its two New York plants, herein called the Buffalo plants, are
involved in this proceeding.'
The value of the raw materials and other materials purchased
by the respondent between July 1, 1940, and June 30, 1941, and used
in the production of its above-mentioned finished products at its
Buffalo plants, amounted to about $15,000,000, of which amount ap-'
proximately 80 percent was shipped to the Buffalo plants from points
outside the State of New York. During the same period the value
of the finished products produced by the respondent at its Buffalo
4 Prior to September 1936 one of these Buffalo plants ( the Kenmore ) was owned and
operated by the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company , Inc, a subsidiary of the respondent
At that time the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, Inc , was dissolved and the plant
has since been owned and operated by the respondent . The respondent has always con-
trolled the labor 'policies and all other policies of the Kenmore plant. It continued to
operate the plant with most of the same officers , continuing in effect contracts with The
Aircraft hereinafter mentioned , and with the same labor policies and other policies. In
its brief filed with the Trial Examiner the respondent states, "Prior to September, 1936,
the Buffalo business of the Company was conducted through a subsidiary; Curtiss Aeroplane
and Motor Company, Inc ., the capital stock of which was 99 6% owned by the Company
(the respondent ). Both Curtiss -Wright Corporation and its predecessor at Buffalo will be
referred to as the Company in this brief " In view of this continuity of operation, the
Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, Inc, and the Curtiss-Wright Corporation will be
treated , for the purposes of this proceeding , as one company and will be jointly referred to
iieicin ' as the respondent.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plants amounted to approximately $68,900,000, of which amount more
than 99 percent was shipped to points outside the State of New York.
On August 1, 1941, there were about 16,257 persons employed by the
respondent at its Buffalo plants. '
The respondent has conceded, for the purposes of this proceeding,
that it is, and since the effective date of the Act has been, engaged,in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 753,, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits
i o membership employees of the respondent.
The Aircraft is an unaffiliated labor organization which admits to
membership employees of the respondent.
111. TILE UNFAIR LABOR P11 AC'FICEB
Domination of, interference with,, and support to The ^Lirciaft; intcr-
ference, restraint, and coercion
1. The events prior to July 5, 1935
s
There is no evidence in the record of any labor organization in the
Kenmore plant of the respondent prior to 1933. In the summer of
that year Aeronautical Workers Federal Labor Union, No. 18286, an
affiliate of the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Aero-
nautical Workers, commenced an organizational drive in the Ken-
more plant and, within a short period of time thereafter a majority
of the 1,200 or 1,300 employees became members. In September 1933
the respondent and the Aeronautical, Workers entered into an agree-
ment which was to run until June 30, 1934.
On March 25, 1934, the Aeronautical Workers called a strike for
higher wages. Glenn R. Witter,8 one of the respondent's striking
employees, conceived the idea of forming an unaffiliated union among
the respondent's employees. In the early part of May 1934, Witter
I Witter was first employed by the respondent on August 2 , 1926, as an inspector, and
on December 20, 1928, he was put in charge of the aeroplane -inspection department, a
supeivisory position On November 5, 1931 , because of the transfer from the respondent's
Garden City , New York , plant of a great many men who had more seniority than lie,
Witter was demoted to the position of ordinary inspector in the final assembly depart-
ment at the same rate of pay On July 6 . 1936 , he was transferred to the receiving
department and was made a supervisor of that depai tment on May 23, 1938 In Sep-
tember 1940 , lie NN as made a supervisor in the vendor-inspection department , which position
lie held at the time of the hearing. We find that Witter was a supei visory employee of
the respondent between December 20, 1928 , and November 4, 1931 , and at all times after
Ma, 23, 1938.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 999
met Edwin Fabing, another one of the strikers, and said to him, as
Fabing testified, "I thud: it would be a ,good idea if we could
organize it union of our own." They discussed the possibility of
forming an independent union at some length. After Witter had
conceived the idea of forming an independent union lie went to the
home of George S. Lapp, the respondent's secretary and treasurer,
and informed Lapp that a number of the striking employees would
return to work if Lapp would "provide some'conveyance that would
pick them up at their homes and take them to the shop and return
them back to their homes." On the following day Witter and about
'30 or 40 other employees were brought to the plant in taxicabs fur-
nished by Lapp. This back-to-work movement grew and by the
end of the week about 500 employees had returned to work in con-
veyances supplied by Lapp. About it week after his return to the
plant, Witter spoke to James E. Alderman, a non-striking employee
and others, regarding his plan to form an unaffiliated union. On
May 10, Witter, Alderman, and G other employees who had returned
to work before the end of the strike, met in a room known as' the
"morgue," in the Administration Building on the respondent's prem-
ises, apparently without the respondent's permission or knowledge,
and discussed the formation of it plan, according to the minutes of
the meeting, "whereby the employees and The Curtiss Aeroplane and
Motor Company could agree as to a basis for working and social.
conditions."
On May 15, 1934, the National Labor Board, established pursuant
to'the National, Industrial Recovery Act,' rendered a decision hold-
ing that the strike was called in violation of the agreement between
the Aeronautical Workers and the respondent, and recommending
that the striking employees return to work and arbitrate the ques-
tion of wage increases. However, the strike was not terminated by
the Aeronautical Workers until May 23, 1934.
On May 23, Witter, again apparently without the management's
permission met in the "morgue" with the same group which had met
there on May 10. At this meeting a proposed plan for the formation
of a labor organization was discussed at length, the name of -"The
Aircraft" was decided upon, and temporary officers were selected.
Those present decided to proceed with the plan and they and others
immediately put on a vigorous campaign for members. On May 31,
an organizational meeting, attended by about 113 members,10 was
held in a public hall near the plant, at which the constitution of The
48 Stat 195
In order to become a member of Tlie An cia ft the applicant had to sign a cal (1 lesignIng
from the,teionaullc.il \Coidcis
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aircraft Was adopted and Witter was elected president, Frank Muhr,
vice president, and Alderman, secretary-treasurer.71
On June 2, 1934, Edward W. Hamilton, who was the first attorney
of The Aircraft and who assisted in-the preparation of The Aircraft's
constitution and in other phases of the organization of The Aircraft,
submitted a copy of The Aircraft constitution to the respondent.
The covering letter from Hamilton read, in part, as follows :
I believed it possible to frame a constitution for the associa-
tion with provisions so just and fair that the Company would
be ' able and willing to cooperate with the association acting
under it; and, thirdly, I believed it equally possible so to pro-
vide for amendments to the constitution that, if needed to meet
any reasonable demands of the Company, such amendments could
easily be made .. .
Now that the organization of The Aircraft has been completed,
I have been authorized and directed to submit a copy of its con-
stitution to you, which I have the pleasure of doing herewith ...
On June 7, ' 1934, the Aeronautical Workers filed a complaint with
the Buffalo Regional Labor Board, which had been established pur-
suant to the National Industrial Recovery Act, alleging that the
respondent was aiding in the formation of The Aircraft and was
urging its employees to resign from the Aeronautical Workers. At
a conference held with the executive secretary of that Regional
Board, the officials of the Company denied the charges. Several
other conferences were held between June 1934 and February 1935,
but the record does not disclose what disposition was made of the
complaint 12
On June 23, 1934, The Aircraft wrote another letter to the re-
spondent requesting a reply to its letter of. June 2, and further stat-
ing that The Aircraft represented a substantial majority of the
employees of the respondent and would therefore like to meet on
"At the,expiration of Witter's term of office in January 1935, he was elected honorary
president, which position he still held at the time of the hearing Alderman has always
held the office of secretary-treasurer.
