Dependable Machine Co.,Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 21 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 21
WE WILL NOT enter into, renew, or enforce any provisions in any collective- bargain-
ing agreement with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
Local 208, or any other labor organization, which requires employees or applicants for
employment to join, or maintain membership in, such labor organization as a condition of
employment, unless such agreement shall have been authorized as provided in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Building Service Employees International
Union, Local 201, AFL, or any other labor organization of our employees, by failing or
refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminate against
our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with, and, upon request, WILL BARGAIN
collectively with Building Service Employees International Union, Local 201, AFL, as
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit set forth below, with respect to
grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or
conditions of employment, and if agreement is reached, embody the same in a written
collective-bargaining agreement with said union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Building, Service Employees International Union, Local 201, AFL, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole each of the employees who went on strike on April 10, 1952. and
who made unconditional application for reinstatement, on April 14, 1952, for any loss of
earnings each may have sustained, as a result of the discrimination, in the manner set
forth in the section in the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order entitled "The
Remedy."
All hourly rated janitors, janitresses, and all other janitorial employees, commonly
referred to as bull cooks, employed by UniversalFood Service, Inc., at Hanford Works,
North Richland, Washington, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Building Service Employees
International Union, Local 201, AFL, or any other labor organization, except to the extent
that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
We will not discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment of any employee or applicant for employment because of membership or
nonmembership in, or activity on behalf of any such labor organization, except as aforesaid.
UNIVERSAL FOOD SERVICE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated .......................................................... By ..................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL
IRON WORKERS, AFL, LOCAL 729 . Case No. 11 -CA-411.
April 13, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
104 NLRB No. 3.
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case,: and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, 3 with the following additions:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent refused
to bargain with the Union on and after November 17, 1951, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
As found in the Intermediate Report, the Union asserted its
majority status4 and requested recognition in aletterwhichthe
Respondent received on November 17, 1951.6 The Respondent
made no reply to the request, but within a few days met with
representatives of the Board and the Union. At the meeting, the
Respondent questioned the Union's majority and requested an
election. A consent-election agreement was executed on
November 23, setting the election for November 30. Meanwhile,
before the election, the Respondent engaged in a course of
conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as detailed in
the Intermediate Report. The Union lost the ensuing election
by a vote of 15 to 14.6 Like the Trial Examiner, we find that
the Respondent, in proposing and proceeding to an election,
was not motivated by a good-faith doubt as to the Union's
representative status, but, rather, by a rejection of the col-
lective-bargaining principle. Under these circumstances, we
further find there was no genuine question concerning repre-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
2 The request by the Respondent for oral argument is denied because the record, exceptions,
and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner was biased be-
cause he resolved every material conflict of evidence in favor of the General Counsel and
against the Respondent. N. L R. B. v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 337 U. S. 656, reversing and
remanding 167 F. 2d 126 (C. A. 6).
4At the hearing, the Respondent alleged that a number of union designation cards had been
obtained "under pressure " However, the record fails to substantiate such allegation. Ac-
cordingly, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Union, on November 13, 1951, and at
all times thereafter, was the exclusive representative of the employees involved herein.
Furthermore, contrary to the Respondent's contention, the Union was not obligated, in the
circumstances of this case, to offer proof of its majority status by showing its authorization
cards to the Respondent, as the Respondent never requested such proof. N.L R.B v. Everett
Van Kleeck & Company, Inc., 189 F. 2d 516 (C A. 2), enforcing 88 NLRB 785.
5On the same day o' the next day, the Respondent also received notification that the Union
had already filed a petition for certification.
6On December 5, the Union filed objections to the election. However, on January 24, 1952,
the Union was permitted to withdraw its objections without prejudice and then filed the charge
in this proceeding. On January 25, the Regional Director certified the election results.
DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 23
sentation among the Respondent's employees and therefore
regard as a nullity the election proceeding.i
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Dependable
Machine Co ., Inc., Greensboro , North Carolina , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Asso-
ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL, Local 729, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit.
(b) Threatening to close or sell the plant in the event the
Union is successful in coming into the plant , warning that the
men would more likely get improvements in working conditions
if they voted against the Union , warning that the Respondent
could eliminate its GI training program, or in any other manner
interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist the aforesaid or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activity for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all of such activity , except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment ; as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of all of its
employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant at Greensboro , North Carolina , copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked
"Appendix B."8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall , after being
duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it fora period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive
days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable
7See , e g , N.L . R.B. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F. 2d 79 (C.A. 9), enforcing 95 NLRB 410;
The M. H. Davidson Company, 94 NLRB 142; Joy Silk Mills, Inc v . N.L.R.B ., 185 F. 2d 732
(C.A., D.C.), enforcing as modified 85 NLRB 1263.
