Kropp Forge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 617 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of KROPP FORGE COMPANY AND KROPP FORGE AVIATION
Co. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS, DROP
FORGERS AND HELPERS, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 13-C-2426.-Decided June 14, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 10, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondents filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On April 23, 1946,
the Board at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument, in which the re-
spondents participated.'
The Board has considered the rulings of 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer, with the following modifications:
1. We agree with and adopt the Trial Examiner' s concluding finding
that the respondents violated Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act with
respect to the Association.2 We rely particularly on the following evi-
dentiary findings : (1) When the employees were forming a labor
organization, the Forge Company urged them to make it a shop organi-
zation, gave them a party designed to influence them to that end, and
congratulated them when they voted to follow management's desire.
(2) Subsequently, when the unaffiliated Association requested exclusive
1 At the oral argument counsel for the respondents moved the Board for leave to introduce
in evidence a certified copy of the by-laws of the Employees Association of the Kropp Forge
Company. The motion is hereby granted.
' In his concluding finding the Trial Examiner omitted the finding that the respondents
dominated and interfered with the formation of the Association . In the light of the entire
Intermediate Report , we find that the omission was inadvertent ; it is hereby corrected.
68 N L R. B., No. 88.
617
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognition , the Forge Company granted the request without proof of
majority.' (3) Thereafter, the Companies contributed support to the
Association in various ways: by paving certain employees for the working
time they spent in attendance at Association meetings ; by agreeing to
excuse employees during working hours to attend an Association met-
ing in the latter part of June , 1944, when the Association appeared to
be on the verge of yielding to outside unions as the employees ' repre-
sentative , and by advising the employees to attend the meeting and pay-
ing them for the working time so spent; by according to the Association
the right of exclusive representation of the employees ( including die-
sinkers and truck drivers not represented by the Association) in Labor
Management Committee meetings which , in part , considered collective
bargaining matters ;4 by discussing plans at Labor Management Com-
mittee meetings to encourage membership in the Association and dis-
courage rival activity , and by thereafter carrying out such plans;6 by
granting the Association a cost-free and irrevocable check -off; and by
stating that the Association could do more for the employees than an
outside union . (4) The Companies further assisted the Association by
the statements of President Roy Kropp that he did not want the C. I. 0.,
and Superintendent Lane that the Companies did not want the A. F
of L., and by the questioning of employees by Plant Manager Sweet cy
and Superintendent Lane about the A. F. of L.
The respondents contend principally that the foregoing facts do not
warrant a finding that they violated the Act with respect to the Associa-
tion, and for support they point to the case of Keysto;:e Steel & TT'ire
Company, et al v. National Labor Relations Board, 155 F. (2d) 553,
17 L. R. R. 1199 (C. C. A. 7, April 2, 1946). In that case , however, the
court clearly distinguished the factual situation present in the instant
case by expressly relying on such factors as the absence of management
suggestion to form a shop organization , the fact that recognition was
granted only upon the submission of signed cards establishing desig-
nation of the organization by a majority , the absence of employer support
or assistance, and the fact that the labor organization paid the cost to
the employer of the check-off. Upon the entire record , we find no merit
in the respondent 's contention.
The respondents also contend that the statements attributed to them
fall within the free-speech guarantee of the Constitution because they
the The Forge Company was shown four round•rob:n petitions setting forth that a majority of
employees wanted to form a labor organization of some kind ; but the Association was not
designated therein, nor had it been formed at the time the petitions were signed.
' See Matter of Industrial Metal Fabricators, Inc., 67 N L. R. B. 270.
The respondents' misconception of the use to which a Labor Management Committee can
properly be put is exemplified by the following quotation from their brief before the Board:
Since the end of the war, L. M. C has functioned . . . [ands now has the perfect
right to settle grievances and management and labor have a perfect set-up for bargaining.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 619
were mere expressions of preference and contained no "threat , coercion
or intimidation." In the light of the respondents' entire course of con-
duct and also because the statements went further than merely express-
ing an opinion as to the merits of the labor organization involved, we find
that the Trial Examiner was correct in holding that the statements were
not privileged as free speech.
The contention is also made that no order should be directed to the
present Kropp Forge Aviation Co., on the ground that it had not engaged
in business up to the time of the hearing and therefore was not engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Like the Trial Examiner,
we find no merit in this contention. The record shows that after the
Union filed the original charge in this case, the Forge Company dis-
solved the First Aviation Co. and formed another wholly owned sub-
sidiary, having the same name and officials to carry on as the First Avi-
ation Co.'s successor in the future. Moreover, the Forge Company held
out the new subsidiary as a Division, and had the subsidiary join in
signing the 1945 contract with the Association. Under these circum-
stances, we find it necessary to direct our order to the presently existing
Kropp Forge Aviation Co. as well as to the Forge Company.
We find, upon the entire record, that the respondents dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed
support to, the Association. We further find that by such acts, and by
the statements and questions of President Roy Kropp, Plant Managers
Hellstrom and Sweeney, and Superintendent Lane, the respondents in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The respondents except to certain subsidiary findings made by the
Trial Examiner and set forth below. First, they attach the Trial Exam-
iner's finding that the contents of the first five contracts with the Asso-
ciation, particularly in failing to include an exclusive recognition and
other "standard" clauses ( i. e., clauses establishing grievance and arbi-
tration procedures), show that the Association was "company domi-
nated" and that the respondents were determined to continue dominating
the Association ; in support of their position the respondents argue that
the Board "does not have power to test the practical effectiveness of a
labor organization .. . as to what the terms and conditions and provi-
sions of bargaining contracts may be." Next, the respondents attack the
Trial Examiner's finding that the first five contracts were "members-
only" contracts and that the respondents unlawfully assisted the Associa-
tion by extending to all employees the benefits of such contracts ; and
they point to another finding of the Trial Examiner that the Association
had been granted exclusive recognition from the beginning. Lastly, the
respondents assail the Trial Examiner's finding that they assisted the
Association by reason of the fact that employees who were promoted
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to supervisory positions retained their Association membership and par-
ticipated in Association meetings after their promotion . The Trial Ex-
aminer, however, made no finding that these supervisory employees ac-
tively participated in Association meetings . We find merit in the other
contentions of the respondents set forth in this paragraph and accord-
ingly reject the findings involved. However, our action in no ways impairs
our concluding finding, previously set forth, that the respondents vio-
lated Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
3. The respondents attack the Trial Examiner 's recommendation that
they cease and desist from interfering in any manner with the statutory
rights of their employees, solely on the ground that the recommendation
runs to the respondents ' "successors and assigns" and does not permit
the employees to join an organization of their own choice. We find
no merit in this exception .6
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and 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 respondents,
Kropp Forge Company and Kropp Forge Aviation Co., Cicero, Illinois,
and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of or contrib-
uting support to, Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company
of Cicero, Illinois, and dominating or interfering with the formation or
administration of, or contributing support to, any other labor organiza-
tion of their employees;
(b) Recognizing Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Com-
pany of Cicero, Illinois, or any successor thereto, as the representative
of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
(c) Giving effect to the contract of February 26, 1945, with Em-
ployees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois,
or to any modification, extension, or renewal thereof, or to any other
contract with the said Association concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment ;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Black-
smiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, A. F. of L., or any other labor or-
" See Matter of Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., 65 N L. R B 1239.
RROPP FORGE COMPANY 621
ganization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activity, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish Em-
ployees AssociatiQn of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois,
or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of their employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievarces,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment; and discontinue the Labor Management Com-
mittee as a medium for dealing with their employees with respect to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment;
(b) Post at their plants at Cicero, Illinois , copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A."7 Conies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by their representative, be
posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents to insure that said
no`ices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region in writ-
ri,,. within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
i espondents have taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr, John R HMI, for the Board
.1Mr Gilbert F Wagner, of Chicago , Ill., for the respondents.
Messrs. A J. Eberhardy and James F Kelly, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr Gerald
Wolsfelt, of North Aurora, Ill, for the Union
Mr Samuel B Perlman, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths,
Drop Forgers and Helpers, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, The National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated June 8, 1945,
against Kropp Forge Company and Kropp Forge Aviation Co, Cicero, Illinois.
On July 20, 1945, the Board issued its first amended complaint against Kropp Forge
Company, herein called the Forge Company, and Kropp Forge Aviation Co., which
Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "RECOMMENDATIONS OF' A TRIAL EXAMINER" and aub-
stitutmg in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER."
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was incorporated on August 18, 1942, but changed its name by amendment to
Aviations Forging Corporation of America, on August 12, 1944, and dissolved
under that name voluntarily on August 31, 1944, herein called the First Aviation
Company,1 and Kropp Forge Aviation Co, which was incorporated on September
9, 1944, and is hereinafter referred to as the Second Aviation Company, alleging
that the Forge Company, the First Aviation Company, and the Second Aviation
Company, herein sometimes collectively referred to as the respondents, had en-
gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce 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,
accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondents, the
Union, and Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois,
herein called the Association. Copies of the first amended complaint were duly
served upon the respondents, the Union, and the Association.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleged in
substance : (1) that on or about December 30, 1939, the Forge Company instigated,
sponsored, interfered with, and dominated the formation of the Association; (2)
that the Forge Company from December 30, 1939, to July 20, 1945; the First
Aviation Company from April 5, 1943, to August 31, 1944; and the Second Aviation
Company from September 9, 1944, to July 20, 1945, advised, urged and warned
their employees to join the Association, dominated and interfered with the admin-
istration of the Association, contributed financial and other support to the Asso-
ciation, and otherwise fostered, promoted, and encouraged the formation, existence,
and growth of the Association. The first amended complaint further alleged that
the respondents recognized, and dealt with, the Association with respect to wages,
hours, and working conditions, entered into collective bargaining agreements with
the Association, and deducted dues from the wages and salaries of their employees
on behalf of the Association.
On June 21, 1945, and about July 26, 1945, the respondents filed their answer and
amended answer, respectively, in which they denied that they had engaged in any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on various dates between June 26 and
July 20, 1945, at Chicago, Illinois, before Frederic B Parkes, 2nd, the under-
signed Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board,
the Union, the respondents, and the Association 2 were represented by counsel Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the hearing, the respondents filed a motion for a Bill of
Particulars, which was granted in part and denied in part by the undersigned. At
the close of the Board's case, the respondents and the Association moved to dismiss
the complaint for failure of proof ; ruling thereon was reserved by the undersigned.
During the course of the presentation of the respondent's case, the undersigned
denied a second motion of the respondents that the complaint be dismissed At the
conclusion of the hearing, the respondents renewed their motion that the complaint
be dismissed. Ruling thereon was reserved. The motions to dismiss are hereby
denied. Following the introduction of all evidence, the undersigned granted, without
objection, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof
as to dates and minor variations. All parties waived oral argument before the under-
signed. On August 16, 1945, the respondents filed a brief.