1' On or about January 23, 1935, the Aeronautical Workers filed another complaint with
the Regional Board alleging that The Aircraft was company dominated and asking that
the contract of September 1, 1934, mentioned hereinafter, be set aside. The respondent
filed a written denial of these charges. The record does not disclose what formal disposition
was made of this complaint The respondent contends that the failure of the Regional
Board to prosecute the two complaints of the Aeronautical workers indicates that these
was no substance to these complaints and that therefore such failure on the part of said
Regional Board to act is binding on us . We find no merit in this contention. The
respondent also contends that in connection with the conferences between The Aircraft
and officials of the said Regional Board on this subject and in connection with other
conferences with officials of said Regional Board, and officials of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and with local employees of the Buffalo office of the National Labor Relations
Board, and with conciliators of the United States Department of Labor, the organizational
activities of The An craft and its initial actions were thoroughly discussed and that we
are precluded from proceeding in this matter. We find this contention to be without merit
CURTISS-WR1GHT CORPORATION _ 1001
June 26 with the respondent's management in order to discuss It
collective bargaining contract for the members of The Aircraft. On
or about June 28, The Aircraft filed with the Buffalo Regional Labor
Board a petition for an election. On July 3, the respondent wrote
The Aircraft that it would meet with whichever union should
the election to be conducted by that Board.
The Regional Board conducted the election on July .10, and re-
ported that, of the 1,257 votes cast, the Aeronautical Workers re-
ceived 619, The Aircraft, 612, 25 votes were "blank and scattering,"
and 1 was void. On July 13, The Aircraft filed a written protest
with the Regional Board claiming, among other things, that the
timekeepers, dispatchers, and truck drivers were erroneously pro-
hibited from voting and that anew election should be held. In its
protest The Aircraft further charged that "a very considerable num-
ber" of the respondent's employees had joined The Aircraft "to
curry favor with their foremen and supervisors, but with the secret
intention of voting against it (The Aircraft) at the election, as they
did, because they felt that any organization which their foremen or
supervisors wanted them to join must be a `company union'....713
On July 20, the Buffalo Regional Labor Board ruled that a majority
of the employees had not selected either union to represent them and
ordered a new election to be held on July 31. Appeals from this
ruling Were taken by the Aeronautical Workers and by The Aircraft
to the old National Labor Relations Board, which wa^ established
on June 29, 1934, pursuant to an Executive Order of the President
of the United States. This Board, on August 2, affirmed the ruling
of the Regional Board, except that it ordered that no new election be
held unless a majority of the employees presented a petition request-
ing it. In its decision this Board stated, "while the present situation
exists an agreement between the employer and either union niay of
course be made but it would apply only to members of that union." 14
Regarding this statement in the protest, Witter testified as follows .
Question. Now, getting back again to your protest filed with the Regional Labor
Board, it was a fact, was it, that considerable people, according to the protest which
you filed, joined The Aircraft in order to curry f.ivoi with their foiemen and
supervisors ?
Answer That is true
Attorney Hamilton testified that this practice continued and that as late as the summer
of 1941 The Aircraft requested the respondent to advise its foremen to discontinue speaking
favorably about The Aircraft to the employees
14 The respondent contends that the contract which it subsequently executed with The
Aircraft on of about September 1, 1934, was entered into under the authority of the deci-
sion of the old National Labor Relations Board above referred to, and that said decision
was an adjudication of the legitimacy of The Aircraft. This decision of the old National
Labor Relations Board is not binding upon us . In addition there is no showing that the
old National Labor Relations Board considered the character of The Aircraft, or that
such question was an issue in the controversy We find the respondent's contention to be
without nielit
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 8, 1934, representatives of The Aircraft met with offi-
cials of the respondent it which time The Aircraft was recognized
as the bargaining agent for its members. This meeting was fol-
lowed by several others prior to August 24. On that date The Air-
craft presented to the respondent a proposed contract which had been
prepared by Attorney Hamilton. On -September 11, after a number
of conferences and after exchanging several letters, the parties entered
into a contract dated September 1, 1934, which was substantially
the same as the draft prepared by Hamilton. A "preamble" pre-
pared by Hamilton and the constitution of The Aircraft were made
a part of this contract. As soon as the contract was executed, all
three documents were -mimeographed and distributed by The Air-
craft to all the respondent's employees., During these conferences
preceding the signing of the contract, the respondent insisted upon
certain changes being made in the constitution of The Aircraft.'
The contract provided, among other things, that the respondent
would "pay The Aircraft an amount equal to the present dues of 25
cents per member per month, as evidence of its appreciation and in
consideration of what The Aircraft has clone and promises to do to
promote the best interests of the Company"; that upon the authoriza-
tion of members of The Aircraft the respondent would check off their
dues for The Aircraft; that the respondent would endeavor to secure
the consent of the stockholders to divide, after the receipt by the
stockholders of a just return on their investment, the surplus profits
among the stockholders, management, and the employees; that no
amendments to the constitution of The Aircraft would be binding
upon the respondent without its consent; and that outside of working
hours the respondent's officials have the right "to talk freely to all
employees and to tell them what they believe about any union, and
why they, believe one, rather than another, will help the' Company
the most."
Pursuant to the suggestion contained in the decision of the National
Labor Board on May 15, 1934, with regard to the Aeronautical.
Workers' strike, the respondent and the Aeronautical Workers entered
into an arbitration proceeding. On September 24 the respondent
posted the decision dated September 21, 1934, of the impartial chair-
man of the Board of Arbitration in which the chairman recom-
mended that the respondent's rate structure be simplified and that the
persons in the respondent's employ between May 22 and June 30,
1934,'° be given' the general wage increase found by him to be justi-
fiable. In his decision the chairman stated that the "Company testi- N
"The record does not disclose the specific changes in The Aircraft constitution that
were made pursuant to the respondent ' s request.
10 The period from the end of the stt ike to the expiration of the Aeronautical workers'
contract with the respondent
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1003
fled (in the proceedings) that its sales prospects for the immediate
future were not very prolnising. The Couipany ,estimated that its
labor force will be reduced at least 500 in November and December."
Despite its contention in the arbitration proceeding that it was finan-
cially unable to grant a 'general wage increase, the respondent, on
the day following the posting of the Aeronautical Workers' arbi-
tration decision and after holding up the posting of said decision 3
days, notified its employees that it had reached an understanding
with The Aircraft whereby a general wage increase for all employees
would be put into effect immediately, retroactive to July 1, 1934.
The notice concluded with a statement that this . increase should
"not be confused in any way with the arbitration award." -
On September 24, the Aeronautical Workers wrote a letter to the
respondent stating that it represented the majority of the employees
and requesting a meeting for the purpose of entering into a collective
bargaining agreement on behalf of all the employees. On October 2
the respondent met representatives of the Aeronautical Workers and
demanded proof of them that the Aeronautical Workers represented
a majority of its employees. The Aeronautical Workers refused to
produce the requested proof and the conference lasted but a few
minutes. There was no further request by the Aeronautical Workers
for bargaining.
