Jas. H. Hatthews & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 273 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of JAS. H. MATTHEWS & Co. and INTERNATIONAL METAL
ENGRAVERS UNION, LOCAL 15 (UNAFFILIATED) AND INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL 52, (A. F. OF L.)
Case No. 6-C-8°05.Decided August 11, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 15, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in 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, exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief were filed by the respondent. Oral argument,
in which the respondent and the Unions participated, was.held before
the Board in Washington, D. C., on July 24, 1945. The Board has
reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the additions hereinafter set forth.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Manufacturing Board,
sometimes known as the Junior Board, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and that the respondent has
dominated and interfered with its formation and administration, and
contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. In support of its contention that the Manufacturing
Board is not a labor organization, the respondent asserts, among other
things, that it is similar to many "advisory" bodies patterned after the
so-called "McCormick Plan," existing in various plants throughout
the country, in some of which the employees have been organized by
unions.' Whether or not the groups patterned after the "McCormick
1 The record indicates that the Manufacturing Board herein differs in certain respects
from that suggested by the "McCormick Plan."
63 N. L. R. B, No. 41.
273
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Plan" in companies other than the respondent are labor organizations
is a question which we find unnecessary to answer- herein. Upon all
the evidence in this case, we are satisfied, and find, that the respondent's
Manufacturing Board is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
The remedy
Having found that the respondent has violated Sections 8 (1) and
8 (2) of the Act, we must order the respondent, pursuant to the man-
date of Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom. We also predi-
cate our cease and desist order upon the following findings : Since
March 1941, the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
Manufacturing Board and contributed support to it. By this conduct,
and by the various statements and activities of its supervisory em-
ployees and its vice president and general manager, the respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respond-
ent's entire course of conduct, by virtue both of its intensive and ex-
tensive character, discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization and
its objects. Thus, the respondent, by organizing, dominating, inter-
fering with, and contributing support to, the Manufacturing Board,
and by the other conduct mentioned above, interfered with its em-
ployees' right to self-organization, and to form, join, and assist labor
organizations, denied its employees the free opportunity to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and sub-
stantially deprived its employees of their right to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, except in the channels directed by the respondent. Be-
cause of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying pur-
pose, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are per-
suasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and
that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
the course of the respondent's conduct in the past.' The preventive
purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive
with the threat. Therefore, in order to make effective the interde-
pendent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices, and thereby to minimize strife which burdens and
obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we
shall order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. As rec-
ommended by the Trial Examiner, we shall also order the respondent
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
4
2 See N L. R B v . Express Publishtnq Company , 312 U. S. 426.
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 275
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Jas. H. Matthews & Co.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Manufacturing Board, or with the formation or administration of any
other labor organization, and from contributing support to the Manu-
facturing Board, or to any other labor organization;
(b) Recognizing the Manufacturing Board as the representative
of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) 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 International Metal Engravers Union, Local 15, unaffili-
ated, or International Association of Machinists, Local 52 (A. F. of
L.), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ-
ities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Manufactur-
ing Board as the representative of any of the respondent's employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other con-
ditions of employment, and completely disestablish that organization
as such representative;
(b) Post at its plant at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Sixth Region, shall
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by
the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable 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 Sixth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent : (1) permitted
662514-46-vol. 63-19
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anti-union members to move freely and carry on anti-union activities
without restraint throughout the plant during working hours while
denying equal rights and privileges to members of the Unions; (2)
permitted the anti-union committee members to cease work early in or-
der to carry on anti-union activities while denying the same privilege
to members of the Union; and (3) in its selection of Kiley as an ob-
server at the consent election of May 10, 1943, interfered with the
employees' rights under the Act.
.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICES TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order 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 hereby disestablish The Manufacturing Board, sometimes
known as the Junior Board, as the representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or
any successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or ad-
ministration of any labor. organization or contribute financial
or other support to it.
We will not in any 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 The International Metal Engrav-
ers Union, Local 15 (unaffiliated) or the International Association
of Machinists, Local 52 (A. F. of L.), or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are
free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor
organization.
JAS. H. MATTIIEWS & CO.,
Employer
By ---------------=--------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
0
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
277
Allen SLnsheimer, Jr., Esq, and Jerome L. Black, Esq, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for
the Board.
Nicholas Unkovic, Esq, and W. D. Armour, Esq., of Reed, Smith, Shaiv & Mc-
Clay, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Respondent.
Dlr. Conrad Woelfel, of New York, N. Y., for the Metal Engravers.
Messrs. A. C. Skundor and John H. Beeler, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the IAM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on October 17, 1944, by International Metal
Engravers Union, Local 15, unaffiliated, herein called the Metal Engravers, and
International Association of Machinists, Local No. 52, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the IAM, and at times referred to herein
jointly as the Unions, the National Labor Relations Board, by its Regional Director
for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated
October 17, 1944, against Jas. H. Matthews & Co., herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint and amended charge accompanied by notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent, the Metal Engravers, the IAM and the Junior
Manufacturing Board, an alleged labor organization named in the complaint as
having been formed and thereafter dominated by th0 Respondent.
In respect to the alleged unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at
the hearing, states in substance that the Respondent-(1) by certain named
officers, agents, representatives and employees permitted, authorized, instigated
and acquiesced in the following acts : (a) advised, urged, and warned its employees
to refrain from joining the Union; and (b) aided, assisted, and encouraged a
committee of employees called the Anti-Union Committee, designed to combat the
Union ; (2) that from on or about April 1, 1941, and thereafter, dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration among its employees at its
Pittsburgh plant of a labor organization known as the Pittsburgh Manufacturing
Board; and during this period has contributed financial and other support to
that organization; and (3) by reason of the above acts, has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
. The Respondent, in its answer dated October 21, 1944, admitted the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint with respect to commerce and that the Unions
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act, but denied that the Pitts-
burgh Manufacturing Board is a labor organization and that it has committed
any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, 1944,
at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, before the undersigned Trial Examiner James C.