1 The Forge Company and the First Aviation Company are sometimes collectively referred
to herein as the Companies.
At the commencement of the hearing , the Association 's motion to intervene was granted.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 623
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Forge Company and the First Aviation Company, a wholly owned subsidiary
of the former, were incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois in
February 1912 and August 1942, respectively. On August 12, 1944, the First
Aviation Company changed its name by amendment to Aviations Forging Corpora-
tion of America, in order that a new corporation might be organized under the
original name of the First Aviation Company and thus protect and preserve the
latter's name. Under the amended name, the First Aviation Company voluntarily
dissolved as a corporation on August 31, 1944. On September 9, 1944, the Second
Aviation Company was organized, and now exists as a corporation under the laws
of the State of Illinois. It is a subsidiary of the Forge Company, with offices at
the latter's plant.
The Forge Company owns and operates a plant at 5301 West Roosevelt Road,
Cicero, Illinois, where it has been engaged since 1939 in the production of steel
forgings. From on or about April 5, 1943, to August 31, 1944, the First Aviation
Company operated a plant, known as Building C, at the same address, where it
manufactured steel forgings, principally for the aviation industry. From September
1, 1943, to August 31, 1944, the Forge Company and the First Aviation Company
together purchased raw materials consisting principally of steel valued at approxi-
mately $2,900,000, of which approximately 65 percent was purchased and shipped
to their plants from points outside the State of Illinois During the same period,
the Forge Company and the First Aviation Company jointly sold steel forgings,
produced at their plants, in the approximate value of $10,000,000, of which amount
approximately 60 percent represented shipments to points outside the State of
Illinois Of these joint purchases and sales, approximately 40 percent of each were
those of the First Aviation Company.
Among the officers of the Forge Company and the First Aviation Company, the
following individuals held the same official position in both Companies Roy A
Kropp, president; Raymond B. Kropp, first vice-president and treasurer, Joe
Healy, vice-president; James Sweeney, vice-president, and Charles F Johnson,
secretary.3 During the period between April 5, 1943, and August 31, 1944, the
plants of the Companies were operated under a joint management, each having
the same production manager, personnel office, labor policy, and personnel director
or director of industrial relations. The plant of the First Aviation Company during
this period was operated under a lease from the Defense Plant Corporation, an
instrumentality of the United States Government. Upon the dissolution of the First
Aviation Company on August 31, 1944, the Forge Company purchased its assets,
assumed the lease from the Defense Plant Corporation, and continued the opera-
tion of the plant formerly controlled by the First Aviation Company
The Second Aviation Company was incorporated on September 9, 1944, with 1,000
shares of stock, having a par value of $1.00 per, share; the $1,000 of paid-in capital
stock remains intact. The officers of the Second Aviation Company are Roy A
Kropp, president; Raymond B. Kropp, vice-president and treasurer; and Charles
F. Johnson, secretary. Although the Forge Company now operates both the old and
the new plants and pays the wages and salaries of all personnel, Building C is still
i The First Aviation Company had two additional vice presidents , namely Herbert Lund
and Raymond J. O'Keefe, Jr.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
referred to as the Aviation plant, separate cost account records are maintained
of the operations of the two plants, and the Second Aviation Company is adver-
tised as a division of the Forge Company for the purpose of inducing sales and
quoting prices on products. On February 26, 1945, the Forge Company and the
Second Aviation Company jointly executed a single collective bargaining contract
with the Association.
The respondents contend that the Second Aviation Company is not engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. The undersigned finds no merit in the
contention. It is clear that the Second Aviation Company is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Forge Corporation, the same individuals hold offices in both cor-
porations, and both corporations have entered into a collective bargaining contract
with the Association. The undersigned finds that the Forge Company and the
Second Aviation Company are, and the First Aviation Company was, engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers is a labor
organization affiliated wth the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondents.
Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois, is an
unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination and interference with the formation and administration
of the Association; interference, restraint, and coercion
Although from time to time throughout the history of the Forge Company its
employees exhibited a spasmodic but unenthusiastic interest in self-organization,
the first serious indication of employee concern in organizing with concrete results
occurred about October 1939, when, as a result of a visit of William Ohlson, an
employee of the Forge Company from 1929 to 1940, to the headquarters of the
Union and the International Association of Machinists, A. F. L., circulars were di--
tributed by these two unions outside the plant of the Forge Company As Ohlson
and Arthur Hellstrom, then plant manager of the Forge Company, were entering
the plant on the day of the distribution of the A. F. L. circulars, Hellstrom said,
"Listen, Bill, I don't want no organization in here"
About December 15, 1943, Ohlson drew up four petitions, each bearing the legend
that the signers thereto were in favor of forming a labor organization. The
petitions did not specify whether the proposed union should be an independent
organization or an affiliate of a national body but stated that a vote would be taken
later to determine the form the organization should assume. A large circle was
drawn on each petition and the signers placed their names thereon in round robin
fashion. The petitions were circulated among the employees during working hours in
the plant, and more than 90 percent of the 180 plant employees signed the petitions 4
Oden H. Edberg, an employee of the respondents from 1915 to April 17, 1945,
testified that shortly after the commencement of the circulation of the petitions
above described, Roy A. Kropp, president of the respondents, summoned "all the
4 The above findings are based upon the undenied testimony of Ohlson. Hellstrom left the
Companies' employ in August 1943 to form a new corporation, a competitor of the respondents;
he did not testify at the hearing. Ohlson impressed the undersigned as an especially forthright
witness whose testimony is entitled to credence.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 625
key men in the shop," consisting of betwen 15 and 20 blacksmiths, to the display
room of the Forge Company's offices where they met with President Roy Kropp,
Vice-President Raymond Kropp, Secretary Charles Johnson, and Plant Manager
Hellstrom According to Edberg, these officers of the Forge Company there
"suggested or referred to it that they couldn't stop us in regard to organizing, but
to try to make it a shop organization, which we did." Edberg's testimony in respect
to this meeting was corroborated by that of Walter Bock, who at that time was
a blacksmith in the Forge Company's employ.5 Roy Kropp denied that he had
ever called a meeting of the key men of the plant and that he had ever had
occasion to talk with Edberg about union matters; he also further insisted that at
no time or place had he ever publicly or privately expressed an opinion relative to
unions or ever made any statement of preference for one union in contrast to
another Raymond B Kropp also denied that at any time or place had he ever
expressed an opinion with respect to union activities or an opinion for or against
any union, and that except on one occasion had he ever talked with any employee
regarding union activities Johnson denied that he had ever expressed an opinion
for or against a union or with respect to a union's activities, that he had ever
attended a meeting where union matters were discussed respecting the Forge
Company, that he had ever talked to Bock, Edberg, or any other employee about
union matters, and that he had ever been present when Roy Kropp talked to
Edberg or Bock about union matters From his observation of the witnesses, and
upon the facts adduced herein, the undersigned does not credit either the sweeping
general denials or the more specific denials of Roy A. and Raymond B Kropp and
Johnson, but rather finds that around mid-December 1939, a meeting of the black-
smiths was held in the display room as testified to by Edberg and Bock and that
at this meeting the statements attributed by them to the officers of the Forge
Company were in fact made.
Ohlson testified without contradiction and the undersigned finds that when Ohlson
informed Plant Manager Hellstrom shortly after Christmas 1939 of the former's
intention to organize the plant, Hellstrom said that "he didn't want any organization
of the company."
However, when Hellstrom later learned of the circulation of the petitions, he
voluntarily informed Ohlson, according to Olilson's uncontradicted and credible
testimony, that the employees might meet in the machine shop to conduct the
balloting to determine the form of the proposed organization. Accordingly, on the
morning of December 30, 1939, Olilson had the following notice prepared by an
employee in the Forge Company's office and, with the permission of Hellstrom,
posted the notice on the bulletin boards of the Forge Company at the time clock
and in the machine shop :
MEETING SAT. DEC. 30, 1939
Meeting to be held at 12:30 o'clock in front end of Mche. shop everybody be
there. Meeting with regards to election of officers and committees.
Ohlson testified that as he entered the main office on December 30, 1939, about
two hours before the scheduled meeting, he was stopped by President Roy Kropp,
who stated, in the presence of Secretary Johnson, that Kropp did not care whether
the employees decided to form an independent organization or to affiliate with the
A. F. of L. organization but "for the love of Pete, anything but the C. I. 0."
In addition to the general denials above set forth, Roy Kropp denied that he had
6 Bock was uncertain as to the date of the conference in the display room ; the undersigned
accepts the date given by Edberg.
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever used the expression , "For the love of Pete, anything but the C . I. 0." and
that he had ever spoken to Ohlson about union matters . Johnson denied that he was
ever present when Roy Kropp talked to Ohlson about union matters or when Roy
Kropp said , "For Pete's sake, anything but a C . I 0." As indicated above, from
his observation of the witnesses the undersigned finds Ohlson' s testimony worthy
of credence and does not credit the denials of Roy Kropp and Johnson.
Ohlsoii testified without contradiction and the undersigned finds that shortly after
the posting of the employee meeting notice , the following notice was attached to
the bulletin board
Employees of Kropp Forge Company
The Company wishes to announce that at the close of work at twelve o'clock
noon, Saturday, December 30, beer and sandwiches will be served
We hope everybody will celebrate the winding up of the old year, and we
wish you all the Seasons' Greetings. -
Sincerely,
KROPP FORGE COMPANY,
Roy A. KROPP (s)
Hubert Jirka, the respondent's comptroller, testified that on December 29, 1939,
he had made arrangements for the purchase of beer and sandwiches to be served at
the party. The undersigned does not credit Jirka's testimony on this issue. If the
arrangements for the party had been made on the day previous, it is reasonable to
assume that the invitation to the employees would have been extended at that time,
prior to the day of the party itself, so that the greatest possible number of employees
might plan to attend the function. Moreover, this was the first holiday party given
the employees by the Forge Company,6 and the simple refreshments could easily
have been obtained on short notice at that time. It is clear that the employee meeting
was hurriedly decided and arranged on the morning of December 30, 1939 The
undersigned finds that, on learning of the employees' meeting, the Forge Company
with equal haste arranged to give the party.