8 This notice , however , shall be amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommenda-
tions of a Trial Examiner ," in the caption thereof, the words , "A Decision and Order ." In the
event that this order is enforced by a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted
for the words , "Pursuant to a Decision and Order ." the words , "Pursuant to a Decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in
writing , within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL, Local 729, herein called the Union. the General Counsel by the Regional
Director for the Eleventh Region ( Winston-Salem , North Carolina), of the National Labor
Relations Board , herein called the Board, issued his complaint dated October 21, 1952,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act 1947. 61 Stat . 1-5, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charge
together with notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleges that the Respondent beginning
about October 1, 1951, has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that since about November 13,
the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union. The Respondent 's answer denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on November 17, 18, and 19, 1952, at Greensboro,
North Carolina, before the undersigned , the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner . The charging party appeared through its representative and the General Counsel
and the Respondent were represented by counsel. Fullopportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded the
parties . The General Counsel and the Respondent presented oral argument at the close of the
testimony and filed briefs with the undersigned.t
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses , the under-
signed makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a North Carolina corporation , has its principal place of business at-
Greensboro , North Carolina , and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of woodworking
machinery and related products . The Respondent uses annually raw materials consisting of,
among other things , metals and electrical equipment , valued at about $150,000 of which about
5 percent comes directly from outside the State of North Carolina. The Respondent ships
annually finished products valued in excess of $25,000 to points outside the State of North
Carolina . The undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, Local
729, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
i At the hearing the undersigned denied the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint
under the proviso to Section 10 (b) of the Act. See, Cathey Lumber Co., 86 NLRB 157. The
original charge filed January 24, 1952, alleged a request to bargain about November 13, 1951,
that the Respondent refused to recognize the Union , that thereafter Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices to destroy the Union's majority, and by this and other conduct the Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The first amended charge filed October 6, 1952, iterated
the original charge and added certain allegations of violations of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
The second and last amended charge filed October 20, 1952, merely dropped the allegations
of violations of Section 8 (a) (3). In its brief the Respondent asserts that the record shows
that "the original charge was withdrawn during the latter part of March 1952, without
prejudice, and so far as Respondent knows it was never reestablished." The undersigned
has not been able to find support in the record to sustain this assertion.
DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 25
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain; and interference,
restraint, and coercion
1. The appropriate unit
The parties agree and the undersigned finds that all production and maintenance employees
at the Respondent 's Greensboro plant, excluding office clerical employees , purchasing agent,
salesman, foundry employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
2. The majority
Assuming without deciding that all issues raised by the Respondent concerning the majority
status of the Union were resolved in the Respondent 's favor, the record shows a sufficient
number of union designation cards to constitute a majority. It is accordingly found that the
Union on November 13, 1951 , and at all material times thereafter was and now is the exclusive
representative of the Respondent 's employees in the above-described appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The events
Beginning about the latter part of October 1951, Therman Dagenhart , then an employee,
solicited his fellow employees to join the union . At about this time in the course of events,
according to the credible testimony of employees Otto Rierson and Robert Van Slaughter
and former employee W. H. Stinson , Samuel Inmon, the plant superintendent and a vice
president at the time of the hearing, came around to them at the plant with a pad and pencil and
asked for suggestions towards the improvement of working conditions , and the matter of bathing
facilities was raised. 2
By November 12, Dagenhart received designation cards from a majority of the employees
and then turned them over to Julian Head , the Union 's international representative . The next
day. November 13, Head , on behalf of the Union, filed a petitions with the Board for certifi-
cation as representative of the Respondent's employees in the production and maintenance
unit and also wrote the Respondent asserting that the Union represented a majority of the
employees and requested recognition and bargaining . This letter was received by the Respond-
ent on November 17 and notification ofthefiling of the petition was received by the Respondent
on the same day or a day later . The Respondent did not reply to the Union's request for
recognition and Inmon. Head, and a Board field examiner among others , met in Greensboro
within a few days . Inmon took the position that the Respondent doubted the Union 's assertion
of majority status and requested an election . It does not appear that Head was asked to exhibit
the designation cards and Head did not offer to disclose the cards . A consent-election agree-
ment was executed on November 23. setting the election for November 30.
About 10 days prior to the election and over a period of a day or so Inmon interviewed most
of the employees of the unit individually in his office . During these interviews , among other
things , Inmon stated to some of the employees, in substance , that if the Union was successful
in coming into the plant, John C. Inmon, the principal stockholder , would close down or sell
the plant. a Former employee Wallace Wyrick also testified credibly that Charles Monett,
then sales manager - and a vice president at the time of the hearing , who was present during
some of the interviews Inmon conducted , stated while he, Wyrick, was interviewed that the
men would come nearer getting improvements such as hot water and household cleanliness
if they voted against the Union. s Contrary to Inmon's denials and according to the credible
testimony of former employee Harry Keck , who among others had been employed as a GI
=Inmon admitted having talked with various employees about bathing facilities in August
and September , but denied talking to any employees about improvements in the plant within
the 2 weeks preceding a representation election on November 30.