Batten, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
Respondent were represented by counsel, the Unions by their representatives,
and all participated in the hearing.' Full opportunity to be beard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues'
'This organization , referred to in the evidence , under several names-Junior Manu-
facturing Board , Manufacturing Board of Jas . H. Matthews & Co., Pittsburgh Manu-
facturing Board , and the Manufacturing Board s will in this Report be designated as The
Manufacturing Board.
2 The Manufacturing Board was not represented at the hearing and did not participate
therein, although service was made upon its chairman.
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing the undersigned, without
objection, allowed the Board's motion to amend the complaint in minor partic-
ulars. Also at the opening of the hearing the undersigned granted the motion
of the Engravers Union to strike from the title of the case and the other formal
papers any reference to the fact that it was affiliated with the A. F. L During
the course of the hearing Board's counsel moved to further amend the complaint,
by alleging that certain of the Respondent's agents commenced the interference
with the rights of employees on or about October 1, 1942, and that certain repre-
sentatives of the Respondent, not named in the complaint, by statements and
expressions of opinion have interferred with the rights of the employees. The
undersigned granted that part of the amendment as to the date, October 1, 1942,
and denied that part which named additional representatives of the Respondent'
At the close of the Board's case counsel for the Respondent moved generally that
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety for want of substantial evidence and
moved specifically for dismissal as to the allegations of the complaint alleging
that the Respondent had interfered with the rights of the employees under Section
8 (1) of the Act. The general motion to dismiss was denied. The undersigned
further denied the motion as to the allegations of the complaint alleging that
The Manufacturing Board was an unlawful labor organization, and as to the
specific allegations under Section 8 (1) except as to the allegations that Werling,
a representative of the Respondent, had interfered with the rights of employees'
and that members of the Antiunion Committee had been permitted to use the
telephone in a foreman's office contrary to regulations and for anti-union pur-
poses,5 which the undersigned granted. Upon the denial of the Respondent's .
motions, its counsel stated, "In view of the fact that in the opinion of the
Respondent there is no substantial evidence in the record to support either the
complaint or the amended complaint in this case, Respondent rests without offer-
ing any evideuce." After the close of the informal discussion of the evidence,
the Respondent renewed its motions, theretofore denied, made at the close of
the Board's case. The undersigned reserved decision thereon and, except as
hereinafter indicated under Section III hereof, the motions are denied. At the
close of the hearing Board's counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof.
The motion was granted, without objection, as to minor details. The Board and
the Respondent filed briefs with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE 1ESPONDENT
Jas. H. Matthews & Co., the Respondent herein, is a Pennsylvania corporation
with its main offices and the only plant herein involved located at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. The Respondent has other plants at Boston, Massachusetts,
Newark, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New York City, Syracuse,
3 The amendment was allowed with the understanding that any of the testimony
offered with respect to interference prior to March 17, 1943, the date upon which an
alleged settlement had been made, would be subject to a showing that similar unfair
labor practices occurred subsequent thereto. The undersigned denied the Board's motion
naming additional representatives of the Respondent for the following reasons . (1) the
amendment was not submitted until the third day of the hearing after a great deal of
evidence had been received regarding the supervisory status of the alleged supervisory
employees; and (2) the undersigned was of the opinion that the persons named for the
first time on the motion to amend were not within the supervisory status
The Board concuired in the granting of the motion upon this allegation.
6 The Board opposed the granting of this portion of the motion.
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 279
New York, and Chicago, Illinois, where it, manufactures steel, brass, and rubber
stamps and other marking devices and metal checks, badges and signs.
Annually it has purchased raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, 65 percent
of which was shipped to its Pittsburgh plant from points outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. The annual value of the Respondent's products pro-
duced at its Pittsburgh plant exceeds $2,000,0000, 80 percent of which is shipped
to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Respondent concedes, for the purposes of this proceeding only, that it is
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.e
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Metal Engravers Union, Local 15, unaffiliated, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
International Association of Machinists, Local 52, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the Respondent.
The Manufacturing Board in Respondent's Pittsburgh plant, is a labor organi-
zation of the employees of the Respondent.7
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRAOTICES, e
A. Prefatory statement
In the fall of 1942 the Metal Engravers became active among the employees of
the Respondent, at that time forming an organizational committee which for
several months carried on a campaign for the solicitation of members in the
Respondent's Pittsburgh plant. A month or two after the Metal Engravers had
started on this promotional program the IAM also became active in the plant.
At this time a joint committee was formed to represent the Unions. In March
1943 the Unions intensified their drive for members and held open meetings at a
hall in the vicinity of the Respondent's plant, at least once a week. In April 1943,
the Committee prepared a series of leaflets, bearing the names of its members,
which were distributed at the door of the plant. On or about May 1, 1944, the
Respondent and the Unions entered into a consent election agreement and an
election was held on May 10, which the Unions lost. The Unions filed objections
to the election, which were sustained by the Regional Director. On October 17,
1944, the Unions filed a fifth amended charge and the Regional Director on the
same day issued a complaint, which is the basis of this proceeding.
On March 17, 1943,the Respondent entered into an agreement with the Regional
Director (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) providing for the settlement of a charge
filed in Case No. 6-C-780. involving an alleged violation of Section 8 (1) of the
Act. The record indicates that the Notice, provided for in the agreement, was
posted in the plant for a period of 60 days and that after the expiration of this
period the charge was withdrawn. The period of posting covered the pre-election
activities of the Respondent hereinafter found to have interfered with, restrained,
e The above facts and jurisdiction of the Board were stipulated.