Upon the close of the work week at noon, Saturday, December 30, 1939, approxi-
mately 60 plant employees assembled in the machine shop.? Plant Manager Hell-
strom was present at the beginning of the meeting but left after informing the
employees that they were free to assemble in the machine shop. No other super-
visory employee was present during the meeting. Ohlson acted as temporary chair-
man. The question of the form of organization was discussed at length. Some
employees advocated joining an organization affiliated with the A. F of L or
C. I. 0., whereas others suggested the formation of an unaffiliated shop organiza-
tion. Ballots with a choice of A. F. of L., C. I. 0, or Independent, were distributed,
but the balloting was inconclusive since many were returned unmarked A vote by
acclamation was then taken, first for the A. F. of L., then the C I. 0, and finally
the Independent. The latter received a clear majority, as very few employees in-
dicated a desire for an organization affiliated with either the A F. of L. or C. I. 0.8
Immediately following the meeting, the Forge Company's holiday party was given
in the machine shop.9 Carl Dahl and Gus Carlson, who were foremen in the
Prior to 1939, the Forge Company had on occasion at Christmas time given tu, keys to
employees. Each year after 1939, a holiday party has been given.
7 In December 1939, there were approximately 180 employees in the plant.
8 According to the uncontraverted and credible testimony of Ohlson, on the balloting the
A. F. of L. received ii votes and the C. I. O. between 4 and 6 votes; on the vote by acclama-
tion the A. F. of L. received only a few votes and the C I 0. "didn't get no hurrays at all "
The findings in the paragraph above are based upon the mutually corroborative testimony
of Ohlson and Bock, and employees Warren Hoglund , John Czchanski , and Edward J. Weglarz.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 627
machine shop and blacksmith shop, respectively, attended the party as did Plant
Manager Hellstrom. According to the undenied and credible testimony of Ohlson,
Carlson and Dahl "congratulated me on the choice of an organization."
The next meeting of the nascent organization was held on January 7, 1940, at a
hall some distance from the plant.10 At this meeting, the formal organization of
the Association was completed, with the adoption of a name,11 election of officers
and shop representatives, and selection of committeemen. Although the record does
not reveal with exactness the date on which the Association adopted its by-laws,
it seems clear that the drafting of the by-laws was completed in January or February
1940 and that they were approved by the membership body about that time. The
by-laws provided that the regular meetings of the Association shall be held on the
first Sunday of each month, and dues shall be 50 cents a month The by-laws re-
stricted membership in the Association "to Employees of the Kropp Forge Com-
pans, with the following exceptions. viz, Officers of the Kropp Forge Company,
members of the Executive Board of the Kropp Forge Company, members of the
Board of Directors of Kropp Forge Company, Stockholders, Foremen, Superin-
tendents, and their Assistants." According to the by-laws, the president, vice-
president, secretary, and treasurer of the Association shall form the executive board
Following its organization, the Association at once began work on the draft of a
proposed contract to be submitted to the Forge Company. On February 6, 1940,
a proposed contract was submitted to President Roy Kropp with the following
letter :
This is to notify you that the "Employees Association of the Kropp Forge
Company," an independent association of men composed of those employed at
your plant, other than executives and those employed in a supervisory or
administrative capacity, and which union is controlled exclusively by employees
of said plant, and having a membership of at least eighty per cent of the total
number of such employees of the plant, do hereby request that our organization
be recognized as the sole collective bargaining representative of the employees
at the said Cicero plant on matters pertaining to wages, working and living
conditions and matters of safety. This request is pursuant to authorization of
the members of said association duly ratified by the officers and executive
committee.12
According to the credible testimony of Ohlson, at one of the meetings between
Roy Kropp and the Association's contract negotiation committee, Kropp asked for
proof of the Association's claim to represent a majority of the employees Ohlson
gave him the 4 petitions, which had been circulated and signed the previous Decem-
ber, and Kropp "glanced at them and handed them back to [Ohlson] and that was
all there was to it."13 Ohlson testified without contradiction that when at the same
meeting Kropp asked the reason for the Association's organization, Ohlson replied
that the Forge Company "thought the men were just simply a bunch of machines
in there, not giving them presents, bonuses, and stuff of that sort. They used to
10 All meetings of the Association after the December 30, 1939, meeting were held off the
Forge Company's property in halls rented by the Association.
11 The original name adopted at the January 7 meeting was Kropp Forge Employees Associa-
tion but at the next meeting on January 20, 1940, it was amended to the name now borne by
the Association.
is The findings in respect to the formal organization of the Association are based upon
documentary evidence, including Association minutes and by-laws, and upon the credible testi-
mony of Ohison and Edberg.
19 Kropp testified that he did not recall seeing the petitions . The undersigned does not credit
the vague denial.
696966-46-41
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
present them with a turkey at Christmas, and things like that, but this trip they
just ignored them entirely. I saw my opportunity, and I organized."
Ohlson and Kropp testified, that before the execution of the first collective bar-
gaining contract betwen the Association and the Forge Company, the latter had
granted exclusive recognition to the Association as the statutory representative of
the Forge Company's employees. However, they could not recall whether the
recognition was extended orally or in writing. No document granting exclusive
recognition was produced at the hearing In view of the vague testimony and the
absence of documentary proof, the undersigned infers and finds that exclusive
recognition was orally granted the Association. In response to the contract sub-
mitted by the Association for the Forge Company's consideration, the Forge Company
drafted a proposed contract which met with the Association's approval and which
was executed on March 4, 1940, to be retroactive in effect to March 1, 1940. The
contract was brief, dealing chiefly with wages, hours of work, and vacation benefits.
It provided that the Forge Company would grant a wage increase of five cents an
hour "to all members of the" Association, but the Association reserved the right
to bargain "for further distributive wages." The contract contains no provision
for recognition by the Forge Company of the Association as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of the Forge Companys' employees or any provision for
handling of grievances or arbitration of disputes which might arise during the
contract's one year term.
Comptroller Jirka testified that he and Plant Manager Hellstrom drafted the terms
of the Forge Company's proposal and did most of the negotiating with the Asso-
ciation's committee. He further testified that Hellstrom showed him the Associa-
tion's request for exclusive recognition above set forth and a "circular petition,"
or possibly two, on which "the names were in a circular spot, some on an angle and
some flat," so that "there was no way of determining which was first, last or
middle" ; the substance of the petition "was to recognize the Kropp Forge Em-
ployees Associations as the bargaining unit for all of the employees." According
to Jirka, he counted the names on the petition and upon comparison with the
number of eligible employees on the pay roll, discovered that over 90 per cent
had signed the petition.
Ohlson testified that there were four petitions circulated in December 1939, each
bearing a legend that the. signers were in favor of forming "some kind of organiza-
tion," and that the word "Association" did not appear on the petitions. He further
testified that after the petitions were signed, they left his custody only during the
collective bargaining meeting in February 1940 when they were shown to Kropp,
who held them "about a minute" and then returned them to Ohlson. Ohlson denied
that the petitions were ever given to Hellstrom or Jirka and insisted that a day
or two after the meeting with Kropp in February, Ohlson burned the petitions.
In view of the fact that the record establishes that there were four round robin
petitions which stated that the signers were advocating the formation of an un-
specified type of labor organization, the undersigned does not credit Jirka's testi-
mony to the effect that he compared the number of eligible employees on the pay
roll against the number of signers of one or possibly two round robin petitions
indicating that the signers wished the Forge Company "to recognize the Kropp
Forge Employees Association as the bargaining unit for all of the employees."
From his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Ohlson's testimony
and finds that the petitions never left Ohlson's custody except for the few
minutes they were in Kropp's possession at the February meeting, and that the
petitions were destroyed a day or two later by Ohlson. The undersigned concludes
and finds the Kropp Forge Company extended exclusive recognition to the Associa-
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 629
tion without determining whether the Association in fact represented a majority of
the Forge Company's employees.14
In June 1940, the Association determined to hold a picnic for all the Forge
Company's employees and their families. However, when the Forge Company
became aware of these plans, either on being asked to donate prizes or on receiving
an invitation for the office employees to attend the picnic, the Forge Company
suggested that it be allowed to arrange the picnic and to meet all the expenses
thereof. On July 20, 1940, at a date and place other than those selected by the
Association, the picnic was held for all employees and their families. The Forge
Company furnished transportation to the grounds, provided numerous prizes, and
bore all picnic expenses which totaled approximately $800. None of the signs
marking the route to the picnic grounds, the notices regarding the picnic, or the
programs mentioned the Association. Nor was the Association mentioned in any
speeches given during the picnic. Thereafter, the respondents have sponsored a
picnic each summer for their employees and families 15
On February 13, 1941, the Forge Company and "their employees who are
members of" the Association entered into a collective bargaining contract, whose
one-year term commenced on March 1, 1941, upon the expiration of the original
contract. Like the first, the contract contained no recognition clause . In form,
however, it was drafted on the basis of recognition of the Association as the
collective bargaining representative of its members only, the provisions respecting
wage increases and vacation benefits being extended by the contract's terms only
to employees who were members of the Association On April 9, 1942, a third
contract for a one-year term between the Forge Company and "their employees
who are members of" the Association was executed, identical in form and structure
to the second contract and retroactive in effect to March 1, 1942 Like the previous
contracts, the third contract contained no recognition provision, and, as in the
second contract, the five-cent pay increase and other wage provisions and vacation
benefits accrued only to those employees who were members of the Association
Neither of the contracts contained any provision covering adjustment of grievances
or arbitration procedure. In view of the language employed in, as well as the form
of, the 1941 and 1942 contracts, the undersigned finds that the Association was
recognized as the bargaining representative of its members only.
Employee William J. Schuknecht testified, in substance, that in 1942 employee
Alike Hagen and other employees who were members of the Association on one
pay day received an additional pay check covering "five percent on an hourly back
pay coming to all fully paid organized men in the shop union," and that, having
allowed his dues to lapse, Schuknecht did not receive the additional back pay.
However, Comptroller Jirka testified that the wage increases, vacation, and other
benefits provided for in the Association's contracts were extended to all plant
employees and were not limited in effect, as the contracts provided, only to those
14 In any event, even had the Forge Company checked the names appearing on the De
cember petitions against the pay roll , the Association 's majority status would not have been
thereby established . The petitions did not indicate that the signers were members of the
Association ; they indicated that the signatories were merely in favor of forming "some kind
of organization ." The Association did not come into existence until January 1940. So far as
,.he record shows, no list of Association members or membership records was shown to, or
requested by, the Forge Company prior to the extension of exclusive recognition.