SCase No. 34-RC- 360.
'This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Rierson, Dagenhart, Stinson. em-
ployee Robert Van Slaughter , and former employees Wallace Wyrick and Gilmer Flynn.
Inmon's denials are not credited.
SMonnett denied having engaged any of the employees in conversation with reference to
the pending election.
Z6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trainee, Inmon stated during Keck's interview that John C. Inmon had brought the GI training
in and he could throw it out of the window.
Shortly before the election, officials of another firm in town which handles some of the
same products as does the Respondent, were seen in the plant examining the products and
the machinery . It appears also that a person who was a stranger to the men was seen going
through the plant checking the name plates on the machinery used by the men and making
notations on a pad. On November 28, 2 days before the election, the Respondent mailed a
letter to each of its employees which is reproduced in its entirety as Appendix A. This letter
closed with the following paragraph:
Men I have about all the regulations , competitions , and trouble with our little business
that I can stand. I certainly hope you don't think it necessary to add an outside union
organization to our present struggle for survival. Stick with me. Lets continue to work
together. Think seriously before you vote Friday. Together and without a foreign union
we can build this company and make it pay all of us better.
On November 30 the election was held as scheduled Of the approximately 29 eligible voters,
14 cast votes for and 15 cast votes against representation by the Union. On December 5, the
Union wrote the Regional Director requesting that the results of the election be set aside.
asserting that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices immediately prior to
the election and stating that formal charges would be filed later. On January 23, 1952, the
Union requested and the next day the Regional Director granted withdrawal of the Union's
objections in the representation proceeding without prejudice. On January 24, the Union
filed the charges initiating the instant case and the next day the Regional Director certified
that the Union did not receive a majority in the consent election which had been conducted.
4. Conclusions
After the Respondent was notified of the Union's assertion of majority status and the filing
of the representation petition it immediately set upon a course of conduct calculated to
undermine the Union's majority status. Thus, and by the following conduct, it is found that
the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act: (1) Inmon at first threatened employees
with sale or shutdown of the plant in the event the Union was successful and then this threat
was emphasized by the Respondent's letter dated 2 days before the election; (2) Monnett
warned that the men would more likely get improvements in working conditions if they voted
against the Union; and (3) Inmon warned that the Respondent could eliminate its GI training
program. It is accordingly further found that the Respondent's request for an election was not
based upon a good- faith doubt of majority, that the representation proceeding did not affect
the Union's prior majority designation, and that beginning November 17, 1951, when the Union
made its request upon the Respondent for bargaining , the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act.6
In view of the Respondent's explanation that it and another firm in town are joint dealers
of certain machines and on occasion buyers and officials of the other firm are taken through
the plant in an effort to promote the product, and the Respondent's explanation that on
occasion persons such as lubrication salesmen, Government inspectors, and insurance
inspectors, who are strangers to the men, come through the plant and examine the machines
and make notes, the undersigned is oftheview that the General Counsel has not met the burden
of proof and no findings of unfair labor practices are based upon the incidents the Respondent
thus explained.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Respondent described in section I, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found tnat the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
6See , Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263; Dependable Wholesale Co., Inc., 102 NLRB 656,
and cases there cited.
DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 27
Having found that the Respondent refused to bargain it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from this conduct and upon request bargain collectively with
the Union with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours , and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
Having found that the Respondent threatened to close or sell the plant in the event the Union
was successful , warned the men that they would more likely get improvements in working
conditions if they voted against the Union, and warning that the Respondent could eliminate
its GI training program, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
from his conduct. The Respondent's infractions of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act,
herein found , disclose a fixed purpose to defeat self-organization and its objectives . Because
of the Respondent 's unlawful conduct and its underlying purposes , the undersigned is persuaded
that the unfair labor practices found are related to the other unfair labor practices prescribed
by the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventative purposes of the Act will
be thwarted, unless the remedial order is coextensive with the threat . In order , therefore,
to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of
unfair labor practices , and thus effectuate the policies of the Act , it will be recommended that
the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL,
Local 729, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent 's Greensboro plant,
excluding office clerical employees , purchasing agent , salesman , foundry employees , guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. The above-named labor organization was on November 13 , 1951 , and at all times
material thereafter, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
4. By refusing on November 17, 1951, and at all times thereafter to bargain collectively
with the above- named labor organization as the exclusive representative of its employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By threatening to close or sell the plant in the event the Union is successful in coming
into the plant , warning that the men would more likely get improvements in working conditions
if they voted against the Union, andwarningthat the Respondent could eliminate its GI training
program , and by refusing to bargain and thus 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 (a) (1) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication.)