The undersigned describes The Manufacturing Board in greater detail below and finds
that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. By agreement of the parties
this proceeding involves only The Manufacturing Board in the Pittsburgh plant
The facts set forth in this section unless otherwise indicated are based upon undisputed
and credible testimony. The Respondent at the close of the Board's testimony rested.
Counsel for the Respondent stated ". . . in view of the fact that in the opinion of the
respondent there is no substantial evidence in the record to support either the complaint or
the amended complaints in this case , respondent rests without offering any evidence."
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and coerced the employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act.9
Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Respondent's representatives
The Board, in support of the allegation in the complaint that the Respondent
interfered with its employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act, relies on certain
statements and activities of employees who allegedly either represented the
management or were employed in a supervisory position.
It is conceded that William Witte, vice-president and general superintendent
is a representative of the management. The Respondent contends that Carl
Renton, George Bachner, and Frank Griffin, although classified as assistant fore-
men, are not supervisory employees within the customary definition of the Board.
It further asserts that these employees by agreement of the respondent and the
Unions were included on the eligibility list for the consent election of May 10,
1944, and that this is evidence of the fact that the Respondent should not be
charged with their statements or activities. It is clear that when the parties were
discussing the eligibility list some question arose with respect to the supervisory
duties of these employees and the Unions questioned the inclusion of their names-
on the eligibility list. The Board, of course, is not bound by nor can it accept the
agreement of the parties as to the supervisory status of these employees or the
Respondent's responsibility for their acts. This responsibility by statute is that
of the Board. Furthermore the evidence is clear that "the assistant foremen
supervise a majority division and are consulted in hiring, discharging and wage
changes and execute instructions from their immediate superior." There is also
uncontradicted testimony that assistant foremen have effectively recommended
the discharge of employees and pay increases for workers under their supervision.
The undersigned, upon the basis of the foregoing, finds that Carl Renton, George
Bachner, and Frank Griffin are assistant foremen, with supervisory duties which
charge the Respondent with their statements and activities.
2. The activities of Carl Renton 10
Sometime in the early part of 1943, prior to the March 17, 1943 settlement,
heretofore referred to, Renton came into the "heat treat" department and asked
employee Williams how the union was going. Williams replied that he did not
know. Renton then said, "I used to belong to a union but . . . they never done
anything for me." During this conversation Renton also told Williams, "We
don't want anybody from Berlin telling us what to do." Sometime in April 1943,
after the Unions had intensified their organizational drive, as Renton and
Williams were leaving a conference in General Superintendent Witte's office
Renton, referring to the fact that Williams had filed charges against him, said
"that he [Renton] hired 12 old men, gave us 12 old men a job and now we want
9 Some of the events referred to in the following section occurred prior to March 17, 1943,
the date of the settlement agreement entered into between the Respondent and the Unions.
It is clear that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices subsequent to that agree-
ment in violation of its expressed terms There is no longer any doubt that under these
circumstances the agreement is therefore no bar to the undersigned's consideration of the
events prior thereto and to his findings of unfair labor practices based on such events. See
the Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 323 U. S. 248.
10 Renton at the time of the hearing was employed by the Respondent as an Assistant
Foreman and was available to testify if the Respondent desired to call him. As heretofore
indicated, at the close of the Board's testimony Respondent rested t,,ithout calling any
.witnesses
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 281
to join a union." Employee Franco was present at a conversation in the men's
room sometime in April 1943, when Renton told employee McCarthy and an un-
named employee that "Matthews always took good care of the employees ; Mat
thews didn't pay very much money, but when things got slack why, they would
still have a job, where other places would be laying men off." . . . "that there
was no sense joining a Union for a nickel or ten cents more an hour more now,
and then when things got slack you just wouldn't have a job, because the Company
keeps their men as long as they can." . . . "that they [the employees] hadn't
lost any time" during the depression but had worked steadily. Renton concluded
the conversation by stating that "if they had had a union, that wouldn't have been
possible."
On May 7, 194x3, an anti-union committee of employees whose admitted purposes
were to discourage employees from joining the Unions and to defeat the Unions
in a consent election to be held on May 10, 1943, held its first meeting in the
vicinity of the Respondent's plant. Assistant Foreman Renton opened the meet-
ing and explained to the employees attending that several years ago there had
been a union in the plant and that it had been of no benefit to the employees.
Renton further stated that if the employees "would get a union there, we would
be reduced to apprenticeship rates, and that some of the older employees would be
reduced in rates, after having been there so long.""
3. The activities of Bachner
About 2 weeks prior to the consent election which was held on May 10, 1943,
Bachner, assistant foreman, approached Franco, an employee and an active mem-
ber of the Unions' organizing committee, at his place of work and told him that
he was not supposed to talk to any of the girls at any time about the Unions or
to encourage them to join Although Bachner stated to Franco that he could
talk to the girls outside the plant he very definitely instructed Franco that he
was not to discuss union matters with the girls in the plant even outside working
hours.i2
4. The activities of Frank Griffin
Sometime prior to March 17, 1943, the date of the settlement agreement here-
before referred to, Assistant Foreman Griffin, according to the undenied and
credible testimony of Franco, a heat treater, told him that "he thought I was a
good employee and that he would like to keep me in the department, but I was
sticking my neck out by putting my name on a leaflet like that" . . . "the com-
pany would not like it, and my days were numbered on account", of Franco's
union activities and the placing of his name on the Unions' leaflets which were
handed out at the plant."