15 The findings with respect to the 1940 picnic are based upon the mutually corroborative
testimony of Ohlson, Be* Jirka , and employee Carter Lestina.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees who were members of the Association.16 Jirka's testimony was cor-
roborated by documentary records produced by the Forge Company, showing that
wage increases negotiated by the Association were given all employees, excepting
diesinkers and truck drivers, irrespective of their membership or non-membership
in the Association. With respect to the back-pay incident testified to by Schuknecht,
it appears that the retroactive wage increase provided for in the 1942 contract was
included in the check for the next pay period following the execution of the con-
tract, that Hagen had not worked the week the wage increase was given, but that
he received it on his next full pay period after he returned to work. It is thus
clear that the vague and confused testimony of Schuknecht is not entitled to
credence; his confusion undoubtedly arose from the fact that Hagen received the
retroactive payment later than most employees because of his absence from work
when it was initially extended The undersigned credits Jirka in this respect and
finds that the benefits accruing under the "members only" provisions of the con-
tracts between the Forge Company and the Association were extended to all plant
employees, excepting diesinkers and truck drivers, regardless of their membership
or non-membership in the Association.
Although during the war period the number of employees increased from 106 in
1937 to 550 in 1942, and to 1350 in 1944, interest in the Association declined in
1942. Minutes of the Association reveal that a quorum of 14 was not assembled
between June 7 and December 6, 1942, and that no meetings of the Association
were held during that period.
Throughout the history of the Association, memberships were solicited and dues
were collected openly and extensively during working hours in the plant, and
Association notices were commonly posted on bulletin boards of the respondents
In February 1943, the Companies inaugurated a check-off system, retroactive in
effect to January 1943, whereby the monthly dues of 50 cents were deducted from
the wages of each employee on a list submitted by the Association. So far as the
record shows, the Association has paid no part of the clerical expenses incurred
by the Companies in administering the check-off system The Association's records
reveal the following:
January 3, 'Received from Charles J. Erjavec, members' dues, $40.'
February 7, 'Received from William S. Burchill, members' dues, $75.'
February 14, 'Received from William S. Burchill, members' dues, $14.'
March 7, Received from William S. Burchill, members' dues, $133.'
March 18, 'Received from William S. Burchill a check for $425 for union dues,
months January and February, $425.'
April 4, 1943, 'Received from William S Burchill a check for $243 for union
dues, month of March, $243 '
April 4, 'Received from William S. Burchill for union dues , cash, $38.'
April 28, 1943, 'Received from William S. Burchill a check for $245.50 for
union dues.'
On May 8, 1943, the Companies and "their employees who are members of" the
Association entered into a collective bargaining contract for a one-year term
beginning March 1, 1943. The contract, like its predecessors, contained no provision
covering recognition of the Association, grievance adjustments, or arbitration pro-
cedures. Except for one clause providing that members of the Association may have
16 None of the benefits of the Association's contracts was extended to the diesinkers or
truck drivers. The respondents for a number of years have had contracts with the International
Conference of Diesinkers , herein called the Diesinkers , and have negotiated with an un-
specified A . F. of L. union in behalf of the truck drivers.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 631
the option of relinquishing their vacations and accepting their salaries in lieu
thereof, the wage increase and vacation benefits were not specifically confined only
to members of the Association as did the terms of the earlier contracts discussed
above, although as mentioned earlier the parties to the contract were the Com-
panies and the employee-members of the Association Comptroller Jirka testified
and the undersigned finds that the benefits accruing under the terms of the contract
were extended to all plant employees, excepting diesinkers and truck drivers, re-
gardless of their membership or non-membership in the Association.
On August 27, 1943, pursuant to the request of the War Production Board, the
Forge Company and the First Aviation Company established a Labor-Management
Committee, herein called the L. M. C. The purpose of the L. M. C. program,
as enunciated by national leaders of industry, labor, and governmental agencies of
the United States in a brochure distributed by the War Production Board, is as
follows :
The Labor-Management Committee Program now being promoted by the
War Production Drive Division of WPB * * * is designed to increase war
production It is not a plan to promote company unions It is not a device to
increase the power or position of any union. It does not interfere with any
bargaining machinery or undertake its functions. It is not designed to conform
to any scheme that contemplates a measure of control of management by labor
or labor by management. It does not put management in labor or labor in
management. It is not a labor plan or a management plan. It is the War Pro-
duction Drive Plan to increase production by increasing efficiency through
greater management and labor cooperation.
Among the "basic steps outlined for forming an L-M Committee" in the brochure
are the following:
* * * Grievances and collective bargaining matters will not be handled by
the joint production committee, but will be referred to collective bargaining
or other established machinery * * *
Labor members will be responsible leaders of the workersr able to secure
the fullest participation of the workers in the program developed by the
committee * * *
Management and labor each choose an equal number of representatives to
serve on the Labor-Management Committee. If a recognized union represents
the employees, the union determines the method of selecting labor's committee
members. If no recognized union exists, the labor members are selected by
some method satisfactory to the employees * * *
PROGRAM * * * Principal activities usually include :
Production problems.
Suggestions.
Quantity of Work (reduction of rejects).
Salvage and Conservation of Materials.
Care of Tools and Equipment.
Publicity and Education.
Health and Safety.
Absenteeism.
Transportation and Housing.
Training and Upgrading of Workers.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the selection of labor and management representatives on the
L M. C., Raymond T. O'Keefe, Jr., director of industrial relations for the Com-
panies, testified as follows:
I probably can tell you in a vague way * * * Mr. Roy A. Kropp appointed
me chairman , and he and his brother Raymond were members on the first
day. Mr. Sweeney was appointed at a later date, maybe a month later or maybe
two months later. The labor group at the plant at that time, I think, was set
up by Mr Peterkovich [president of the Association ], and if I remember
correctly I told him that the War Production Board was anxious to have a
Labor-Management Committee , and I thought that to start the committee we
should start with the present officers, and then if at a later date we cared to
rotate other members, we could do it, and as I remember that was agreeable
with him . There was no discussion about it. We didn 't think anything about
it. I mean, they were the elected representatives of the largest number of
employees in the plant , and that is how that came about . The die sinkers were
not invited to participate because of an antipathy they have always had towards
being association ( sic) with the other labor groups . I don't even think we
thought of the truck drivers.17
However, the Association 's executive committee , composed of its four officers,
continued to act as the labor members on the L . M. C. At a later date, the chief
steward of the Association attended the L. M. C. meetings but did not vote. On
matters brought before the L. M. C. the labor representatives were entitled to four
votes as were the management members, regardless of the number of representatives
each might have present . Originally , the L . M. C. dealt only with production
problems, but the practice of handling grievances and other collective bargaining
matter soon evolved until all grievances not settled at lower levels , were handled
by the L. M. C. Meetings were held once a week. It appears that an attempt was
made to reserve one meeting a month to dispose of grievances and individual bonus
matters arising from an incentive work plan the purpose of which was to dis-
courage absenteeism . The minutes show, however , that collective bargaining matters
and grievances , were discussed more frequently than once a month. Among the
collective bargaining matters discussed at these meetings are the following: wage
increases , questions as to social security deductions , complaints as to roof repair
and heating of the plant , wage grievances , piece work rates, hours of work,
grievances as to equipment , deferments and replacement schedules under the
Selective Service Act , terms of collective bargaining contracts, overtime grievances,
group insurance , and grievances of discharged employees . Minutes of L. M. C.
meetings were made by a stenographer provided by the Companies and transcripts
of the minutes were given the Association free of charge.
The following is an excerpt from the minutes of an L. M. C. meeting held on
October 21, 1943:
A member of the Committee from Drop Forge stated that there seems to be
an agitator on the second shift of the women grinders . He said that the
women told him to get an outside union in here. They are complaining about
not getting raises. The secretary of the Union stated that the women grinders
informed him they were quitting Friday because they resented newcomers
starting at the same rate as the older employees are getting . The president
of the Union stated that the situation is extremely serious and something
would have to be done immediately . It was explained to the Union that the
17 Thl..tincinlen-c n,,4 +*,,'1, .t........e ...... «...« ^^..--^--..a ._ .^._ ♦ ^i n
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 633
Management is doing its utmost to speed the decision of the War Labor Board.
Mr O'Keefe said he would contact Mr. Lisle immediately and have him come
in. The president of the Union said he was told by the foreman of the night
shift in Magnaflux, Kaminski No. 2100, that the C. I. O. would be in the shop
by November 15. Peterkovich said he did not tell him where he got his informa-
tion O'Keefe said he would call this man in * * *
A member of the Committee from Drop Forge suggested that No. 2000
Wolgast be called in to O'Keefe. He states he is an agitator.
The minutes for a meeting of the L. M. C. held on October 28, 1943, contain the
following:
C 1 0 Statement: The foreman of the grinders on the day shift told a
member of the Drop Forge Committee that he had been misunderstood in his
statement about the C I. O. He told the Commitee member that he had said
that if they didn't get things straightened out the C. I. 0 would be in here
He wasn't in favor of it, though. He is not a member of the Employees Asso-
ciation The Committee member did not know his name * * *
Louis Marta: The member from Drop Forge stated that a lot of dissension
was traced to Marta The union president stated that one day there were ten
people off; they said they do not like him and won't work for him. Marta had
been called into O'Keefe's office along with Birchall, Brown, and Peterkovich
previous to this date, but Mr. O'Keefe stated that Sweeney and Brown should
take this matter up again * * *
Women Grinder Agitator: It was stated by the Union that Lena Sisplea
was an agitator. Mr. O'Keefe to call her in.18
Minutes for the L M C. meeting of December 2, 1943, contains the following
comment :
#2049-J. Barnett, works in the Sandblast , gets 800 an hour. Men working
on machines next to him are only getting 750 an hour . This man belongs to
the C. I. 0., and the other men belong to our own organization
Late in 1943 , a stock issue of the Companies was sold and purchased by employees
of the Forge Companies through a syndicate arrangement , managed by Plant
Manager Sweeney . David Areen , employed by the Companies between September 1,
1928 and June 29, 1944, testified that early in January 1944, he purchased $2,000
worth of stock . The question arose, however , as to whether an employee might
buy stock and still retain his Association membership , since the Association 's by-laws
excluded from membership stockholders of the Forge Company. The following is
an excerpt from the minutes of an Association meeting held on January 2, 1944:
Concerning the possible repeal or revision of the by-laws, President Peter-
kovich promised to seek legal advice and report at the next regular meeting
The matter of Association members holding stock in the Forge Company was
brought up at an L. M. C meeting on January 13, 1944; but, according to the
minutes of that meeting, "question of employees purchasing company stock was
11 O'Keefe denied that as a result of Association complaints at L. M. C. meetings, he had
ever interviewed any employee. The undersigned cannot credit the denial in view of the fact
that the minutes for the L. M. C. meeting of October 28, 1943 , reveal that O'Keefe had
interviewed Marta.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
held in abeyance pending legal advice." Minutes of an L. M. C. meeting of
January 20, 1944, contain the following:
Employees purchasing company stock-in a letter to J. E. Sweeney, legal
counsel advised as follows :
(1) stock may be taken in the name of any blood relative
(2) shares may be held in the name of trustee
It is undisputed that the legal counsel referred to in these minutes was Gilbert F
Wagner, the respondents' attorney.