The constitution of The -Aircraft limited membership to any em-
ployees of the respondent who did not hold a "supervisory position,
with official status, or executive authority, or with the right to hire
and discharge employees," and who did not have "communistic rela-
tionships or affiliations."'s The record shows that only the person-
nel department of the respondent had the power to hire or discharge
employees. This prerogative was evidently not delegated to its
supervisory force., According to Witter, at the inception of The Air-
craft, leadmen were _ not eligible for membership in The Aircraft
because they were "on the management side." Nevertheless, without
any change in The Aircraft's constitution, they were'soon allowed- to
become members of The Aircraft and many of them did. Many of
them also became active in behalf of The ,Aircraft, soliciting mem-
hers for The Aircraft on the respondent's time and property. In
fact, leadmen were elected to office in The Aircril,ft and to the Council
'7 The record does not disclose the amount of the, 18,ige inri case grunted
"Tile constitution also provided that the Council of the The Aircraft should be the
governing body and should be composed of the officers of The Aircraft and one repiesenta ,
tive elected once a year by the employees in each of the eight divisions into which the
plant was divided The representatives had to be employees of the particular department
they represented. From time to time the number of iepresentatives increased until at the
time of the hearing there were 21,
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of The Aircraft, and as representatives thereof they conferred with
the management on behalf of the employees 19
Pursuant to the "dues-matching" clause of the contract of Septem-
ber 1, 1934, the respondent paid to The Aircraft in 1934 the sum of
$106.75 and in 1935 the sum of $588.87.20 On June 22, 1935, The Air-
craft reminded the respondent by letter that it had agreed in the
contract, if financially able to do so, to share equally all the reason-
able and necessary expenses of The Aircraft. This letter recited that
since September 1, 1934 (the date of the contract), The Aircraft had
"sought to prove its value to the Company and its right to • request
the Management to share its (The Aircraft's) expenses equally"; that
The Aircraft's current indebtedness then amounted to approximately
$5,000, incurred almost entirely .for services rendered by The Ali--
craft's attorney whose services were "of 'as much value to the Man-
agement as to the Men of the Company and that the charge of
$5,000 made for those services is a reasonable one." 'The letter con-
cluded with the request that the respondent pay The Aircraft one-
half of the expenses it had incurred, less the payments made by the
respondent pursuant to the dues-matching clause of the, contract.
Ralph S.,Damon, then the respondent's president, replied by letter
dated June 26, 1935, in which he expressed his appreciation on behalf
of the management for The Aircraft's, cooperation which he said it
The Aircraft and the respondent contend that leadmen do not have a supervisory
status At the time of the formation of The Aircraft a leadman exercised control over
approximately 14 men His duties included, first, seeing that his men were occupied, and
then, doing mane al work himself in some cases. At the time of the hearing a leadman, on
the average, exercised control over 22 men In some cases there were as many as 40 or 50
employees under the control of a single leadman The leadman's scale of wages was higher
than that paid to anyone in his group while engaged in working with other employees
a leadman is admittedly "head man" and an instiuctor He is also responsible for the
pi oduction of his group . His duties include reporting to the foreman regarding the
performance of his group and the individuals in it and checking on such performance
He participates in the preparation of merit ratings of the employees in his group. The
employees are given wage increases and promotions on the basis of these merit ratings
At the hearing several employees referred to leadmen as "bosses" and other witnesses
including a leadman testified that leadmen have disciplinary powers Jansen, the re-
spondent's plant manager, testified that at the time of the hearing the leadmen do very
little manual work and that "their first job is to see that their particular group of men
are occupied with the necessary work. They either adjust work themselves or provide
tools or interpret drawings and generally see that the work is performed satisfactorily in
the group that they are in " He further testified that men are promoted to foremen
"from the leadmen ranks " We find that leadmen, at all tines material herein, were, and
,,till are, supervisory employees of the- respondent See International Association of
Machinists v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U S 72 _
n The Aircraft's constitution provided that the dues should be 25 cents per month
Shortly after the execution of the first contract, at the iequest of the respondent, the
dues were fixed at 0 cents per week This change was brought about because the re-
spondent's pay-roll machinery was operated on a weekly basis In July 1935 The Aircraft
decided to increase its membership dues to 12 cents per week but the respondent objected
After conferences between The Aircraft and the respondent on the subject and with the
consent of the respondent the dues were fixed at 10 cents per week commencing with
the week ending July 19 The dues remained at this figure until on or about November
1, 1937, when they were raised to 20 cents per week
1
CURTISS-wR1GHT CORPORATION 1005
was "impossible" for him "to evaluate adequately'in terms of money,"
and in which he regretted that because of the respondent's financial
condition it could not comply fully with The Aircraft's request to
share half the expenses incurred by it. Damon advised The Aircraft
in his letter, however, that the respondent had arranged to give
$1,000 as a "special contribution" to enable The Aircraft to reduce
its indebtedness and to assist its credit standing sufficiently to permit
The Aircraft to "carry on." After requesting The Aircraft to send
him an itemized statement of its receipts and disbursements which it
had offered to submit, Damon ended this letter as follows:
I hope that the business which we will be able to obtain will
permit a larger gross in your income from dues and contributions
•in,the future and that during the coming year you will be able
not only to live within your own budget but to assist in the
cleaning up of the deficit which you have mentioned. I^ ain
sorry that I cannot comply with your request completely and I,
hope that your organization will trust my judgment in the
matter and I assure you that I am doing my best to find for all
of us that fine line between ultimate failure and success.
Within 2 days thereafter,' the respondent delivered its check for
$1,000 to The Aircraft. On or about June 30, The Aircraft delivered
its check for $1,000 to Hamilton "in partial payment" for the legal
services rendered by him during 1934.
Since the events described above. occurred prior to the effective
date of the Act they do not constitute unfair labor practices. They
are material and relevant, however, to a consideration of the re-
spondent's conduct and practices subsequent to the effective date of
the Act and to a determination of the issues raised by the pleadings
herein.21
2. The events subsequent to July 5, 1935
On July 8, 1935, The Aircraft- forwarded to the respondent a
copy of a proposed amended constitution and requested the latter's
consent thereto. Damon, then president of the respondent, wrote
The Aircraft on August 6, 1935, saying "I am happy to advise you
that the management consents to'the amended, constitution received
by me except as follows . . .," and thereafter suggested changes as
to various provisions in the constitution. Damon suggested that the
provision reserving to The Aircraft the right to strike should be
deleted entirely. On this matter Damon wrote, in part, ". . . you
21 Cf National Labor Relations Board Y Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, et al, 303
li S 261, National Labor Relations Boa) d v Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S
272 ; National Labor Relations Board v Newport News Shipbuilding if Dry Dock Co , 308
U. S 241.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
must always remember that a strike is A% ar, that it is the last re-
course, that it will automatically lose for you the cooperation of
the management, which you have and that it will violate the spirit
and the - letter of the agreement." Damon also suggested that the
provision relating to the selection of The Aircraft officers be
worded to limit eligibility to,hold office to active members of The
Aircraft only. Daemon further suggested, as an alternative, that
the constitution be reworded so that only members of The Aircraft
currently employed when such a question might arise, could vote for
or -against the initiation or termination of a strike. The Aircraft
-accepted all of Damon's suggestions except the one as to the deletion
of the provision relating to the right to strike. On this point The
Aircraft wrote the respondent, in part, as follows: ". . . But em-
ployees have the right to strike, as you intimate. The Federal con-
stitution assures them of it. To close our eyes to this fact and omit
a statement of the right from our Principles and Pledge (constitu-
tion) would leave our platform defective and subject us to just
criticism." The Aircraft assured the respondent that it would per-
form under its current contract with the respondent just as though
its constitution did not contain the provision in question. There-
after Damon replied, on behalf of the respondent, that ". . . I re-
gret that I cannot conscientiously agree to including in any agree-
ment arm admission of the right of another party to use force, either
moral or physical, without an equal provision on my -part which I
feel has no place in such an agreement of amity and cooperation. I
therefore suggest that we adopt the program outlined . . . which
I understand to be that so far as the agreement of September 1,
1934 (the current agreement between the respondent and The Air-
craft) is concerned your constitution does not contain subdivision 8
of Section I of Article 3" (the provision reserving the right to
strike).