i' The Board's contention that Renton interfered with the rights of the employees when,
on or about May 1, 1943, shortly before the consent election , he told Josephine Malacarns
to leave the plant , is rejected . Renton ' s instructions to her on this occasion were entirely
proper. She had not been to work on that day and there was no reason for her to be in the
department where Franco, a member of the Union's committee worked, discussing any mat-
ters, although she explained that it was necessary for her to see Franco concerning a meet-
ing which the committee was to have with General Superintendent Witte after the plant
closed oii that day
12 Bachner was called as a witness for the Board, subsequent to the testimony of Franco,
on whose testimony the above finding is based, but was not examined by the Respondent's
counsel with respect to this incident. Franco 's testimony remains undenied and in the
opinion of the undersigned should be credited
'8 Griffin , although available, was not called by the Respondent to deny this credible testi-
mony of Franco.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The activities of William Witte
On or about April 20, 1943, General Foreman Shook instructed employee Wil-
liams to report to the office of General Superintendent Witte. During the con-
versation, at least in part, General Foreman Shook and Aessistant Foreman Renton
were present. Witte told Williams he had information that Williams was
passing literature around during working hours and bothering some of the
employees. Williams denied that he had engaged in these activities. During
Witte's remarks, after telling Williams that he was not against the Unions and
that his own son belonged to the C. I. 0 at the Westinghouse plant, Witte informed
Williams "that they don't want any Union, didn't need any Union in there, that
they had an organization of their own ""
On or about April 27, 1943, the Unions' committee issued a bulletin to the
Respondent's employees stating :
On April 10 our committee and the representatives of the Union[ s] held
its first conference with Mr. A L Fox, President, of the J. H. Matthews
Company and presented the agreement which we propose. The negotiations
will proceed as' soon as the National Labor Relations Board has certified
our Union[s] as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees. In the
meantime, your committee is recognized as the spokesman for organized
employees. If you have a grievance in your department, you may bring it
to the attention of your committee, who in turn can take it up with the
management.
Superintendent Witte testified that several of the foremen advised him that the
employees had made inquiries as to whether the plant was already organized and
whether there was a committee representing the employees. He also testified
that this notice indicated that a committee was representing the employees
and that the Unions had been recognized by the Respondent, so on April 27, 1943,
Witte prepared a notice to "ALL EMPLOYEES" and either posted it on the
bulletin board or had it issued to the employees with their pay envelope The
notice was as follows :
April 27, 1943
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
To clarify our position, we do not recognize any union committee as rep-
resenting our employees, nor are we negotiating a union contract.
Grievances, questions and suggestions can be brought up in the manner
as set up in our Personnel Policies and Partnership Plan. Any personal
question can be taken up with your supervisor, and through, the executives
on the organization chart shown on pages 12 and 13 of the booklet.
Local 15, International Metal Engravers Union and the Machinists Union,
affiliated with the A. F. of L. have petitioned the National Labor Board
for an election to determine if they are the bargaining agent. This election,
when held will enable eligible people to vote as they wish in secret ballot.
• William Witte
Upon inquiry by the Trial Examiner, Witte testified that because of inquiries,
to the foremen, it appeared that the employees had some erroneous impression
that the plant was organized. He admitted that the Unions' bulletin was plain
14 There is no dispute concerning the time, place, and details of the conversation except
as to the quoted statement. The undersigned credits the testimony of Williams Although
Williams' testimony in its entirety is in many respects incoherent, the undersigned is con-
vinced, particularly in the light of the facts hereinafter set forth with respect to The
Manufacturing Board and Witte's activities in its behalf, that he did make this statement
attributed to him by Williams Witte's specific denial of this statement is rejected.
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 283
that, "Your committee is recognized as the spokesman for the organized em-
ployees" and that the committee purported to represent only its members. This
notice to the employees clearly advised the employees that their grievances
should be processed under the procedure set forth in the Respondent's "Per-
sonnel Policies and Partnership Plan"," a copy of which had been given to all
employees. While it is true that the notice refers the employees to pages 12 and
13 of the booklet establishing the plant which is a chart of organizations, the
intent and purpose was to channel the employees' grievances through The Manu-
facturing Board and its grievance committee whose functions, duties, and respon-
sibilities as set forth on other pages of the booklet were to,represent the em-
ployees in relation with the management. The undersigned is of the opinion
and finds that this appeal of the Respondent was a request to the employees to
avail themselves of the grievance procedure set up by the Respondent in an
organization hereinafter found to be formed and dominated by it, rather than
through the facilities of the Unions ; further, that this was an interference with
the rights of the employees, particularly those who were members of the Unions,
and an invitation to the employees to choose the -facilities provided by the
Respondent for the adjustment of their grievances.'
6. Conclusions
On the basis of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the Respondent, by
the statements and activities of Renton, Bachner, Griffin and Witte, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Board urges that the Respondent interfered with the rights of employees
under Section 8 (1) of the Act: (1) by the restiamt which the Respondent
placed upon the Unions' committee members while permitting or failing to
restrain the Anti-union Committee members, and particularly Gerald Kiley who,
the Board asserts, wandered about the plant, where he had no business, cam-
paigning against the Unions; (2) by permitting members of the Anti-union
Committee to cease work early in order to carry on their activities, while deny-
ing the same privileges to members of the Unions; and (3) by Kiley's selection
as an observer for the Respondent at the Board's election on May 10 The under-
signed rejects the Board's contention that the evidence supports a finding that
the Respondent restrained the Unions' committee while permitting or failing
to restrain the activities of the Anti-union Committee. The evidence is plain,
that at least for several weeks prior to the consent election on May 10, the Anti-
union Committee and the Unions' Committee were exceedingly active and that
both groups carried on an intensive campaign both in and out of the plant. The
evidence is further plain that when this matter was called to the attention of
General Superintendent Witte he immediately, in the presence of members of the
Unions' Committee, instructed General Foreman Shook that such activities cease
and that appropriate action be taken if they continued. It is also clear othat
some of the activities continued, but the chairman of the Unions' Committee
testified that both groups tried to carry on their activities without the knowledge
of the Respondent. The undersigned believes that there is not substantial evi-
dence to support a finding that the Respondent discriminated against and re-
strained the Unions' Committee members while permitting or failing to restrain
the activities of the Anti-union Committee members.