Areen testified that sometime after January 20, 1944, he determined to dispose
of his stock but before selling he inquired of Comptroller Jirka if he might
"withdraw" his stock since Association members could not hold stock of the
Forge Company According to Areen, Jirka replied, "You don't have to worry
about that, Dave * * * That don't mean nothing." Jirka testified that he did not
recall whether he discussed the stock issue with Areen The undersigned, from his
observation of the witnesses, and in view of Jirka's vague denial, credits Areen's
testimony and finds that Jirka made the statement attributed to him by Areen.
According to the minutes of the Association, discussion concerning the terms
of a contract for the year 1944 commenced at a special meeting held on January 16,
1944, and at the following meeting of February 5, 1944, the membership body
approved a proposed contract to be submitted to the Forge Company and the
First Aviation Company. Delay in the negotiation of an agreement was apparently
encountered because of the pendency of proceedings before the National War
Labor Board for approval of wage increases. At a special meeting on March 19,
1944, the Association rejected a proposed contract offered by the Companies in its
entirety. A second counter-proposal submitted by the Companies was discussed and
rejected at a meeting on April 2, 1944; a motion that the Association "call a strike
vote" unless a workable agreement should be reached by April 12, was passed
unanimously. The strike vote was never taken, however, as it was decided at the
next meeting on April 16 that the "strike vote which was to be called for at this
meeting due to unsatisfactory results of bargaining with the management be post-
poned until after the report of the executive committee on their visit to the
W. L. B"
According to the credible testimony of Homer Watson, employed by the Com-
panies between July 1943 and June 25, 1944, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial
Organizations commenced organizational activities in the plant sometime in the
spring of 1944, the campaign becoming intensive in April. About the same time
the Steel Handlers and Workers Organization, an unaffiliated union, began to
organize the employees.
On April 20, 1944, by a vote of 44 to 37, the membership body of the Association
approved the terms of a contract for the year 1944 negotiated by their represen-
tatives in conjunction with those of the Companies. A few hours thereafter, the
contract was formally executed by the representatives of the Association and the
Companies.19 The contract was between the Companies and "their employees who
are members of" the Association and was in the general form and structure of
the contract for the year immediately preceding. The contract established an
incentive bonus to be paid on a percentage basis of the wage or piece rate provided
the total output of the Companies' forging exceeded certain stated amounts. The
'o The contract states that it was executed on April 3, 1944. This date is probably that on
which the negotiators reached agreement. All witnesses were in agreement that the contract
was not formally executed until April 20, 1944 . The contract was read and its terms discussed
at length at the L. M. C. meeting of April 10, 1944.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 635
bonus was to be paid only to employees who had not been tardy or absent without
just cause during the month and who had not been responsible for bad forgings
Decision on absent and tardy cases should be made by the L. M. C., whereas a
committee composed of two representatives from the inspection department, labor,
and management should sit in judgment on the cases involving bad forgings.
The contract provided also that the wages to be paid during the term of the
agreement should be "in accordance with the established policies of the Company,
and the wage range approved by the War Labor Board * * * When Labor and
Management are in agreement on a wage schedule, the application to the War
Labor Board will be made jointly." After signing the contract, the Companies
invited the Association's representatives to dinner. Most of the representatives
accepted the invitation
Watson testified without contradiction and the undersigned finds that after the
signing of the 1944 contract dissatisfaction still endured on the wage rates and
when employee Frank Peterkovich, president of the Association, suggested that they
"get the American Federation of Labor in here to straighten this out," Watson
offered to, and did, with Peterkovich's consent, consult representatives of the
United Automobile Workers of America, A F. L., herein called the U A W
A special meeting of the Association was held on June 6, 1944, at which Angelo
Inciso, a representative of the U. A. W., explained the advantages which might
evolve from affiliation with the U. A. W.
After this meeting, Watson, according to his testimony, obtained some U A. W.
membership cards from Inciso, and on about June 13, 1944, at a brief meeting of
stewards during working hours on the Companies' property Watson distributed
the cards among the stewards. Watson testified that he immediately "went around
and got as many signed individually" as possible, "starting about 9 00 o'clock in
the morning and going until approximately 2:30 in the afternoon when Mr.
O'Keefe and Mr. Sweeney caught up with [him]."20
Employee William Clinton testified that at a L M. C. meeting in May or June
1944, "the problem of getting more members to attend our Association meetings
was brought up. Frank [Peterkovich] asked Mr Sweeney if the shop stewards
who worked on Sundays might not be paid for the time they took off to attend the
meeting," that Sweeney replied, "It could be arranged," and that from then on
the stewards who were working on Sundays were paid for the time spent in regular
Sunday meetings of the Association. Such pay was either time and a half or
double time. Watson's testimony was corroborative of Clinton's on this issue
Sweeney testified that on only one occasion in April 1944, did he give permission
to Watson and employee Mike Fedorka, stewards of the maintenance and machine
departments, respectively, to go to a Sunday meeting of the Association without
loss of pay for the time spent in attending the meeting. From the undersigned's
observation of the witnesses, he finds that after April 1944, stewards of the Asso-
ciation were permitted to leave work to attend regular Sunday meetings without
loss of pay.
As indicated above, the executive committee of the Association was chosen by
the Companies to represent labor on the L. M. C., despite the fact that according
to the contract then in effect the Association was recognized as the bargaining
agent for its members only and despite the further fact that the Companies were
in contractual relations with the Diesinkers and were also bargaining with an
A. F. of L. organization acting in behalf of the truck drivers. It is clear from
the following excerpt from the minutes of the L. M. C. meeting of June 5, 1944,
20 The details of this incident are hereinafter more fully set forth.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Companies became concerned as to the propriety of the Association's
executive committee representing all employees on the L. M C. and as to the
practice of negotiating and discussing collective bargaining matters at meetings
of the L. M. C.:
KROPP: I have a letter from the War Production Board. (Read letter) I
think we can avoid a lot of misunderstanding if we also have on this Com-
mittee a representative from the die sinkers committee. Now they didn't
approach me at all, or Sweeney, or O'Keefe.
SWEENEY: I think we should all be together.
WATSON: The same holds true for the non-members of the Asspciation
O'KEEFE: Probably we should have a representative of the non-union. You
have a list of the members, don't you?
SWEENEY : I think we should have a representative of the other associations
that are in here. They have three and they should be in here.
KROPP: No not all three of them. Just one member.
PETER21: There's the shop steward All things are reported to them. There
for a while, everything was going fine in that department Your war worker
could do anything on a line of trimmers. Why is it all of a sudden that they
can't touch none of that work?
KROPP: Maybe it would be a good idea to have one of them here to answer
that.
O'KEEFE: The point is that we can discuss these things all day, but it won't
make one bit of difference to the die sinkers.
PETER: Why do they hold them back when the Army and Navy tell them
they can do rough work up to one-eighth of an inch' Because they are afraid
they'll learn too much.
S WEENEY : They can have only one apprentice to every ten
KROPP: What do you fellows think of that?
CLINTON' It's sound.
AREEN : That's fine.
WATSON: What about your laboratory?
KROPP : Well, then you would be getting into your office. This shouldn't be
the place for bargaining for your association. This is for more production
and more improvement. * * *
PETER: There was a man ready to walk out because the price on a piece
wasn't right. He said the job was worth six instead of three. I told him to gi.e
the job a fair trial.
KROPP: I don't think things like that should come up at a Labor-Management
meeting.
David Areen, employed by the respondents between September 1, 1928 and June
29, 1944, testified that about June 7 or 14, 1944, Sweeney asked him to come to
Sweeney's office and asked, "Dave * * * what do you know about the A F of L?"
Sweeney denied that he ever discussed outside unions with any employee or asked
any employee what he knew about the A. F. of L. From his observation of the
witnesses , the undersigned does not credit Sweeney's general denial but finds that
Sweeney inquired about the A. F. of L. as testified to by Areen
On June 12, 1944, the following notice was posted on the Companies' bulletin
boards:
It has been a long established policy at Kropp Forge Company and Kropp
Forge Aviation Company that no emloyee is required to join or refrain from
21 An abbreviation for Peterkovich.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 637
joining any labor organization to secure or to hold a job, and that there is no
discrimination against any employee because of membership or non-membership
in any organization. The right of employee freedom of choice in the matter
of joining or not joining a union is consistent with the guarantee of the
Wagner Act.
Roy A. KROPP,
President
On June 13, 1944, the U. A. W. by letter informed the Companies that a sub-
,,tantial number of employees had affiliated with the U. A. W., requested that
a meeting be held in order to reach an "understanding with respect to bargaining
nights," and suggested that no collective bargaining agreements be entered into with
any other organization "until the issue of bargaining rights with respect to our
own organization has been definitely cleared." On June 16, 1944, the Companies
replied by letter, setting forth the contents of the notice posted on June 12, and
stating that they were willing to meet with the U. A. W. representatives at any time
On June 26, 1944, a committee of five employees called upon James F. Kelley,
representative of the Union, and plans were made to hold a meeting on June 29, 1944.
About 10.30 in the morning of June 27, 1944, Angelo Inciso, a representative
of the U. A. W., telephoned Vice-President Raymond B. Kropp and stated, accord-
ing to the undenied and credible testimony of O'Keefe, that "unless a meeting were
arranged immediately he would shut the plant down." Shortly thereafter that
morning a work stoppage of an hour's duration occurred in the flat die department.
Peterkovich, president of the Association, was summoned to Raymond B Kropp's
office, where O'Keefe, Raymond B. Kropp, and Roy A. Kropp were present
According to the credible testimony of O'Keefe, Peterkovich was asked "what this
whole situation was all about," but his explanation was not very clear, although
"he did say that the men had a lot of grievances." The interview ended with
Peterkovich's promising to get the employees back to work. In the afternoon of
June 27, Peterkovich returned to the office and, according to O'Keefe, requested
"because of all these grievances that were allegedly piling up in the plant * * *
to have a meeting to see * * * if they couldn't get this thing straightened out and
make the men happier." Peterkovich stated that he would like to hold a meeting
on June 29, between 3 and 5 in the afternoon and requested that the Companies
permit the day shift to leave work an hour early and the night shift employees
to start work an hour late in order to attend the meeting According to O'Keefe,
Peterkovich "gave as his reason for having a meeting on that particular day that
he couldn't get the fellows together on Sunday," because of unseasonably warm
weather and the employees' reluctance to give any of their Sunday leisure time
to a regular meeting of the Association. The Companies granted his request that
employees be dismissed from work to attend the meeting.