- Within a few days after the effective date of the Act the respond-
ent advised The Aircraft by letter that the dues-matching provision
in the contract might be violative of the Act, and requested The
Aircraft to "bear with us for awhile to see what can-be clone iii a
matter which has been brought :iboiit by circumstances entirely be-
yond our control." The Aircraft replied, disagreeing with the
respondent's interpretation of the Act in this respect. However, by
agreement of the parties, the respondent put the money which it had
obligated itself to pay to The Aircraft under the dues-matching
clause of the contract, into`a special fund, instead of paying it directly
to The Aircraft. The respondent continued to place the dues-match-
ing money into this fund until on or about April 11, 1937.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1007
In late 1935 and early 1936 The Aircraft organized The Aircraft
Federal Credit Union.22 The respondent furnished The Aircraft
Federal Credit Union with an office and office equipment, rent-free,
on the respondent's premises, from which The Aircraft Federal Credit
Union transacted- its business. The grant of these facilities by the
respondent for the purpose of assisting the Credit Union does not, of
course, constitute an unfair labor practice.23 The respondent, how-
ever, permitted The Aircraft to transact business for The Aircraft in
and from the Credit Union office. Emanuel Fried testified, without
denial, of one instance when' he transacted business of The Aircraft
when be was a representative of The Aircraft, in the Credit Union
office. Alderman, secretary-treasurer of The Aircraft, testified that he
had brought membership application cards and literature of The Air-
craft into the Credit Union office on occasions and "placed them in a
drawer of a desk," presumably for later disposition. Fried also testi-
fied, without contradiction, that be had frequently seen Alderman,
who, in addition to being secretary-treasurer of The Aircraft, was a
member of the board of directors of the Credit Union, conferring in
the office of the Credit Union with Kriegbaum, president of The Air-
craft who had no connection with the Credit Union. The respond-
ent's interplant telephone directory listed Alderman under depart-
ment "Aircraft," at the office of the Credit Union. The respondent
also on occasion directed items of correspondence to The Aircraft at
the Credit Union office. Alderman maintained a desk in the Credit
Union office although he was not one of the officers of the Credit
Union. The Aircraft utilized the Credit Union office in its campaign
to promote its group hospitalization plan among the respondent's
employees. In addition The Aircraft, on occasion, used some of the
Credit Union office equipment in its own offices.
On February 7, 1936, P. N. Jansen, then the respondent's plant
manager, wrote Attorney Hamilton of The Aircraft a letter stating
in part, as follows : "My feeling is that unless The Aircraft does some-
thing dramatic almost daily most of its members feel that their leaders
are not on the job or have sold out to the Company." The letter
continued : "perhaps the industrial union is too new and misunder-
stood. The average man may try to compare an industrial union with
the building trades where a highly paid business agent sends him to
jobs through a central office (when there are no jobs the agent does
nothing about it) and he listens to much overpaid professional orators
2= The respondent and The Aircraft contend, and we find, that The Aircraft Federal
Credit Union is a legal entity separate from The Aircraft . It is undenied , however, and
we find , that The Aircraft Federal Credit Union is a project of The Aircraft.
2151 Stat . 5 : "provision by an employer of facilities for the operation of a Federal
Credit Union on the premises of such employer shall not be deemed to. be intimidation,
coercion , interference , restraint or discrimination within the provisions of Sections 7 and
8 of the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935 , or acts amendatory thereto."
448105-42-vol. 39-65
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who keep things stirred up to justify their salaries (perhaps one
reason for no building trades for the last 6 years.) The Aircraft
members get all the above and a lot more but because `the hurrah' is
not there I presume the work is not recognized." In this letter Jansen
listed the "accomplishments" of The Aircraft and suggested that The
Aircraft publicize these accomplishments. Jansen, however, sug-
gested that while bargaining with the management of the respondent
was important, that might not be sufficient to satisfy the employees
and therefore The Aircraft could not be a "constructive and happy
organization." He suggested that The Aircraft should engage in
social activities more "whole-heartedly."
In May 1936, The Aircraft filed a charge with the Board alleging
that the respondent, by its refusal to pay over the money in accord-
ance with the dues-matching clause of the agreement, was violating
Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act in that it was interfering with the
administration of The Aircraft. The Regional Director with whom
the charge was filed refused to issue a complaint, and upon review, the
Board on June 8, upheld the Regional Director. In a letter signed
by the Chairman of the Board and upholding the Regional Director's
refusal to issue a complaint, the Board advised that the respondent
would violate the Act if it continued to match The Aircraft's clues.
However, the respondent continued for almost a year thereafter to
place the dues-matching money in the special account. -
The respondent and The Aircraft, in the early part of August
1936, signed a revision of the 1934 agreement which was substantially
the same as the latter agreement.24 Notwithstanding the advisory
opinion of the Board stating that the dues-matching clause of the
contract then in effect was violative of the Act, of which opinion the
respondent had knowledge shortly after it was rendered, this 1936
revision provided that the respondent "as a just and reasonable con-
sideration for the services promised and performed by The Aircraft"
agreed "to share its (The Aircraft's) expenses equally with it and,
therefore, the management promises to pay The Aircraft an amount
equal to the present dues of ten (10) cents per week per member,
making its normal income double the amount of such dues .. ."
The Aircraft had on a number of occasions requested permission of
the respondent to install candy-vending machines in the plant. The
respondent objected on the grounds that such machines would inter-
fere with the work of the employees and would decrease the sales
of candy in the plant cafeteria which the respondent operated.
Nevertheless, after extensive discussions on the matter, the respond-
2' This revision is dated July 1, 1936 By error the check-off provision was omitted
from the contract The respondent , however, continued to check off the dues of members
of The Aircraft, pursuant to their authorizations.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1009
ent entered into an agreement with The Aircraft on August 6, 1936,
.permitting the 'latter to install such machines in the plant. After
this arrangement was effected The Aircraft entered into an agree-
ment with the Automatic Canteen Company whereby the latter
agreed to install the machines and give The Aircraft a percentage of
the profits derived therefrom. On or about September 12, 1936, 13
batteries of vending machines were installed, the number increasing
thereafter until the time of the hearing. The respondent permitted
the machines to remain in its plant without charge to The Aircraft
with the understanding that all monies received by The Aircraft
therefrom would be used for "welfare work conducted by The Air-
craft." 25 However, all monies received by The Aircraft from what-
ever sources were deposited in one bank account. The respondent
never requested, nor did it ever receive an accounting from The
Aircraft with regard to its welfare expenditures. Since May 1938,
the welfare work of . The Aircraft had been in charge' of Kenneth
Rose, a supervisory employee who was a member of The Aircraft
Council in 1937 and 1938 and vice president of The Aircraft in
1940.26
During the Christmas season of 1937 The Aircraft and the respond-
ent jointly distributed pork loins. The expenses of this joint dis-
tribution were shared equally by the respondent and The Aircraft,
the former purchasing the pork loins and the latter giving the re-
spondent a check for half the cost thereof.27
"'At the hearing The Aircraft contended that it used the money derived from these
machines for welfare work among all the employees. The record, however, shows that
between September 12, 1936, and Suly 31, 1941, it derived $11,920.20 from these machines
and it paid out, during that time, $5,700 in death benefits only to families of deceased
members of The Aircraft Families of deceased non-members were not paid death benefits
'Although The Aircraft, in connection with its general welfare program of which the
above is a part, expended approximately $7,900 more in such program than it received
ti om the candy-vending machines. nevertheless, only families of members of The Aircraft
derived benefits fiom a portion of the revenues which The Aircraft spent on welfare
As elsewhere indicated herein, most of the remainder, in fact more than the remainder
spent on welfare, came from the respondent directly through the dues-matching arrange-
ment, or was acquired by The Aircraft with the active, necessary, assistance of the
respondent through the gdm machines and gasoline-selling arrangements On August
20, 1941, the respondent took over from The Aircraft the operation of and revenues from
the candy-vending machines
2U The respondent contends that Rose is not a supervisory employee. Rose testified that
be had been a leadman in the cover department since his employment in 1930; that since
1937 he has had between 15 and 47- employees under his charge; that when the foreman
of the cover department is absent or on leave he is in charge of the department. The
record also shows that since 1937 or 1938 the respondent itself has considered Rose a
supervisory employee The minutes of the Management-Council meeting held on April
18, 1939, show that the "management continued to maintain that he (Rose) was an
assistant foreman . . ., The Aircraft maintaining at that time that Rose was not a
supervisory employee we find that Rose has been a supervisory employee at all times
pertinent hereto since'his first employment with the respondent.