15 This plan, as hereinafter described in detail, established a grievance procedure under
The Manufacturing Board, hereinafter found to be a labor organization under the control
and domination of the Respondent.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is no evidence to support the Board's charges that the Respondent ac-
corded discriminatory treatment to the members of the Unions who desired to
cease work to engage in union activity.
It is the opinion of the undersigned that Kiley's selection to represent the
Respondent, as observer at the consent election, was not improper. The Field
Examiner did not disapprove of Kiley acting as an observer, but did state to
Witte that such a selection might be construed as an effort by the Respondent
to influence the employees. No protest of this action to the Respondent was
made by the Unions during the election or the counting of the ballots. It is
customary at the close of an election that union and the employer observers
certify that the election has been fairly conducted. As far as the record indicates
this practice was followed in this instance. The Field Examiner for the Board
testified that it has been customary practice of the Board to permit employers
to select observers to represent them at the polls without any restrictions except
as to supervisory employees. In view of General Superintendent Witte's testi-
mony that he was aware of Kiley's anti-union activities during the campaign,
the undersigned believes that it was an unwise choice on the part of the Re-
spondent. There is no evidence, however, direct or indirect, upon which an
inference could be drawn that this action on the part of the Respondent in any
way influenced any of the employees. The Regional Director, whose office had
knowledge of Kiley's activities, under Board policy could have refused to permit
him to act as an observer."
The undersigned will accordingly recommend that the allegations of the com-
plaint that the Respondent permitted Anti-union Committee members to move
freely and carry on anti-union activities without restraint throughout the plant
during working hours while denying equal rights and privileges to members of
the Unions; permitted the Anti-union Committee members to cease work early
in order to carry on anti-union activities while denying the same privilege to
members of the Unions ; and in Kiley's selection by it as observer at the consent
election conducted on May 10, 1943, interfered with the employees' rights, be
dismissed.
C. The Manufacturing Board
1. Its origin ; structure and administration
On March 15, 1941, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Respondent,
William Witte, chairman of the Board, "suggested the desirability of making the
policies of James H. Matthews & Co. well known to all employees now on the pay
roll, and to persons we may employ in the future." At this meeting the chair-
man suggested certain "Personnel Policies," copies of which were distributed to
each Director and with some modifications adopted.17
10 See Matter of Martin -Rockwell Corporation, 7 N. L. R B. 836, 838 , Matter of Fedders
Manufacturing Company, Inc., 7 N L R B 817, 819 ; Matter of R. R. Donnelley & Sons
Company, Supplemental Decision , Order , and Certification issued December 28, 1944
11 Witte testified that the "Personnel Policies and Partnership Plan" which was adopted
by the Board of Directors, was in substance based upon the so-called "McCormick Plan."
He further testified that he had read a book entitled "Multiple Management" written by
Charles T . McCormick , president of McCormick & Company, Baltimore , Maryland , and that
with some modifications he iecommended to the Board of Directors the so-called "McCor-
mick Plan." In the preface to the book McCormick states, "Certain authorities have said
that unionized labor is the answer to mismanagement I do not know whether this state-
ment applies to all instances ; but we have proved that multiple management in the factory
not only makes unionization unnecessary , but discourages attempts at unionization." On
page 88 of the book McCormick states , "There are indications that the plan creates all of
the expected benefits and none of the faults of the company union ." On page 146 of the
book, where McCormick summarizes the benefits to be derived from the "Multiple Man-
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 285
The "Personnel Policy and Partnership Plan", herein called the Plan, thus
adopted on March 15, 1941, was printed in booklet form by the Respondent on or
about March 31, 1941, and distributed to its employees . The booklet set forth in
some detail the general employment policies of the Respondent , including "Em-
ployee Relations" such as the profit sharing plan, the relation of supervisors to
the employees , and health and safety program and "Employee Security", which
explained the attitude of the Respondent towards steady employment , and its
life insurance and hospitalization policy. This part of the booklet concluded by
stating, "The existing policies of the company may be altered or revoked at any
time and none is the contractual obligation of the company ." The important
section of the "Personnel Policies and Partnership Plan", so far as the issues in
this proceeding are concerned , is entitled "Multiple Management". Under the
plan the Respondent established several managing boards: "The Senior Board
of Directors [ the board of directors for the corporation] is the governing board,
elected by the stockholders , which adopts and controls all the Company' s policies
and the general management of the business ." "The Manufacturing Board, is
composed of nine members from the factory . This Board is a clearing house for
views of factory workers and represents factory employees to the management.