On June 28, 1944, a meeting was held in Roy Kropp's office; among those present
were Raymond B. Kropp, Roy Kropp, Sweeney, OKeefe, Watson, Peterkovich, and
Inciso. According to O'Keefe's credible testimony, Inciso claimed that his organiza-
tion, the U. A. W., represented a majority of the plant employees and requested
the Companies to consent to an election The Companies' counsel demanded proof
of Inciso's majority representation. Inciso did not produce any evidence to support
his claim. Thereupon, the Companies refused to consent to an election on the
ground that no proof of majority representation had been furnished by the
U. A. W and that the Companies were in contractual relations with the Associa-
tion. At this meeting, Inciso asked Peterkovich whether the Association would
affiliate with the U. A. W. Peterkovich decided that it would not.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Clinton testified without contradiction and the undersigned finds that
when Clinton asked Superintendent Tom Lane for a raise near the end of June
1944, Lane inquired what Clinton "knew about the A. F. of L." According to
Clinton, he replied that "there was activity within the shop" ; whereupon Lane
stated, "We don't want the A. F. of L. in here * * * They won't do us any
good * * * The Association could do as much for the men as any outside organiza-
tion, or more."22 '
On June 28, 1944, the Union, in conjunction with the International Association
of Machinists, A. F. L, distributed its first circular at the entrance to the plant,
advertising a meeting of the Union to be held the next day, pursuant to the
arrangements made on June 26.
On June 29, 1944, in accordance with the arrangements made 2 days earlier,
the Association held a meeting between 3 and 5 p. m In obedience to Sweeney's
instructions, supervisors told day shift employees that they would be excused
an hour earlier in order to attend the meeting. Employees on the night shift re-
ported an hour later for work; some were told of the meeting by guards when
they appeared at the plant. None of the employees who took the hour off suffered
any deduction in pay. It appears that production was shut down only in the forge
shop. Comptroller Jirka testified, and the undersigned finds, that 205 employees
were paid for time spent in the Association meeting of June 29, 1944, that only
forge shop employees took the time off, and that time card records reveal that
diesinkers, truck drivers, and machine shop employees did not leave the plant.
The 200 assembled employees at the Association meeting was by far the largest
attendance ever had at an Association meeting. A total of 11 or 13 employees
attended the Union's meeting which was held in two sessions , one for the day
shift employees and the other for the employees on the night shift at the same
time as the Association meeting.
Arthur B. Collins, president of the Association since July 1944, testified without
contradiction and the undersigned finds that in October or November 1944, three
meetings of the Association's stewards were held after working hours in the
plant lunchroom to confer with representatives of hospitalization plans but that
upon learning of the meetings, Raymond B. Kropp ordered them to discontinue
the practice of holding meetings in the lunchroom.
Employee Alfred Shoppel testified that after employee Arthur B Collins became
president of the Association in July 1944, steward meetings were frequently held
in the lunchroom in the plant near the close of the day shift during working
hours. Shoppel further testified that he attended a stewards' meeting in the
lunchroom during the latter part of Peterkovich's tenure as president of the
Association.
On July 3, 1944, the Union filed its original charge alleging that the Companies
were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
of the Act.
By letter dated on October 27, 1944, the Union requested that the Forge Com-
pany and the Second Aviation Company grant it exclusive recognition as the
representative of the employees of the machine shop powerhouse. On November
3, 1944, the Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company replied that they
could not grant the requested recognition because of the existence of contracts
with the Association and the Die Sinkers.
22 Lane did not testify at the hearing , being confined to a state penal institution . Clinton
impressed the undeisigned as an especially forthright and intelligent witness, whose testimony
is entitled to credence.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 639
On November 24, 1944, the Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company
announced that the following grievance procedure would be incorporated into their
"Labor Relations Policy" ;
Whenever an employee has a grievance, it should be brought to the atten-
tion of the foreman. If the employee is unable to obtain satisfaction, the shop
steward should be called in an effort to reach a decision. If this step proves
inadequate, the foreman and the shop steward should present the problem to
the superintendent. If after the problem has been analyzed by these men and
it has not been solved, a complete report on the matter should be made in
triplicate on forms which will be provided for this purpose. Copies of this
report should be sent to R. T. O'Keefe, Jr., Labor Relations Manager, R. A.
Kropp, President, and R B. Kropp, Vice President.
The officers of the Employees' Association of the Kropp Forge Company
will take up all matters pertaining to labor relations with the Labor Relations
Manager.
Although some doubt as to the propriety of handling collective bargaining
matters at L M. C. meetings was expressed in June 1944, as above related, the
practice of discussing and disposing of such matters continued Question as to the
propriety of such discussion arose again at an L. M. C meeting on December 18,
1944, from the minutes of which the following is an excerpt:
O'KEEFE: What do you think of having them spend so much time on griev-
ances here at the Labor-Management Committee meetings?
Kropp : That's all right.
WAGNER: When the grievance comes to the meeting get it in writing.
O'KEEFE: We're getting the forms printed up now.
On February 26, 1945, the Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company
entered into a contract with the Association, effective March 1, 1945, for the term
of one year. This contract was the first in the series of agreements between the
Association and the respondents to fulfill more adequately those standards com-
monly considered to be essential in collective bargaining agreements. For the first
time in contractual form, the Association.was recognized as the exclusive bargaining
representative for all employees except the diesinkers, The L. M. C. made its
second appearance in the Association's contracts by the following provision:
There is to be a Labor Management Committee consisting of not to exceed
six members designated by the Union [the Association] and at least three and
not to exceed six members, designated by the Company, which Committee shall
meet weekly for the purpose of discussing any and all grievances and com-
plaints, or other matters having to do .with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. The prime purpose of this Committee will be to investigate and
ascertain the facts and settle grievances If any grievance cannot be settled by
the Labor Management Committee by a majority vote of both the represen-
tatives of the Union and the Management, other than the matters set forth in
Article VIII hereof, then such grievance shall be submitted to arbitration.
Roy A. Kropp, the President of the Company, Raymond B. Kropp, Vice
President and Treasurer of the Company, and Raymond O'Keefe, Industrial
Relations Director, shall, during the period of this contract, act as representa-
tives of the Company upon the Labor Management Committee.
The grievance procedure inaugurated on November 24, 1944, was incorporated
into the agreement. For the first time, there was provision for arbitration of
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matters in dispute. The seniority provisions were more detailed than in earlier
contracts.
As mentioned previously, the by-laws of the Association exclude "foremen,
superintendents, and their assistants" from memberhsip in the Association. How-
ever, in later years employees who were promoted to foremen's positions did not
always withdraw from the Association but continued their membership and dues
deductions, participated in meetings, and wore Association buttons at work. The
record reveals that at various times between August 7, 1943 and May 1945, dues
of at least 14 or 15 foremen were deducted for varying periods of time 23 Collins,
president of the Association, testified that the fact that employees who were pro-
moted to foremen's positions continued their Association membership was first
brought to his attention when a foreman presented a grievance in February or
March 1945, and that in March 1945, Collins obtained a list of foremen being
carried on the check-off list and had their names removed from the list.
Watson's activities on June 13, 1944
Watson was employed as a maintenance electrician and according to his testimony,
his duties required him to work in all parts of the Companies' plants. When
Sweeney and O'Keefe "caught up" with Watson on June 13, 1944, the latter was in
the boiler room of the First Aviation Company's plant talking to Engineer Fred
Strong. Watson testified that Sweeney inquired, "What are you doing here, Mike?
... What business have you over here?", that Watson replied that he was talking
to Strong and explained that his work brought him there frequently, and that
Sweeney ordered Watson to return to Sweeney's office with O'Keefe. Watson
further testified that he and O'Keefe went to Sweeney's office where they were
joined by Sweeney a few minutes later, that Sweeney asked, "Mike, what are
you doing?", that when Watson did not reply, Sweeney stated, "Well, Mike, I
won't tolerate any lobbying on company time . . . for unions or for organization
purposes," and ordered him to report to William Lamb, chief engineer of the
Companies and Watson's supervisor. According to Watson, he was confined, on
Lamb's orders, to the shop from that day until his lay-off about June 23, 1944.
On cross-examination Watson admitted that he spent half his time between 9:00
a. in. and 2:30 p. in. on the day in question in soliciting U. A. W. memberships;
18 The record establishes that during the wartime period of rapid expansion, personnel
records and files of the Companies were in a chaotic state, classifications of employees an,:
foremen were often fragmentary or non-existent, and not until 1944 or 1945 were adequate
records assembled. Raymond J. McCarthy, employed in the personnel department, and other
witnesses for the respondent testified that not until the grievance procedure was established
on November 24, 1944, did foreman possess any supervisory duties and that they were
merely "straw bosses." They further testified that foremen had no power to hire or discharge
or recommend such action until March 9, 1945, when the following notice was posted
"Assistant foremen and assistant supervisors have no authority to hire, promote, reclassify,
discharge , discipline, or otherwise make any changes whatsoever in the status of any employee,
nor are they permitted or authorized to recommend any such action." According to these
witnesses , all supervisory authority over the employees, who numbered as many as 1350 at
peak periods, was lodged in 14 superintendents and department heads The undersigned does not
credit this testimony O'Keefe admitted that as early as January 1944, it was not unusual for
discharge slips to come to the personnel office containing the recommendation for dismissal
by a foreman, that foremen were frequently called in to assist in the interview of new appli-
cants, and that he respected a foreman 's "technical judgment." The number of employees
subordinate to superintendents ranged between 3 and 250. Some foremen are in charge of as
many as 40 employees. Foremen are paid at least 50 cents an hour more than ordinary pro-
duction workers. It is clear that employees regard their foremen as supervisors . The undersigned
finds that at all times material herein foremen were supervisory employees whose activities
and statements are attributed to the respondents.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 641
and when asked if he did not "overdo it that day," he testified, "It is a question
of conscience with me whether that is overdoing or not overdoing."
With regard to this incident, O'Keefe testified as follows: Several employees
had reported during the morning in question that "Watson was circulating applica-
tion cards of the American Federation of Labor, and that he was going all over
the plant and that people were stopping work to listen to his conversation " O'Keefe
then went to Sweeney's office, reported "what was going on," and was told that
Sweeney "had had similar reports." Sweeney and O'Keefe went out in search
of Watson, stopping first at Superintendent Lamb's office, the headquarters of the
electrical maintenance department. No one in the office knew of Watson's where-
abouts. They had Watson paged on the "auto call", an inter-plant communication
device used to convey messages to employees in the plant When no answer was
made to the call, Sweeney and O'Keefe went to various departments of the plants
and after considerable search located Watson in the boiler room of the First
Aviation Company's plant. O'Keefe could not hear the colloquy that transpired
between Watson and Sweeney, but the latter ordered Watson to return to
Sweeney's office in O'Keefe company. Watson and O'Keefe went to Sweeney's
office. When the latter arrived a few minutes later, he said to Watson, "I think
you are a little bit out of bonds. You know we don't mind any ordinary activity
in this plant, but apparently you have spent the greater part of your time dis-
tributing these cards and it is getting to be too much." According to O'Keefe,
"Watson admitted, laughingly, that he thought he had gone pretty far with it."