2? In 1934, at the Christmas season, the respondent contributed $173 94 to The Aircraft,
by payment to Witter, its president, as one-half the cost of the 1934 Christmas basket
disti ibution
1010 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about May 31, 1937, The Aircraft entered into a written
contract with the respondent under which The Aircraft was per-
mitted to sell gasoline, motor oil, and anti-freeze to the employees of
the respondent, with the understanding that no profit was to be de-
rived therefrom.28 The respondent paid the entire initial cost of
approximately $5,642 for the installation of the tanks, pumps, and
equipment. Later, The Aircraft reimbursed the respondent for its
half of such cost. The Aircraft operated this equipment, which was
located on the respondent's property, without paying rent or other
monetary consideration to the respondent for either the space or the
equipment, until the time of the effective date of cancellation of the
contract. At various times The Aircraft had in its employ as oper-
ators of this equipment from two to four individuals and The Air-
craft made well known to the respondent's employees the fact that
The Aircraft was operating the service.
On or about November 1, 1937, the respondent and The Aircraft
entered into another revision of the September 1, 1934, contract. This
revision was similar to the 1936 revision except that it made no pro-
vision for the matching of dues, and contained an exclusive recogni-
tion clause. Also, a new clause was inserted in this revision which
obligated the respondent, all things being equal, to give preference
in the matter of lay-offs and rehirings to members of The Aircraft.28
In February 1938, The Aircraft brought suit against the respondent
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging that the
respondent was indebted to it in the sum of $12,415.51, plus interest,
because of its refusal to match the dues of the members of The Air-
craft pursuant to the agreement of the parties dated September 1,
1934, and the July 1, 1936, revision thereof. On or about May 19,
after motions had been made by both parties for judgment on the
pleadings, a judgment was entered against the respondent in the sum
of $13,568.21, which it paid The Aircraft on or about May 27, 1938.
This judgment represented the sum alleged to be due The Aircraft
from the respondent under the dues-matching clause for the period
from about July 5, 1935, to about April 11, 1937, the period during
which the respondent placed the dues-matching money in a special
28 On August 5, 1941, after the issuance of the complaint herein , the respondent notified
The Aircraft that it had elected "to terminate the contract of May 31, 1937, regarding
the sale of gasoline , such termination to be effective September 4, 1941 " Since September
5, 1941 , The Aircraft has sold no gasoline or other products under this contract The
gasoline and other products sold by The Aircraft up to August 1, 1941, amounted to
approximately $ 160,000 , on which,rtmcurred a net operating loss of $57 65 . However, at
the time of the cancellation of the contract the merchandise on hand amounted to $783.92,
which inventory was the property of The Aircraft. The. contract provided that if the
respondent " retakes possession of the space occupied by such ' equipment , the management
will repay the Aircraft its share of the cost" of the installation
2s On or about November 1, 1938, the respondent and The Aircraft entered into another
revision of the agreement of September 1, 1934.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1011
account, and for the period from about April 11, 1937, to November
1, 1937. Since November 1, 1937, no dues have been matched by the
respondent."
Supervisory employees continued to act on behalf of The Aircraft
even after the effective date of the Act. As found above, Witter
has been the honorary president of The Aircraft since January 1935.
In fact, Witter's name is prominently displayed on the letterhead
of The Aircraft as "honorary president." Witter became a super-
visor on May 28, 1938, and thereafter remained honorary president
and active in the affairs of The Aircraft. As honorary president
his duties include installing into office the newly elected officers and
members of the Council at the first regular meeting of the member-
ship in January of each year. At each of these meetings, besides the
transaction of the regular business, the president of The Aircraft
reads a report to the members reviewing the activities of his admin-
istration during the past year. During the installation proceedings,
Witter is the presiding officer and, as such; usually makes a short
address. After Witter had installed the officers and members of the
Council at the January 18, 1941, meeting, he addressed the assem-
blage. According to the minutes of this meeting, "Honorary Presi-
dent Witter outlined . . . he was well satisfied to go through life
with the emblem of The Aircraft on the lapel of his coat, proclaim-
ing to all that he was an Aircrafter." In a letter to the respondent
describing this matter Attorney Hamilton stated that "the hall wi(s
packed." After Witter became a supervisor his activities in behalf
of The Aircraft were not confined to appearing once a year at the
installation meeting. The minutes of the December 9, 1938, mem-
bership meeting show that his motion that The Aircraft execute the
revision of the 1934 contract (which revision is referred to in the
record as the November 1, 1938, contract), then being negotiated with
the respondent, was adopted. Witter has always been chairman of
The Aircraft committee which purchases the contents of the baskets
distributed each Christmas by The Aircraft or jointly by The Air-
craft and the respondent to all the employees. Witter testified
on behalf of The Aircraft in the hearings before a subcommittee
10 The Aircraft and the respondent contend that this suit was started at the suggestion
of the Board , and that such money was paid pursuant to judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction , and further that, since in its opinion , the court in this case found that The
Aircraft was a legitimate labor organization and its contracts binding and enforceable,
such proceeding constituted an adjudication of the matter We find these contentions
without merit. The Board did not suggest the filing of the suit It suggested the
availability of the State courts for the enforcement of collective bargaining contracts. The
judgment in this suit as , as indicated above , rendered on the pleadings after motion for
such by both the respondent and The Aircraft The respondent did not plead the illegality
of the dues -matching provision of the contract nor was the legitimacy of The Aircraft
tinder the Act placed in issue. Moieover, jurisdiction to determine the legitimacy of labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act is vested exclusively in the
Board. See Section 10 (a) of the Act.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate,"i
in 1939, lauding The Aircraft in such testimony. In addition Witter,
at the time of the hearing and for some years prior thereto, was The
Aircraft's "senior member" of the Buffalo executive council of the
respondent.32
Michael Aronica, a former employee of the respondent testified
that in December 1940 when he was working at the Kenmore plant
lie joined the Union and shortly thereafter became one of its trustees;
that within a day or two following his election as such trustee, Nick
Savotieri, a leadman from another department, came up to him
while he was at work and requested him to come to Savotieri's
department, which- Aronica did after first obtaining permission to
do so from his leadman; that upon arrival in Savotieri's department
Savotieri told Aronica that he should not have joined the C. I. O.
because it was composed of "a bunch of fifth columnists and racket-
eers," and that the C'. I. O. goes into a "plant and pulls everybody
out on strike and you go back and don't get anything for it"; that
Savotieri promised him a raise in salary if he joined The Aircraft
or "just quit the C. I. 0."; that while he and Savotieri were talking
Foreman Joseph Fischer came up to them and that Savotieri there-
upon told Fischer that Aronica was "one of your C. I. O. organizers,"
and that Fischer thereupon asked Aronica if Savotieri's statement
was correct. Aronica replied that it was. Fischer, a former member
of The Aircraft, testified that he did not remember the occasion,
but had it occurred he would have remembered it. Savotieri did
not testify. The Trial Examiner found that Aronica was an honest
and forthright witness, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the conversation above related occurred substantially as testified to
by Aronica.