Its problems pertain primarily to factory management and much of its time is
given to studying working conditions , employees' suggestions , views, etc., and
improving the relationship between the Company and' the employees." " The
original members of The Manufacturing Board were to be appointed by the Senior
Board of Directors
At the March 15, 1941 meeting, The Board of Directors of the Respondent also
approved by-laws under which "The Manufacturing Board" would function. The
by-laws provided that the name of the organization shall be "The Manufacturing
Board" ; that approval of any matter brought before the Board shall be by unani-
mous vote ; that it "shall devote its efforts primarily to the problems of manage-
ment as related to factory operations ; improved working conditions ; employee's
suggestions and views and employee relationship ; and it shall represent factory
employees to the management" ; that "membership of the Board shall consist of
employees of the Jas H. Matthews & Co., whose work is directly connected with
manufacturing operations , none of whom is a member of the Senior Board of
Directors" ; that "membership of the Board shall be limited to nine ( 9) in number
except when conditions necessitate a change in number" ; that members of the
Board shall serve for six months ; that the election of three new members semi-
annually to replace three members who had served in the preceding six months
agement" plan, he states, "Since 1933 the,major problems of industry appear to have been
in the field of labor ." He continues , "In approaching the problems of labor relations with
this thought we find there are two simple primary causes of all labor trouble which are:
First, actual unfairness on the part of employers, expressed in unsatisfactory working
conditions and hours , and inadequate wages Second, ignorance on the part of the em-
ployer as to controlling human factors ; and ignorance on the part of employees regarding
the processes , merchandising , management and profits of business ." McCormick concludes
that a way must be found not only to satisfy the reasonable desire of the worker , "but also
to protect them against dangers to themselves when attempts are made to mislead them
by false political and social prophets " It is clear from the excerpts above that the so-
called "Multiple Management" plan is directly related to and inseparable from problems
generally understood to be part of "labor relations " and directly concerned with hours,
wages, and working conditions . The above recital is for the purpose only of acquainting
the reader with some of the basic ideas which the originator of the "Multiple Manage-
ment" plan had in mind when , after several years of experience with the plan , he wrote
the book.
18 The plan also established a "Sales Board " which represented the sales and office em-
ployees. This proceeding involves only The Manufacturing Board in Respondent 's Pitts-
burgh plant . It was agreed by the parties that "The Sales Board" is in no way involved
in the alleged unfair labor practices herein.
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period was to be determined by a complicated rating and elective system ; that
the Senior Board of Directors must approve all nominees and "it shall be free to
eliminate any active member of The Manufacturing Board if he or she is not
giving satisfactory service to Jas. H Matthews & Co."; that the Board shall elect
a chairman and secretary but no member could serve as chairman or secretary for
two consecutive terms ; that the General Manager and General Superintendent
are honorary members of this Board and may attend all the meetings of the Board
or its committees at any time ; that the Chairman of the Board shall appoint a
committee of three to consider any grievances or complaints brought up during
his term of office; and finally, that the by-laws may be amended by unanimous
vote of a quorum of the Board "subject to final approval or rejection by the Senior
Board of Directors".
At the March meeting the Board of Directors of the Respondent, designated in
the Plan as the Senior Board of Directors, on the motion of Witte, chairman of
the Board of Directors, selected the members of The Manufacturing Board. This
Board was composed of nine employees, most of whom were supervisory employees,
who were to remain in office for the balance of the year 1941 rather than subject
to election of three new members within six months, as provided by the by-laws,
for the reason that there might be some delay in training the Board to function
smoothly.
"The Manufacturing Board", as established by the Respondent in March 1941,
functioned under the above Plan until on or about September 21, 1942, when the
Respondent issued to the employees a revised "Personnel Policies and Partnership
Plan".
The revised "Personnel Policies and Partnership Plan" followed in general,
with some modifications, the original Plan. "The Manufacturing Board" and
"The Sales Board" were now designated as "Junior Boards", were "charged with
the responsibility of studying and recommending improvements and efficiencies
in our manufacturing and sales operations ; all phases of employment and employee
relations; and other problems of our business that may properly come before
them for investigation and review. The findings of the Boards are submitted to
the management for executive action." The revised Plan also provided for the
establishment of certain committees in The Manufacturing Board-"The Safety
Committee analyzes the operating conditions that might be accident inducing and
recommend corrective measures" ; "The Personnel Committee promotes ever-
improving working -conditions, dealing with sanitation, ventilation, etc. This
committee also cooperates with the Personnel Department in assisting new em-
ployees to adjust themselves in their surroundings and in fostering social affairs";
"The Suggestion and Grievance Committee, reviews all suggestions and any com-
plaints originating with employees that may be brought before it. Each employee
is encouraged to submit suggestions to this committee through his supervisor";
and such special committees that may be needed to study current problems. The
Respondent retained in the revised Plan the following provision which appeared
in the original Plan :
Any person dismissed from the Company for any reason whatsoever has an
opportunity-to present his case to his Junior Board (The Manufacturing
Board) for consideration. Recommendations of the Boards as to whether
an employee shall be reinstated or permanently dismissed are accepted, as
by such a system the status of the employee is governed by a group and not
by an individual.
Under the revised Plan, The Manufacturing Board, operated under the by-laws
set forth by the Respondent on March, 1941, until some time in the mid-year of
1943 when the Respondent prepared for the Board a new set of by-laws. These
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 287
by-laws provided that "The Manufacturing Board shall devote its efforts primarily
to the general problems of the employees and management as related to factory
operations ; safety ; improved working conditions ; employee suggestions and
employee relationship (more fully detailed under committees) ; and it shall
represent factory employees to the management." Under the revised by-laws,
membership of The Manufacturing Board was restricted to employees whose work
is directly connected with the manufacturing operations, excluding however the
executive supervisors or General Foreman," (who formerly were members of
The Manufacturing Board and actively participated in its affairs) and members
of the Senior Board of Directors. The by-laws provided for the election of the
members of the Board by groups or divisions within the plant, so that each
member represents his group to the Board; each member assumes responsibility
for analyzing general conditions and making recommendations for improvements
within the group ; informs his group on matters in which they are interested ; and
advises the employees as to the procedure for presenting their problems. The re-
vised by-laws extended to all regular factory employees, except executive super-
visors, the right to vote in an election conducted by the Personnel Department
within their group, for the purpose of selecting their representative on The
Manufacturing Board, and members of the Board are elected to serve for a period
of 18 months.