Sweeney testified that Watson's duties did not include any work in the First
Aviation Company's plant in 1944, that Watson had proved to be an excellent
repairman of cranes and was kept in the Forge Company's plant for crane repair
and shop work. He later testified, however, that the breakdown in cranes com-
menced about 2 weeks before the day in question and on that day Watson was
limited to work in the Forge Company's plant. According to Sweeney, on the day
of the incident above described, he had received many complaints "because the
crane was out in the middle bay and also the loading crane was down" The
repair was of the type in which Watson specialized Wanting to know where
Watson might be found, Sweeney saw O'Keefe. Sweeney's testimony as to the
details of the search was corroborative of O'Keefe's. Sweeney testified that when
they found Watson, he was talking to two men, that Sweeney inquired what
he was doing in the First Aviation Company's plant, that Watson replied "I was
over here on some work," that Sweeney remonstrated, "You have no work over
ht-e. Your assignment is over in the forge shop, Kropp Forge," that Watson
admitted, "Well, I was just talking to the fellows here," and that Sweeney
ordered Watson to return to Sweeney's office with O'Keefe. In his office, Sweeney
again inquired as to the reason for Watson's presence in the Aviation plant and
Watson again insisted that he was there on electrical work. When Sweeney stated,
according to his testimony, "You couldn't Mike, because you were not assigned
over there. You were doing something else. You have been doing something else
all day, because those cranes haven't had attention over there," Watson then
admitted, "I was over talking to the boys." Sweeney testified that he then said,
"Mike, I do not like this. Now, you go back where you belong and stay there . .
You are going beyond the bounds of liberalization." Sweeney denied that anything
was said about union activities in the conversation and denied that after this
incident any change was made in the nature and place of Watson's work, and
contended that Watson's duties were the same after as before the incident, that is,
limited to the Forge Company's plant
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ernest Anderson, who was Watson' s foreman , testified that only one electrician
was permanently assigned to the Aviation plant with headquarters in the boiler
room of such plant, that more electrical work arose in the old plant of Forge
Company, that Watson's headquarters were in the old plant, that he did much
repair work on cranes, that he was assigned to work in the old plant except when
an emergency arose and he was sent over into the new plant, that subsequent to
Watson's A. F. of L. activities but prior to the severance of employ with the
Companies, Superintendent Lamb instructed Anderson to keep Watson in the shop
"to keep him out of trouble." On cross-examination, Anderson explained Lamb's
instruction to mean that Watson was to be kept "at shop work unless there arose
an emergency" and that such instructions were identical to those Watson had been
working under previous to the A. F. of L. solicitation incident.
In view of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Watson worked most of the
time in the old plant, was an expert on crane repair, and in emergencies was
assigned to work in the new Aviation plant ; that on the day in' question the
search for him was occasioned by complaints that he was interfering with produc-
tion by soliciting A F of L. memberships during working hours and that his
services were necessary to the repair of cranes; that when O'Keefe and Sweeney
found Watson in the new plant, the latter had not duties requiring his presence
there; and that following the incident he was not confined discriminatorily to
shop work.
The Board's counsel contended that the reprimand and discipline meted out to Wat-
son for engaging in A F. of L activities during working hours was discriminatory
in view of the unbridled practice of employees to solicit Association memberships
during working hours. The record clearly establishes that the respondents permitted
their employees to engage not only in Association activities but also in activities
in behalf of the A. F. of L. and other organizations during working hours without
restraint, except in the case of the Watson incident above described Although
the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the undersigned is of the opinion and
finds that the reprimand of Watson was justified since he spent at least 2/ hours
away from work soliciting memberships and thus unduly exceeded the privilege
of engaging in union activities during working hours.
B. Conclusions
Although the desire for a bargaining agent apparently originated with the em-
ployees in that, at employee Ohlson's suggestion, the Union and the International
Association of Machinists, A. F. L., distributed circulars outside the Forge
Company's plant in October 1939, the Forge Company, through Plant Manager
Hellstrom, immediately voiced its opposition to such organizational efforts; and
later, upon the intensification of the employees' interest in self organization, re-
vealed by the circulation in December 1939 during working hours24 of the round
34 Throughout the history of the Association , memberships were solicited and dues were
collected openly and without restraint during working hours. However, it is clear that similar
activities of the A. F. of L. and other organizations were not impaired by the respondents,
except in the justifiable restraint of Watson's U. A. W. solicitation previously discussed. The
undersigned accordingly does not find that the unrestrained solicitation of memberships and
collection of dues by the Association during working hours constituted illegal assistance to the
Association. Similarly , bulletin boards of the respondents were commonly used by the Asso-
ciation for the posting of its notices , but the respondent's policy in this regard was to permit
any type of notice to be posted on the boards. Although the record does not establish that
notices of other organizations were placed upon these boards, there is no showing that they
were denied a place thereon . The undersigned accordingly does not find that the posting of
the Association notices on bulletin boards of the respondents was illegal assistance.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 643
robin petitions to form an organization of some sort, the Forge Company promptly
attempted to direct the organizational efforts of its employees into channels leading
to the formation of a shop union. Thus, President Kropp assembled the key
employees of the plant to meet with the Forge Company's officers and at this
meeting in mid-December the employees were urged "to make it a shop organiza-
tion." Although President Kropp professed on the morning of December 30, 1939,
that it was immaterial whether the employees formed an independent organization
or affiliated with the A. F. of L., in no uncertain terms he expressed his abhorrence
of the C. I. O. Clearly, such statements, concerning matters of no concern to the
Forge Company, were improper infringement upon the employees' rights to
organize free of interference, restraint, or coercion on the part of the employer.
Further impetus to the formation of a shop organization desired by the Forge
Company was subtly afforded by the quickly arranged holiday party on December
30, 1939, after the announcement that the employees would meet on that day on
the Forge Company's property to decide upon the form of organization they
would have. The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the employees were
unduly influenced in their balloting as a result of the announcement by the Forge
Company of this first and sudden "holiday" party at such a strategic time, since
the employees were aware of the Forge Company's theretofore expressed desire
for the formation of an unaffiliated union and since it is reasonable to assume that
the employees might accede to the Forge Company's desires in order to prove
themselves worthy of the unexpected display of largess on the part of the Forge
Company. The effect of the Forge Company's campaign to influence its employees
to form a shop organization is clearly disclosed by the balloting at the December 30
meeting; the vote was almost unanimous to form an unaffiliated organization of the
type urged by the Forge Company. The approval of the Forge Company of the
form of organization chosen by the employees is further revealed by the con-
gratulations extended to Ohlson at the party by Foremen Carlson and Dahl "on
the choice of an organization."
Also indicative of the Association's domination and support by the Forge
Company was the latter's prompt oral grant of exclusive recognition to the
Association upon request following its formal organization without determining
whether the Association represented a majority of employees. In the brief period
of contract negotiation in 1940, the Association submitted a proposed agreement
and the Forge Company answered with a tentative contract, which the Association
accepted. As previously noted, this contract made no provision for the exclusive
recognition status of the Association or for a grievance procedure of arbitration
awards Although under certain circumstances the absence of an exclusive recogni-
tion provision in a collective bargaining contract has not been significant,25 in the
opinion of the undersigned, under the circumstances of the instant case, the absence
of such a contract provision, as well as the failure of the agreement to meet common
standards of collective bargaining agreements, is indicative both of the weakness
and impotence of the Association as a company-dominated organization and of the
Forge Company's determination to continue domination of the Association.
Further support was lent the Association in the first year of its existence by
the Forge Company's assumption of the arrangements and expenses for the picnic
in July 1941. Although the idea of holding the picnic originated with the Associa-
tion, the Forge Company, upon learning of the plans, appropriated, with the
Association's consent, the planning and arrangements for the picnic, bore all the
expenses thereof, and each year thereafter sponsored a picnic for employees and
'° See Matter of Standard Oil Company of California, 62 N L. R B. 449.
696966-46-42
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their families. It is thus clear that the prestige of the Association was enhanced,
being rightfully able to claim credit for the inauguration of the annual pi inic
festivities. To that extent, the undersigned finds that by assuming the plans and
expenses of the 1941 picnic, the Forge Company lent illegal assistance to the
Association and unwarrantedly interfered with the affairs of the Association
The contracts for each of the four years following the 1940 agreement are also
indicative of the Companies' continued domination of the Association and of the
latter's illusory status as a bargaining agent Although in 1940 the Association
had been orally recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative, such recog-
nition was not stated in the contract for that year In the four succeeding years,
however, the contracts in effect limited the Association's bargaining authority to
that of representative for its members only, and like the first contract failed to
meet the standards of collective bargaining agreements. Despite this limited
recognition explicit by the contracts' terms, the Companies permitted the Associa-
tion to bargain for all employees and extended the benefits of the Association's
members-only contracts to all employees. The Association was thus in the
enhanced position of being able to claim itself the procurer of various benefits for
all employees despite the fact that legally it was limited in recognition as a
bargaining agency for its members only. The Association's lack of vitality as a
labor organization, frequently found in dominated unions, is also shown by the
fact that the employees' interest had declined therein to such an extent that it was
impossible to hold meetings between June 7 and December 6, 1942, because a
quorum of 14 members was lacking at each of the meetings regularly scheduled
during this period.
More concrete support, easily measurable in monetary value, was afforded the
Association, with little effort on its part, by the check-off system inaugurated in
February 1943, retroactive to the beginning of the year, inasmuch as the Associa-
tion bore no part of the expense incurred by the respondents' clerical staff in
administering the check-off from 1943 to the date of the hearing and as the
income derived under this system greatly exceeded in amount that attained by
individual collection or voluntary payment of dues, to say nothing of the ease of
securing the dues under the check-off.
The Association's position as a dominated and supported organization is forcibly
established by the role it has played in the L. M. C., in effect since August 1943
Contrary to the specific instructions of the W. P. B that "if a recognized union
exists, the labor members are selected by some method satisfactory to the em-
ployees," the Companies unilaterally chose for the employees' representative the
executive committee of the Association, an organization whose recognition, under
the then current contract, was restricted as a bargaining agent for its members
only. Even had the Association been the exclusive representative of the plant
employees, it is clear that the method followed by the Companies in designating the
Association's executive committee as the representative of labor on the L. M. C
was contrary to the specific instructions of W. P B ; moreover, the Association did
not represent the diesinkers and truck drivers, both of which classifications were
never given any voice on the L. M. C.