Various other leadmen solicited members for The Aircraft on the
respondent's time and property. Some leadmen admitted that they
solicited members and discussed union matters on the respondent's
property but all those who testified denied soliciting on the re-
spondent's time. However, Victor Sniezek, an employee, testified
without contradiction, that in November 1940, The Aircraft was con-
ducting a membership drive 33 and that he saw Savotieri sign up
ai Commonly known as the LaFollette Committee ( S. Res 266, 74th Congress).
12 The constitution of The Aircraft provides, "The management will immediately appoint
and make two members of The Aircraft to be named by The Aircraft members of the
Buffalo executive council of the Company " Jansen , the respondent ' s factory manager,
testified that the Buffalo executive council settles local matters for the respondent , stating
"any local matters pertaining directly to the aeroplane parts may , in most cases, be
settled by the executive council in Buffalo " Jansen further testified , "generally, the
Company's affairs , finances , new developments , future business, . . ." were discussed in the
meetings of the Buffalo executive council on 'ahich The Aircraft had members including
Witter.
33 The record shows that at this time the Union was becoming active again and had
just renewed its drive for members.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION • 1013
about 10 employees in The Aircraft during working hours. Sniezek
also testified that Savotieri promised him a raise in salary if he
joined The Aircraft. Board witness McLellan testified that about
December 1940, Savotieri talked in behalf of The Aircraft and told
McLellan that he (Savotieri) was transferred from the first to the
second shift so as to enable him to sign up members for The Aircraft
and that he had already signed up around 200. While Savotieri did
not testify, other witnesses for the respondent denied that Savotieri
was transferred from the first to the second shift for that purpose.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the incident described by
McLellan took place substantially as testified to by him.
McLellan also testified, without contradiction, that in March 1941,
he was passing out C. I. 0. buttons in his department during lunch
hour and that Foreman Shano told him to "quit monkeying around
and stop passing those buttons out." McLellan was wearing a jacket
with C. I. 0. letters on it and Shano also said "while you are at it,
you might as well take that jacket off." We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that this incident took place substantially as testified to
by McLellan. Moreover, the respondent permitted members of The
Aircraft to wear caps to work bearing the words "The Aircraft."
Herbert Levine, a shop steward of the Union, testified without
contradiction that in August 1941, Persons, assistant director of the
respondent's. personnel department, asked him and other union stew-
ards at noon for the union leaflets they had in their pockets but which
they were not distributing because of a notice which had just been
posted by the respondent forbidding the distribution of union litera-
ture on company property. The respondent, however, permitted The
Aircraft to distribute copies of "Looking Forward" and other Air-
craft literature on the respondent's time and property. In fact, the
respondent permitted The Aircraft to leave its literature in the office
of one of its foremen until the time for the distribution thereof. In
addition, Leadman Bill Sohr distributed Aircraft overseas hats and
Aircraft stickers in the respondent's plant on the respondent's time
around July' or August 1941. The respondent also permitted em-
ployee William Doyle in June 1941 to spend 2 days on his own time
going through the plants while the employees were working, selling
tickets to a dinner dance which The Aircraft held on June 7. It also
allowed Doyle, again on his own time, but while the other employees
were working, to go through the plant for a period of 2 days after
the dinner dance to collect the money for the tickets which he had
sold.
In addition to the activities of various of the respondent's super-
visors in connection with the affairs of The Aircraft set out above,
1014 * DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
others of the respondent's supervisory employees were also members
of and active in behalf of The Aircraft. At the time of the hearing
about 250 of the 633 leadmen then in the respondent's employ were
members of The Aircraft and some of them were officers of The Air-
craft or members of its Council. Moreover, the respondent did not
notify The Aircraft when its members were promoted to supervisory
positions and The Aircraft frequently did not learn of such promo-
tions for months after they had occurred. The dues of such mem-
bers were checked off during this period if theyhey had authorized such
deduction. There is no evidence that any leadman or other super-
visory employee was a member of the Union.
3. Conclusion
It is clear that, from the initial stages of its formation, the organ-
izers and officers of The Aircraft intended to rely upon the material
support and prestige of the respondent to insure the success of their
organization. Exhibiting a degree of subservience completely foreign
to bona fide labor organizations, The Aircraft, immediately after its
first official .meeting, submitted its constitution to the respondent with
the notice that amendments could easily be made "if needed to meet
any resonable demands of the Company." The respondent accepted
the responsibility bestowed by The Aircraft. During conferences
between The Aircraft and the respondent, The Aircraft insisted that
its constitution be embodied in a collective agreement with the re-
spondent; the_ respondent insisted upon certain amendments to The
Aircraft constitution. Both parties yielded, the basic agreement
dated September 1, 1934, between the parties emerged, and the re-
spondent assumed financial responsibility for The Aircraft's exist-
ence. Embodying The Aircraft constitution within its terms and
thus perpetuating the respondent's control over the internal affairs
of The Aircraft, the 1934 agreement provided that no amendments
to the constitution would be binding upon the respondent without its
consent. In turn the respondent pledged itself to pay to The Air-
craft an amount equal'to the sum of the dues collected by The Air-
craft "as evidence of its appreciation and in consideration of what
The Aircraft has done and promises to do to promote the best interests
of the Company." It is apparent, we believe, that this agreement,
which established the basic relationship between the respondent and
The Aircraft during subsequent years, was unlawful.
As we have found above, the respondent fulfilled its obligations.
In addition to according financial support, it threw the weight of its
prestige behind The Aircraft and the activities of that organization.
Despite its announcement to the contrary, it is clear from the at-
tendant circumstances that the general wage increase granted by the
'CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1015
respondent to its employees in September 1934 was attributable to the
arbitration award to the affiliated union rather than to bona fide col-
lective bargaining by The Aircraft . Not content with matching The
Aircraft dues in 1934 and 1935 , the respondent , with' knowledge of
its ultimate destination , paid over to The Aircraft the sum of $1,000
for services rendered by The Aircraft 's attorney , services "of as much
value to the management as to the men of the Company." And
finally, the activities of the respondent 's supervisory employees in
behalf of The Aircraft were of sufficient embarrassment as to invoke
a protest from The Aircraft itself during its contest with a rival
labor organization . Despite The Aircraft 's protest against assistance
by supervisory employees , both the respondent and The Aircraft
were apparently willing to ignore the limitations imposed by The
Aircraft constitution, and therefore the 1934 agreement , and permit
the supervisory employees to participate fully in Aircraft activities.
In. light of the entire record, we are convinced that the employees
could not fail to realize that The Aircraft was the respondent 's rather
than their own organization . We find that until July 5, 1935, the
effective date of the -Act, The Aircraft was a labor \ organization
clearly controlled and dominated by the respondent by means of the
respondent 's interference with its administration and the respond-
ent's contribution of financial and other support to it. -
The effective date of the Act brought no changes in the established
relationship between the respondent and The Aircraft .34 Indeed, on
July 8, 1935, but 3 days after the Act became effective, The Aircraft
sought the respondent 's approval of further amendments to its coristi-
tution. During the ensuing discussions The Aircraft acceded to
changes suggested by the respondent , although it refused to delete
from its constitution a provision relating to the right to strike, fore-
seeing, as it called to the- respondent 's attention , "just criticism."