The by-laws also provided for regular meetings of The Manufacturing Board
to be held monthly at the offices of the Respondent or in some other suitable
place designated by the chairman ; and that if a member of the Board is trans-
ferred to another voting group or is unable to complete his term of office for any
reason, his membership in the Board ceases. These by-laws further provided for
the organization of certain committees heretofore referred to, as in the Plan. On
each of the committees there was a representative of management appointed by
the Respondent to work "cooperatively" with the committee. The Suggestion and
Grievance Committee of The Manufacturing Board was charged with the duty to
guide any employee in the procedure by which a suggestion or a grievance is
called to the attention of the management. Personal grievances were to be
handled by The Manufacturing Board by making recommendations to the Fore-
man's Board' The revised by-laws also provided for the following committees :
The Suggestion and Grievance Committee was to handle general suggestions or
grievances and, after giving consideration to them, refer them to The Manu-
facturing Board, This Board was then to recommend to the Foreman's Board
what action, if any, should-be taken upon the grievances. The Personnel Com-
mittee was charged with the responsibility to study and recommend improve-
ments that affect the welfare of the employees, recreational facilities, lighting
and ventilation, informing employees on company policy, adequate rest periods,
condition of washrooms, adequate lunch facilities, cleanliness of buildings and
equipment, and to cooperate with the Personnel Department in assisting new
employees to adjust themselves to their surroundings and in fostering social
affairs. The Safety Committee was responsible for periodic inspection of the plant,
reviewing reports of accidents and recommending the necessary corrective meas-
ures to be taken in unsafe conditions that may exist. Under the revised by-laws
the Chairman of the Board was its executive officer and had general supervision
and direction of the other officers and the committees. He was also responsible
for presenting matters to the Foreman's Board and the management, or the Senior
19 Supervisory employees of lesser grade , assistant foremen , and section supervisors con-
tinued to be active on the Board.
20 In the original Plan , General Foremen were members of the Board . Under the revised
Plan, the respondent established a Forema$' s Board, the members being executive or
general foremen.
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board of Directors, with the privilege of appointing any other employee or
employees to attend with him in making such presentation. The provision with
respect to amendment or revision of the by-laws was subject, as .in the original
Plan, to the final approval of the Senior Board of Directors.
2. Conclusions
The complaint alleges that The Manufacturing Board is a labor organization
unlawful in its nature, and in support of this allegation the Board contends that
in most respects The Manufacturing Board under the Plan established by the
Respondent in the Pittsburgh plant functions in that capacity within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act and in violation of Section 8 (2) thereof The
Respondent in its answer that The Manufacturing Board is a labor organ-
ization and asserts that it does not function either as a labor organization or a
substitute for a union, for the reason that The Manufacturing Board is not for
the purpose of dealing with the Respondent but to secure the cooperation of the
employees with respect to common problems, and that its functions are purely
advisory without any contractual relationship. The respondent also contends
that under the relationship established between The Manufacturing Board and
the Respondent the management only seeks to coordinate employer and employee
interests and make them an agreeable whole.
It hereinbefore having been shown that the Respondent established, and at
the present has continued, The Manufacturing Board by the issuance of its orig-
inal and revised "Personnel Policies and Partnership Plan", accompanied by The
Manufacturing Board by-laws and revision thereof, and selected the employees
to make up the first Board, among whom were supervisory employees, the under-
signed now turns to a consideration of the issue as to whether The Manufac-
turing Board is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
It is clear from the above that The Manufacturing Board is an organization
or Plan in which all of the employees except executive or general foremen in
the manufacturing department participate, including assistant foremen and
section supervisors, by voting in group elections for the selection of the employees
to represent them on The Manufacturing Board. It is equally clear that The
Manufacturing Board according to the Plan exists for the purpose of repre-
senting factory employees concerning grievances, wages, hours of employment,
and conditions of work. The evidence is conclusive that on occasion matters
involving wages, rates of pay, vacations, dismissals,and promotions have been
considered by the Grievance Committee and The Manufacturing Board and
through the procedure set up in the Plan have been satisfactorily adjusted either
through the Foreman's Board or the management. In addition to these matters,
which are regularly the subject of discussion between labor organizations and
employers, The Manufacturing Board had discussed and adjusted with the
Respondent such matters as, fire hazards, dangerous wire, defective steps, defec-
tive elevators, and improperly guarded equipment, not to mention general working
conditions such as rest rooms, drinking fountains, and ventilation. The proce-
dure generally outlined by the Respondent in the Plan and in the by-laws is gen-
erally followed by The Manufacturing Board, that is the minutes of The Manu-
facturing Board in which these matters are referred to are forwarded to the
Foreman's Board, this being construed as a request for action upon the matters
covered in The Manufacturing Board's minutes. On several occasions The Manu-
facturing Board directly discussed with General Superintendent Witte hours
of work, vacations, and rates of pay. The minutes of the Board and its com-
mittees disclose that similar matters have been taken up directly with the fore-
men and department heads, resulting in the satisfactory adjustment of several
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 289
grievances. All of these matters, almost without exception, were initiated by
individual employees calling the matter to the attention of their members on
The Manufacturing Board or its committees in line with the suggestion in the
"Personnel Policies and Partnership Plan", which was given to all employees,
suggesting the procedure for the handling of suggestions and grievances and
that any complaints originating with the employees may be brought before the
Board, and particularly the requirement of the by-laws that The Manufacturing
Board "shall represent factory employees to the management." Some time in
1943, the Respondent issued a booklet supplemental to the Plan entitled "Em-
ployees Safety Rules and Regulations" which in the section entitled "Suggestion
and Grievance" state that the Committee was charged with the responsibility for
"The procedure by which any employee may bring a suggestion or grievance to
the attention of the management."