Also contrary to the directive of the W. P. B. that the L M. C. "is not a plan
to promote company unions" or "a device to increase the power or position of any
union" or "interfere with any bargaining machinery or undertake its functions,"
as well as the specific instruction that "grievances and collective bargaining matters
will not be handled by the joint production committee but will be referred to
collective bargaining or other established machinery," the L. M. C. soon undertook
to handle all grievances and collective bargaining matters affecting all employees.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 645
In its functioning, the L. M. C. had many of the vices inherent to the Employee
Representation Plans, which have uniformly been held to be violative of the Act.
In hand-picking the labor members, however, the Companies exceeded the bounds
of illegality achieved in the Employee Representation Plans. As in those Plans,
management and labor were represented by an equal number of representatives
on the L. M. C ; representatives of labor and of management each possessed the
same number of votes and collective bargaining matters were disposed of by a
balloting process. At no cost to the Association, the respondents furnished a
stenographer to take minutes as well as free copies of the minutes. Excerpts from
L. M. C. minutes previously set forth clearly show the paternalistic attitude
accorded the Association by the respondent and the subservient attitude of the
Association. The minutes are replete with Association complaints against "agitators"
and the menace of C. I. O. infiltration into the plant; in regard to both types of
complaint the Companies promised to investigate and to call in for interviews
"agitators" and C. I. O. adherents. In view of the method of establishment of the
L. M. C., and the procedures followed in its operations, it is clear not only that the
Association was illegally assisted by being designated by the Companies as the
representative of labor therein but also that the respondents utilized the L. M. C.
in furtherance of their policies of dominating the Association and of preventing
the plant's organization by an outside union.26
In December 1943 or January 1944, question arose as to whether members of the
Association could buy and hold stock of the Companies and yet retain their affilia-
tion with the Association, in view of the provision in the bylaws excluding stock-
holders from membership in the Association. The matter was discussed in meetings
of both the Association and the L. M. C. and was finally settled by the legal advice
rendered by Gilbert F. Wagner, counsel for the respondents, without charge to the
Association, to the effect that the stock might be taken in the name of a blood
relative or a trustee. Although in a sense the stock issue question was a concern
of the Companies, the undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the free legal
counsel afforded the Association by the Companies and the remarks of Jirka made
in regard to the stock issue constituted unwarranted support and interference
with the affairs of the Association.
In 1944, threatened with the possibility that the C. I. O. might succeed in
organizing the plant, the Association and the Companies at last hurriedly executed
a contract, the terms of which were so dissatisfactory that by June a movement
had started to bring the U. A. W. into the plant. About the same time, in May
or June 1944, the practice commenced of excusing stewards from working on
Sunday during the hours scheduled for Association meetings, but with no reduction
in pay for the time lost from work in such meetings. Such practice was clearly
assistance to the Association.
kfter the employees displayed interest in the U. A. W., Plant Manager Sweeney
inquired of employee Areen about June 7 or 14, 1944, what he knew "about the
A. F. of L." Near the end of June 1944 Superintendent Lane asked employee Clinton
what he "knew about the A. F. of L." and stated, as previously noted, that "We
don't want the A. F. of L. in here * * * They won't do us any good The Associa-
tion could do as much for the men as any outside organization or more." On
June 29, 1944, with full knowledge of the U. A. W.'s interest in the plant, the
Companies closed down part of the plant in order that the employees might attend
a special meeting of the Association and furthermore did not impose any reduction
I
24 See Matter of Thompson Products, Inc., 57 N. L. R. B. 925.
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in pay of employees for the time lost in attending the meeting.27 A more effective
means of assistance to the Association at a particularly crucial time is hardly
conceivable.
Finally, the retention of Association membership by employees who were pro-
moted to foremen's positions, their participation in Association meetings, and their
wearing of Association buttons at work clothed the Association with an aura of
company approval and support which the respondents never later repudiated,
despite their knowledge through the check-off system of such association member-
ship of foremen.28
The respondents and the Association contend that the Association was organized
by the employees without any interference or support on the part of the respondents
and since the formation of the Association the respondents have bargained with
it at arms length. They deny that the respondents did anything to influence em-
ployees in their selection or retention of the Association as a bargaining agent.
The facts outlined above effectively refute these contentions It is clear that the
Association came into existence and was thereafter administered under "conditions
or circumstances which the employer created or for which [it] was fairly
responsible and as a result of which it may reasonably be inferred that the
employees did not have that complete and unfettered freedom of choice which the
Act contemplates."29 Upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes and finds
that the respondents have dominated and interfered with the administration of the
Association and have contributed support to it, and that the respondents thereby, and
by the statements of Helistrom, Roy Kropp, Sweeney, Jirka, and Lane,30 heretofore
set forth, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company set
forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company described in Section I, above,
have, and those of the First Aviation Company had, a close, intimate, and
3' The respondents contend that they were compelled by the regulations of the Wages and
Hours Division of the U. S. Department of Labor to pay the employees for the time spent in
the Association meeting of June 29, 1944. A year later the respondents wrote the Wages and
Hours Division asking for an official ruling on facts similar to those involved in the June 29,
1944 meeting; the Wages and Hours Division replied that payment was required under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The undersigned finds no merit in the respondent's contention. It
seems too clear for argument that in the enforcement of the Act, the Board is not bound by the
rulings or findings of another administrative agency. Cf. Matter of Standard Oil Company of
California, 61 N. L. R. B. 1251.
33 The posting of the notice on June 12, 1944, was insufficient under the circumstances to
relieve the fespondents from responsibility for this and earlier acts of domination, support, and
interference with the Association. Cf. Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 11 N L R B
738; Matter of Aintree Corporation, 37 N. L. R B 1174, enf'g 132 F (2d) 469 (C C. A. 7),
cert. den 318 U. S. 774.
39 N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Company, 311 U. S. 584, 588, reversing modification of Board's
order in 110 F (2d) 506 (C. C. A 7), enf'g 12 N. L. R B 854
30 The respondents contend that these statements are privileged by the free speech guarantee
of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The undersigned finds the
contention to be without merit. Viewed in connection with all the circumstances and the re-
spondents ' acts of domination , support , and interference with the Association, the statements
were an unjustifiable interference with the rights guaranteed the employees in the Act Cf
Matter of Reliance Manufacturing Company, 28 N. L. R. B. 1051, enf'd as mod. 125 F. (2d)
311 (C. C A. 7); Matter of M E. Blatt Company, 38 N. L. R. B 1210 and 47 N L R. B
1055, enf'd 143 F. (2d) 248 (C. C. A. 3), cert. den. 323 U S 774.
RROPP FORGE COMPANY 647
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 that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that the Forge Company and the Second Aviation
Company cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act 31
It has been found that the respondents have dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of and contributed support to the Association.
Because of the respondents' domination, interference, and support, the Association
is incapable of serving the respondents' employees as a genuine and independent
collective bargaining agency, and constitutes a continuing obstacle to the free
exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them in the Act. Accordingly,
the undersigned will recommend that the Forge Company and the Second Aviation
Company disestablish and withdraw all recognition of the Association as a represen-
tative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the Forge Com-
pany and the Second Aviation Company concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
Since the respondents have utilized the L M. C. to support, dominate, and interfere
with the administration of the Association, it will also be necessary to recommend
that the Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company discontinue the
L M. C as a medium for dealing with their employees with respect to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment
The agreements entered into between the respondents and the Association have
been a means whereby the respondents have utilized the employer-dominated labor
organization to frustrate self-organization and defeat genuine collective bargaining
by their employees. Under these circumstances any continuation, renewal, or
modification of the current agreement would perpetuate the conditions which have
deprived employees of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act and would render
ineffectual other portions of these recommendations. The undersigned will therefore
further recommend that the Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company
cease and desist from giving effect to or performing any agreement between them
and the Association relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, now existing, and to refrain from entering into,
renewing, or extending any agreement with the Association relating to such
matters Nothing herein shall be taken, however, to require the Forge Company
and the Second Aviation Company to vary those wages, hours, and other sub-
,tantove features of their relation with the employees, if any, which they have
established in performance of any agreement as extended, renewed, modified, sup-
plemented, or superseded
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the folowing
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers,
A. F. of L., and Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero,
Illinois, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
91 Since the First Aviation Company has been dissolved under the laws of Illinois , the under-
signed will not recommend any action it nught take to comply with the Act.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois, and con-
tributing support thereto, the Forge Company and the Second Aviation Company
have engaged in and are engaging in, and the First Aviation Company had engaged
in and was engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Forge Company and the
Second Aviation Company have engaged in and are engaging in, and the First
Aviation Company had engaged in and was engaging in, unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondents, Kropp Forge Company and Kropp
Forge Aviation Co., Cicero, Illinois, and their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or contributing support
to, Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois, and
dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of, or contributing
support to, any other labor organization of their employees;
(b) Recognizing Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of
Cicero, Illinois, as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose
of dealing with the Kropp Forge Company and Kropp Forge Aviation Co, con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment ;
(c) Giving effect to the contract of February 26, 1945, with Employees Associa-
tion of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois, or to any modification,
extension, or renewal thereof, or to any other contract with the Association embody-
ing terms or conditions of employment or recognition of the Association as a
bargaining agent;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers
and Helpers, 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 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 all recognition from Employees Association of the Kropp Forge
Company of Cicero, Illinois, completely disestablish that organization as the
representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Kropp Forge Company and Kropp Forge Aviation Co, concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and discontinue the Labor-Management Committee as a medium for
dealing with their employees with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
KROPP FORGE COMPANY 649
(b) Post at their plants at Cicero, Illinois , copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the represen-
tative of the Kropp Forge Company and Kropp Forge Aviation Co, be posted by
them immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Kropp Forge Company and Kropp Forge Aviation Co, to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps they have
taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Kropp Forge Company and Kropp
Forge Aviation Co., notify said Regional Director in writing that they will
comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring them to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
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 25, 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 proceedings (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) 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 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.
FREDERIc B. PARKES, 2ND,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 10, 1945.
APPENDIX A
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 hereby disestablish Employees Association of the Kropp Forge Company
of Cicero, Illinois, as the representative of any of our employees for the pur-
pose 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.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We will discontinue the Labor -Management Committee as a medium for
dealing with our employees with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
We will not give effect to the contract of February 26, 1945, with the Em-
ployees Association of the Kropp Forge Company of Cicero, Illinois, or to
any other contract with said organization.
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 International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers,
A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection All our em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor
organization.
KROPP FORGE COMPANY
KROPP FORGE AVIATION 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.