Thus the respondent 's interference with the internal management of
The Aircraft continued . It dictated the form of that article of The
Aircraft 's constitution which dealt with the , selection of The Air-
craft's Council members and officers; it participated in the formula-
tion of the article of The Aircraft 's constitution that determined
eligibility to vote on strike questions ; and after attempting unsuc-
cessfully to induce The Aircraft to delete from the constitution the
34 An employer 's continuance , in the same or a superficially altered form , of an organi-
zation dominated by him before the Act became law, has uniformly been held to violate
Section 8 ( 2)' of the Act . See, e . g. National Labor Relations Board v . Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines , Inc, 303 U S 261 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Falk Corporation,
308 U. S. 453; National Labor Relations Board v Carlisle Lumber Co , 94 F. (2d) 138,
cert. den. 304 U. S. 575; National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical
Corp, 98 F. ( 2d) 488, cert den 306 U S 643; National Labor Relations Board v. H E.
Fletcher Co., 108 F. (2d) 459, cert 'den. 309 U. S . 678; National Labor Relations Board v
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 308 U. S 241
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provision reserving the right to strike to The Aircraft, nevertheless
it secured the assurance of The Aircraft that such provision would be
waived insofar as ,it constituted a provision of the contract with the
respondent. The respondent's contention that' it was entitled to
interest itself in the provisions of The Aircraft's constitution because
The Aircraft insisted that its constitution be a part of the contracts
with the respondent, has no merit. On the contrary, the respondent
had the positive duty, under the Act, not to interfere with the internal
management or administration of The Aircraft, or to dominate or
seek to dominate The Aircraft.`
Similarly the respondent's contribution of financial support con-
tinued. In August 1936 the respondent renewed the dues-matching
provision present in the basic 1934 contract. We have considered
'above and found without merit the respondent's contention that it
was compelled under.court judgment to pay over to The Aircraft
some $13,000 owing pursuant to this dues-matching provision.3r It
should be noted in addition that the respondent executed the 1936
renewal of this provision with full knowledge that it fell within the
proscription of the Act. _
The respondent continued further to bestow upon The Aircraft
financial support and other favors enhancing its prestige. While
we have found that the grant of facilities to The Aircraft for the
organization and maintenance of a Federal credit union was legiti-
mate and in no manner violated the Act, we are of the opinion that
the.respondent was under the affirmative duty to prevent the use of
these facilities for Aircraft activities. As we have described above,
the respondent necessarily was aware of the use of the credit union
offices for the transaction of Aircraft business. Nevertheless the
respondent made no effort to curtail such illegal use of its property.
The respondent's solicitous advice to. The Aircraft and its support
thereto is plainly demonstrated, we believe, in the letter of February
7, 1936, from the respondent's plant manager, Jansen, to The Air-
craft. His counsel that The Aircraft must do "something dramatic
almost daily" to keep its members, his suggestion that The Aircraft
publicize its accomplishments, and his advice that it engage in social
activities are- evidences, in our opinion, of preference for, and inter-
ference with, an employer-nourished labor organization. In the light
of such support implementing the outright financial support accorded
to The Aircraft, the operation of candy-vending machines and the
sale of gasoline and oil on the respondent's property by The Aircraft
3e National Labor Relations Board V Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.,
108 U. S 241.
36 See footnote 30, supra.
,CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1017
constituted a further mark of favoritism which could not have
escaped the attention of the employees.-
The respondent and The Aircraft contend that all the monies given
The Aircraft by the respondent, including the dues-matching money
received by The Aircraft under the 1934 contract and the 1936 re-
vision thereof, and the monies derived by The Aircraft, with the
respondent's aid, from the sale of 'candy, gasoline, and other articles,
constituted, not financial support prohibited by the Act, but pay-
ment by the respondent to The Aircraft for the services The Air-
craft rendered in handling the welfare problems, of the respondent's
employees. Neither respondent nor The Aircraft denies, and they
cannot, that the financial accommodation thus accorded constituted
powerful and direct support to The Aircraft. Their attempt to
justify such support, which is clearly within the proscription of
Section 8 (2), assumes, contrary to the fact, that the amounts be-
stowed upon The Aircraft did not exceed the cost of the welfare
program and was used entirely for a welfare program covering all
the. respondent's employees. Even had this been true, and we find
that it is not, it does not follow that support of such potent char-
acter is permissible merely because of the use to which the support
is put by the labor organization. 38 Moreover, prior to the advent
of The Aircraft, the respondent had no welfare program. The re-
spondent never checked the expenditures of The Aircraft with re-
gard to welfare and was presumably unconcerned that some of The
Aircraft's welfare expenditures were confined exclusively to its,
members.
Even after the effective date of the Act, leadmen, although having
supervisory status, were members of The Aircraft, functioned as
representatives, Council members and officers of The Aircraft, talked
in favor of The Aircraft and against the Union, solicited members
for The Aircraft, distributed insignia of The Aircraft on the respond-
ent's time and property, and facilitated the distribution of Aircraft
literature on the respondent's time and. property. Similarly other
members of the respondent's supervisory hierarchy engaged in activity
on behalf of The Aircraft and against the Union as described above.
The respondent contends that it is not chargeable with the activities
of the leadmen because they are not supervisory employees and do
not have power to hire or discharge employees. We have already
37 Assuming that The Aircraft did not realize a profit from all these enterprises, as The
Aircraft and respondent contend , nevertheless the use of the respondent 's property for
such purposes by The Aircraft enhanced its position among the employees as a company-
favored union
38lowa Packing Company and United Packing , House Workers Local Industrial Union
No. 144, 11 N. L. R. B. 986; Revere Copper and Brass Incorporated and United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local #103, 16 N. L. R. B. 437; Carpenter Baking
Company, et al, and Auto Truck Drivers Joint Council No. 50, 29 N. L. R B. 60.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
considered the duties of leadmen.39 Whether they have power to
hire or discharge is not the gauge by which the respondent's liability
for their conduct is determined. The test is whether their relation
to the respondent is Such that the employees have just cause to believe
that they do represent the respondent and that they translate to them
the wishes, desires, and or of management. Their positions with
the respondent, coupled with their activities on behalf of The Aircraft
and against the Union, are such as would, and did, lead the employees
to believe that they did in fact represent the respondent and express
its wishes. The whole congeries of facts here presented clearly shows
that leadmen are management representatives, that the employees
considered them such, and that the respondent is accountable for their
activities.40 The respondent also contends that it instructed its super-
visory force to remain neutral. Despite such instructions, many
members of the respondent's supervisory force did not remain neutral
and on the contrary became active partisans of The Aircraft and an-
tagonists of the Union. No effective means were taken by the re-
spondent to interdict its supervisory force's support to The Aircraft.
It therefore failed in its duty to its employees under the Act 41 "The
right freely to organize without coercion or intimidation is an empty
one unless there is authority under the statutory scheme to safeguard
99 See footnote 19, supra.
In International Association of Machinists ; Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35, etc,
v National Labor Relations Board , 311 U S 72, the Supreme Court said :
The employer , may be held to have assisted the formation of a union even
though the acts of the so-called agents were not expressly authorized or might not
be attributable to him on strict applications of the rules of respondeat superior.