Two instances indicate that the Respondent considered The Manufacturing
Board as a representative of labor in the plant. The first was when the Respond-
ent established the management labor comittee as a part of the war emergency
program. As a joint committee, the Respondent considered the chairmen of the
three permanent committees of The Manufacturing Board, Safety, Personnel, and
Grievance, as the representatives of labor, and selected three of its foremen as
the representative of the management. The second instance was when General
Superintendent Witte on April 27, 1943, heretofore referred to, posted a notice
addressed to all employees that the Respondent did not recognize any union com-
mittee as representaing the employees, but that "grievances, questions, and sug-
gestions can be brought up in the manner as set forth in our Personnel Policy
and Partnership Plan." The Plan provided a procedure for handling grievances
through The Manufacturing Board, an agency representing the employees. This
was a direct appeal by Witte to the employees to avail themselves of a procedure
set up in the Plan for the adjustment of grievances, as a competitor of the Union's
committee The Manufacturing Board in operation has many of the attributes of
employer dominated Employee Representation Plans.
There is no provision in the plant establishing The Manufacturing Board for
the payment of dues by the employees nor is there any reference to finances in
the Plan or the by-laws published and issued by the Respondent. No provision
is made either for holding general meetings of employees or for the issuance of
membership cards. The employees participating in the election of members of
the Board vote by virtue of their being employed in the Respondent's manufac-
turing department in a designated group. The Respondent concedes that in oper-
ating under the Plan all elections have been held on its premises ; that it issued
and paid for the publication of the "Personnel Policies and Partnership Plan"
booklets which have been distributed to all of the employees ; that it has paid
the members of The Manufacturing Board and its committees for work time they
have spent in the investigation or adjustment of grievances as well as time spent
in meetings held during working hours ; that when the meetings were held outside
of working hours the Respondent contributed to each member of the committee
a suns to cover payment of the employees dinner; that it has furnished all steno-
graphic help, paper, and equipment necessary for the writing up of the minutes
of all meetings of The Manufacturing Board and its committees ; and that without
charge The Manufacturing Board and its committees have used either the Re-
spondent's conference room or General Superintendent Witte's office for their
meetings.
Respondent however takes the position that the formation and domination of
The Manufacturing Board are immaterial for the reason that The Manufacturing
Board is not a labor organization or a substitute for a union. The record and
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facts hereinbefore set forth do not sustain this contention. It is unnecessary
here to review these facts except to say that it was the Respondent who said that
The Manufacturing Board represents factory employees to the management and
provided the Plan and procedure for carrying out the representation. Certainly,
under the evidence in this case, there can be no question that The Manufacturing
Board represented the employees and functioned as a labor organization, although
under the complete domination and with the support of the Respondent.
The undersigned finds that The Manufacturing Board is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. The undersigned further finds
that the Respondent has since March 31, 1941, the date it established The Manu-
facturing Board, dominated and interfered with the administration of that Board
and has contributed financial and other support to it, thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, B and C, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Sec-
tion I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since the undersigned has found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain afflimative action which the undersigned finds
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
The undersigned has further found that the Respondent has since March 31,
1941, the date it established The Manufacturing Board, dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of the Board and has contributed financial and
other support to it. The effect and consequences of the Respondent's domina-
tion, interference with, and support of The Manufacturing Board, as well as
the continued recognition of that Board as the bargaining representative of the
employees, constitute a continuing "obstacle' to the free exercise by the employees
of their rights to self-organization and to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, Because of Respondent's illegal conduct, The
Manufacturing Board is incapable of serving the employees as a genuine col-
lectiye bargaining agency. Moreover, the continued recognition of the Board
would be obstructive to the free exercise by the employees of the rights guaran-
teed to them by the Act. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that
the Respondent disestablish and withdraw all recognition from The Manufac-
turing Board as the representative of any of the employees for the purpose of
dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment.
Upon 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 Metal Engravers Union, Local 15, unaffiliated, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, Local 52, affiliated with the Amer!--
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO. 291
3. The Manufacturing Board, in Respondent's Pittsburgh plant, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
4. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
and contributing support to The Manufacturing Board, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in a unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (2) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (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
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the under-
signed recommends that the Jas. H. Matthews & Co., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
and its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administration of and
contributing financial and other support to The Manufacturing Board or to any
other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing The Manufacturing Board as the representative of any of its
employees for the purposes of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances.
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
In the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist the In-
ternational Metal Engravers Union or' the International Association of Machinists
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from The Manufacturing Board
as the representative of any of its Pittsburgh employees for the purpose of dealing
with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and completely disestab-
lish that organization as such representative;
(b) Post at its plant at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report herein marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Sixth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies said Regional Director
662514-46-vol 63 20
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to the
allegations that the Respondent: (1) permitted anti-union members to move
freely and carry on anti-union activities without restraint throughout the plant
during working hours while denying equal rights and privileges to members of
the Unions; (2) permitted the anti-union committee members to cease work
early in order to carry on anti-union activities while denying the same privilege
to members of the Unions; and (3) in its selection of Kiley as an observer at
the consent election of May 10, 1943, interfered with the employees' rights under
the Act
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, Series 33 as amended, effective November 26, 1943,
any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of
the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party
or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of
the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further
provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally
before the Board request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within
ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
° JAMES C. BATTEN
Trial Eaamziner
Dated February 15, 1945.
APPENDIX A
NQTICE TO AL.L EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a trial examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We hereby disestablish The Manufacturing Board as the representative
of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successor
thereto for any of the above purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
We will not in any 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 The International Metal Engravers or the International Association
of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
JAS. H. MATTHEWS & co. 293
gaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become
or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
Dated --------------------
------------------7----------------------
( Employer)
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.