APPENDIX A
To. Employees of Dependable Machine Company, Inc.
Do you know the difficulty in trying to start a little business today? Let me tell you some
of my experience.
I am a machinist. In 1917 I started in the shop as an apprentice. After four years of
apprenticeship I was recognized as a machinist. For twenty years I worked for the other
fellow. Those were the most carefree, happy years of my life I have run and can now operate
every type of machine tool we have in our shop I know many of the thoughts that run through
an operator's mind as he attends his machine
You do not have to worry about meeting the pay roll Friday You do not have to worry about
getting materials on which to work. You do not have to worry about advertising and selling the
product you make You do not have to worry about the many government regulations that are
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
imposed upon businesses You do not have to worry about the competition of the big, well
established company
You do want good working conditions, you want to be compensated fairly; you want recognition
of what you do; and you want to be treated right
In 1937 I took a part of what I had saved while working for the other fellow, bought a few
secondhand machine tools, and started a little shop of my own. I named it the Dependable
Machine Company. In 1934 I move the shop to our present location. All the time I have been
putting more and more money into this business trying to make it go, trying to establish its
name, trying to develop our line of Grinders, our Rip Saws, and lastly our Moulder The first
of this year I mortaged the real estate and all of our equipment to get $35,000.00, with which
to develop and promote the sale of our Moulder. We have had considerable trouble and lots
of expense with our Moulder I have not drawn any salary out of the business in three years.
I long for the carefree days I enjoyed from 1917 to 1937 when I did not have the responsibility,
the burden and the trouble of trying to operate a business.
Now some strangers come along; some union organizers whose only source of income is
union dues, they tell you they can do more for you than I have been able to do; they tell you
that even a little shop like ours should be unionized; they promise great and better things;
they don't have to make good on their promises.
The only way I can continue to do anything is for our production men, our engineer, our
sales manager, our officestaff, andmetowork together as a team, make some good machines,
sell them at a profit, and thereby get some money with which to do the things that you and I
both would like to see done.
We have hospital insurance in our group. You pay a part of the premium and I pay part. We
had a one week paid vacation and also a small bonus last July. Back in years when the
Company made some money I paid the men bonuses. The first half of this year I suggested
a profit sharing plan which we abandoned by mutual agreement because the profits we are
making were very small. You men know that if you will work with me and if we can make
some money that I will share it liberally with you. We are now working 50 hours a wok
and paying for 55 hours each week. The take home pay of our men is about as good as hi any
machine shop in this section.
Men I have about all the regulations, competitions, and trouble with our little business that
I can stand. I certainly hope you don't think it necessary to add an outside union organization
to our present struggle for survival Stick with me. Let's continue to work together. Think
seriously before you vote Friday. Together and without a foreign union we can build this
company and make it pay all of us better.
Sincerely,
/s/ John C. Inmon
John C. Inmon, President
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board.
and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify
our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten to close or sell the plant in the event the Union is successful
in coming into the plant, warn our employees that they would be more likely to get
improvements in working conditions if they voted against the Union , or warn our em-
ployees that we could eliminate the GI training program.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self -organization, to form labor organizations , to join
or assist International Association of Bridge . Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL, Local 729, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
PAPE BROADCASTING COMPANY (RADIO STATION WALA) 29
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, Local 729, as the exclusive representative
of all our employees in the appropriate unit described below with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment , and if an understanding
is reached , embody such an understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our Greensboro plant, excluding office
clerical employees, purchasing agent , salesman, foundry employees, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated .......................................................... By ..................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
PAPE BROADCASTING COMPANY (RADIO STATION WALA)
and JOHN A. THOMPSON
LOCAL UNION NO. 1264, RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL and JOHN A. THOMPSON. Cases Nos. 15-
CA-412 and 15-CB-84. April 13, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 22, 1952, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued
his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions with the following modifications.'
The principal question of law in this case is whether the
Respondent Local 1264 of the IBEW could lawfully require
Thompson, an electrician, to surrender his membership card
in Local 505 of the IBEW as a condition for satisfying the
union-security clause in Local 1264' s agreement with Pape
Broadcasting Company, the employer Respondent. We agree
with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that such a requirement
exceeds the measure of union security permitted by the Act and
is therefore unlawful.' The Trial Examiner also found, and we
I The parties' request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record , includ-
ing the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 Union Starch & Refining Co., 87 NLRB 779, enforced 186 F.' 2d 1008 (C. A. 7).
104 NLRB No. 2.