We are dealing here, not with private rights . . . nor with' technical conceptions
pertinent to an employer's legal responsibility to third persons for acts of his
servants , but with a clear legislative policy to free the collective bargaining processes
from all taint of an employer's compulsion , domination, or influence . The existence
of that interference must be determined by careful scrutiny of all the factors, often
subtle, which restrain the employee's choice and for which the employer may fairly
be said to be responsible . Thus where the employees would have just cause to
believe that solicitors professedly for a labor organization were acting for or on
behalf of the management , the Board would be justified in concluding that they
did not have the complete and unhampered freedom of choice which the Act
contemplates
See also National Labor Relations Board v Link-Belt Co, 311 U. S . 584 ; National Labor
Relations Board v . Jahn and Cllier Engraving Company, 123 F. (2d) 589 ; Swift and Co
v National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 87; Virginia Ferry Corp . v. National Labor
Relations Board, 101 F (2d) 103, 105-106; National Labor Relations Board v. A. S Abell
Co., 97 F (2d) 951, 956; National Labor Relations Board v American Potash and Chemical
Corp , 98 F. (2d) 488, cert den. 306 U. S 643; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co v National Labor
Relations Board,, 104 F (2d) 49, 52, cert. den. 62 S Ct. 412; National Labor Relations
Board 'v. Stackpole Carbon Co , 105 F (2d) 167 , cert den 308 U, S 605; Titan Metal
Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 254, cert. den. 308 U S 615;
National Labor Relations Board v. Boss Mfg. Co , 107 F (2d) 574; National Labor Rela-
tions Board v. J Freezer and Sons, Inc., 95 F. (2d ) 840; H J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 311 U S. 514, 518.
91 Swift and Co. v. National Labor Relations Boa? d, 106 F (2d) 89, 92 :
The petitioner 's managing officers took no effective means to stop such solicitation
when the facts were called to their attention, other than to repeat the warnings
made.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1019
it, and the necessity for doing' so calls for more appropriate action
by the employer than mere declarations of neutrality and impartiality,
even though in good faith proclaimed." 42
Finally, the respondent and The Aircraft maintain that The Air-
craft is a militant organization, free from company domination or
interference, and for that reason should not be disestablished. They
contend that The Aircraft acted independently of the respondent and
for the benefit of its members. There is evidence that at times
The Aircraft' opposed the labor policies of the respondent. It ob-
iained several wage increases for the employees, and secured promo-
tions for some employees, including non-members. The fact that
the organization achieved a measure of success, however, cannot, and
does not, cleanse The Aircraft of its illegal taint; the effects of the
respondent's unlawful acts, and its interference with and control of
The Aircraft are not thus nullified.43 Mere restraint of the re-
spondent's acts of domination, interference, and support to The
Aircraft would not operate to convert that organization into a
genuine representative of the employees or recreate the freedom of
choice guaranteed by the Act i^-hich the respondent's employees have
been denied. The affirmative remedy necessary to recreate full free-
dom of choice is disestablishment of The Aircraft 44 The effects of
the respondent's support have not been dissipated and The Aircraft
42 Consumers Power Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 113 F. (2d) 38, 44.
In Western Union Telegraph Company Y. National Labor Relations Board, 113 F. (2d)
992, the court said
We should indeed hesitate to say with the Board that the Association ii as an adject _
creature of the Company; it had a history of controversies which seem entirely
genuine , so far as the record goes, and which appear to have resulted in substantial
gains We can see no justification for putting these aside as sham battles But it
is not necessary that we should pass upon that ; it is enough if the record supports
a finding that the Company did so far foster or control the Association that its
employees were likely on that account to prefer it to outside unions
We find this to be sufficient , determinative answer to the respondent' s contention that the
concessions it granted The Aircraft were the result of bona fide collective bargaining See
also Corning Glass Works v. National Labor Relations Board, 118 F (2d) 625.
44 National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc ., 303 U. S 261 ;
National Labor Relations Board v Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U S. 272; National
Labor Relations Board v. Fan8teel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U. S 240 ; National
Labor Relations Board v. Newport News, Shnpbnilding and Dry Dock Co, 308 U. S. 241,;
National Labor Relations Board v Falk Corporation , 308 U S 453 This remedy has been
approved regularly: National Labor Relations Board v. National Licorice Co, 104 F (2d)
655; National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U S 318; Consolidated
Edison Co v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U. S 197, 236 ; National Labor Relations
Board v Stackpole Carbon Co , 105 F (2d) 167: Titan Metal Mfp Co. V. National Labor
Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 254, cert den 308 U S 615; National Labor Relations
Board v. Griswold Mfg Co, 106 F (2d) 713: Republic Steel Corp v. National Labor
Relations Board, 107 F. (2d) 472; National Labor Relations Board v J Freezer and Son,
Inc., 95 F. ( 2d) 840; National Labor Relations Board v Wallace Mfg Co, Inc, 95 F. (2d)
818 ; National Labor Relations Board v Eagle Mfg . Co., 99 'F. (2d) 930, Virginia Ferry Corp
v. National Labor Relations Board, 101 F (2d) 103 ; Cudahy Packing Co v National Labor
Relations Board, 102 F. (2d) 745, cert dbn. 308 U S 565; Wilson and Co, Inc v. National
Labor Relations Board , 103 F (2d) 243; National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber
Co., 94 F. (2d) 138, cert . den 304 U. S 575. -
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continues to operate as a bar to the freedom of self-organization
guaranteed by the Act 45
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the administration of The Aircraft and has contributed financial and
other support to it, and that by these acts and by making anti-union
statements; .by promising raises to its employees if they joined The'
Aircraft, by permitting employees to solicit members for and dis-
tribute literature and insignia of The Aircraft on the respondent's
time and property while denying that privilege to the Union, and
by the other evidences of favoritism to The Aircraft, it has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find that
the contracts made with The Aircraft, as described above, are un-
lawful since made with a company-dominated union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the administration of, and gave financial and other support to, The
Aircraft. In order to restore the status quo and to permit the em-
ployees of the respondent full freedom in self-organization, to free
the employees of the respondent from such domination and interfer-
ence, and to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order that-the
respondent withdraw all recognition from The Aircraft as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees of the respondent for the pur-
poses of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
^ National Labor Relations Board v. Link -Belt Company, 311 U. S. 584 ; Westinghouse
Electric and Manufacturing Company v . National Labor Relations Board, 112 F. (2d) 657,
a8'd per curiam 312 U. S. 660 ; International .&ssociattion of Machinists v. National Labor
Relations Board, 311 U. S. 72; National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Sh'ip-
bualdini and Dry Dock Company, 308 U. S. 241.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 1021
tions of employment, and completely disestablish it as such
representative."
The contract of September 1, 1934, granted The Aircraft by the
respondent, and the several revisions thereof, were the culmination
and perpetuation of the respondent's unfair labor practices. We shall
order that the respondent cease and desist from giving effect to the
said contract of September 1, 1934, to the July 1, 1936, November 1,
1937, and November 1, 1938, revisions thereof, as well as to any other
extension, renewal, revision, modification, or supplement thereof, and
to any superseding contract which may now be in force. Nothing
herein shall be taken to require the respondent to vary the wages,
hours, seniority, and other such substantive features of its relations
with the employees themselves which the respondent has established
in performance of the said contract, or of any of the revisions thereof,
or as it may have been extended, renewed, revised, modified, supple-
mented, or superseded. Nor shall our order operate to interfere with
or suspend any, legitimate social activities carried on by The Aircraft,
or with the legitimate functions of The Aircraft Federal Credit
Union.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the casef the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, Local 753 and The Aircraft are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of The
Aircraft, and contributing financial acid other support to it, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair, labor, practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
'0 See footnote 44, Supra.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to' Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Curtiss-Wright, Corporation, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of The Air-
craft or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, or from contributing financial or other
support to The Aircraft or to any other labor organization of its
employees;
(b) Recognizing The Aircraft as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees for the purposes of collective-bargaining;
(c) Giving effect to its contract of September 1, 1934, with The
Aircraft, or any of the revisions thereof, or to any other extension,
renewal, revision, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any super-
seding contract which may now be in force ; -
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from The Aircraft as
the exclusive representative of its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances,.labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ -
ment, and completely disestablish The Aircraft as such representative;
(b) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout its plants
in Buffalo, New York, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its em-
ployees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct
from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b),
(c), and (d), and (2) that it will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.