Lakeshore Electric Mfg. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 804 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of LAKmxoRE ELECTRIC MFG. CORP. and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 8-C-1875.Decided April 06, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 4, 1946, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief. The respondent's request for oral argument before
the Board at Washington, D. C., was denied because it was not made
timely, as required by the Board's Rules and Regulations.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
The Trial Examiner found that, on and after November 1, 1945,
the respondent, in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the duly designated bargain-
ing representative of the respondent's employees in an appropriate
unit. To remedy this unfair labor practice, the Trial Examiner rec-
ommended that the respondent be directed to bargain, upon request,
with the Union. We agree.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
IIn its brief before the Board , the respondent has moved to reopen the record to intro-
duce additional evidence . No explanation is given as to the nature of the evidence which
the respondent seeks to introduce , its availability at the time of the hearing before the
Trial Examiner , or as to the reason for the respondent 's failure to introduce it at that
time. The motion is hereby denied.
67 N. L. R. B., No. 105.
804
LAKESHORE ELECTRIC MFG. CORP. 805
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Lakeshore Electric Mfg.
Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers of America (CIO), as the exclusive representative
of its production and maintenance employees including working
foremen, but excluding clerical employees, and foremen with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees or effectively recommend such action;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO), to bargain collectively
with it as the representative of its employees in the appropriate unit
described above.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO), as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other con-
ditions of employment :
(b) Post at its plant in Cleveland, Ohio, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A." 2
Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it 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 respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleve-
land, Ohio), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Richard C. Swander, Esq, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Board.
Ruth Merson, Field Organizer, 830 Vincent Avenue, Cleveland 14, Ohio, and
Joseph Kres, Local Representative, 1000 Walnut Street, Cleveland, Ohio, for the
Union.
Morton H. Stotter, Esq., 816 Hippodrome Building, Cleveland 14, Ohio, for
the respondent.
2 Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order."
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OT THE CASE
On an amended charge filed January 17, 1946, by United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America (CIO), herein referred to as the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on January 17, 1946, by
the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its'com-
plaint against Lakeshore Electric Mfg. Corp., of Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint together with copies of the amended charge and a notice
of hearing and continuance of the hearing were duly served upon the Union and
Respondent.
Concerning unfair labor practices the complaint alleges that on or about
October 10, 1945, a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit described in
the complaint, by a secret election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region of the Board, designated the Union as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that by virtue
of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union has been and now is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of
employment; that on or about November 1, 1945, and at various times thereafter,
the Union requested Respondent to bargain collectively with it in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the described unit, and that
Respondent at such time and at all times thereafter refused and has continued
to refuse to so bargain, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting the allegations of the complaint
pertaining to its corporate structure and the nature and extent of the business
conducted by It; the fact that the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act; that the unit described in the complaint as an
appropriate unit is in fact a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act; and that on or about October
10, 1945, a majority of the employees within the unit, by secret ballot, designated
the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It
denies however that it is engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing on the complaint was held in Cleveland, Ohio,
on February 18, 1946, before the undersigned, R. N. Denham, a Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and Respondent were
represented by counsel. The Union appeared through its duly designated repre-
sentatives All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present evi-
dence pertinent to the issues.
At the close of the presentation of all evidence, the motion of counsel for the
Board to conform the complaint to the proof with respect to the correction of
names, dates and other matters not going to the material allegations of the
complaint was granted without objection. Argument by counsel for Respondent
and the Board was made on the record Counsel for respondent requested and
was granted permission to file a memorandum brief with the Trial Examiner
within 3 days but has failed to do so.
LAKESHORE ELECTRIC MFG. CORP. 807
Upon the basis of the foregoing and on the entire record, after having heard
and observed the witnesses and considered all the evidence offered and received,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a successor to the business of Wilbur E. Laganke, who for a
number of years operated in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, as Laganke Electric
Company. On January 10, 1945, Respondent, then bearing the corporate name
of Laganke Electric Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Ohio, acquired the business of Wilbur E. Laganke and in October or
November 1945 changed its corporate name from Laganke Electric Company to
Lakeshore Electric Mfg. Corp., under which title it now exists and transacts its
business. Respondent has its plant and principal office and place of business in
Cleveland, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of
electrical switchboards, panels and metal stools. During the year 1945 the
dollar value of raw materials and supplies purchased by Respondent exceeded
$240,000 of which more than 50 percent was purchased outside the State of
Ohio and shipped, in commerce, to its plant in Cleveland. During the same year
the receipts from sales of products manufactured by Respondent exceeded a
dollar value of $480,000 of which more than 70 percent was from the sale of
products shipped, in commerce. to points outside the State of Ohio. Respondent
concedes that it is engaged in a business which affects commerce and that, for
the purpose of this matter, it is within the jurisdiction of the Board.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO), is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority therein
On October 1, 1945, Respondent, the Union, and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local No. B-38 (AFL), herein referred to as I. B. E. W.,
executed an agreement for a consent election to be held among the employees
of Respondent in a unit consisting of "all production and maintenance em-
ployees, including working foremen, except for clerical employees and foremen
with the right to hire and fire."
Pursuant to the-foregoing Agreement for Consent Election, an election was
held under the direction of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region of the
Board (Cleveland, Ohio) on October 10, 1945, in which the eligible voters were
given the opportunity to vote by secret ballot on the designation of United
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO), or International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. B-38 (AFL). All eligible voters par-
ticipated with the result that the Union was the successful candidate by a
vote of 15 to 11. There were no void or challenged ballots and no votes cast
for "Neither". On October 17, 1945, the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region issued his Consent Determination of Representatives, finding and de-
termining that the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO)
is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit above defined
I The findings set forth in this and the preceding paragraph are pursuant to a stipula-
tion of the parties made on the record during the course of the hearing.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment The undersigned
finds that the foregoing unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
and that on October 10, 1945, the Union represented a majority of the employees
therein.
B. The refusal to bargain
Following the receipt of the certificate of determination by the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region, Ruth Merson, the Field Organizer for the Union, arranged
for a meeting with the representatives of Respondent at Respondent's office, to
be held November 1, 1945 On the appointed date, Merson together with three
of the employees in Respondent's plant as a committee, met with James Dillon,
president and general manager of Respondent and Stephen W. Soos,2 assistant
general manager, to discuss the negotiation of a contract.
In September 1945, Merson, in her official capacity, began her organizational
campaign in Respondent's plant by getting in touch with the employees, indi-
vidually and by groups, and soliciting their membership in the Union. During
her conversations with them, the question was sometimes raised as to whether
membership in the Union, would affect the business of the Company or interfere
with their jobs. In reply, Merson consistently assured them that membership
in the Union could not have an adverse effect on the business of the Company.'
At the meeting in the offices of the Board in Cleveland on or about October 1,
1945, when the consent election agreement was being arranged, this question
was brought up by Soos and again Merson expressed the opinion that representa-
tion of Respondent's employees by the Union would not affect the business of the
Company.
Notwithstanding Merson's assurances , immediately following the issuance of
the certificate of determination by the Regional Director on October 17, 1945,
customers of Respondent, almost all of whom operated under contracts with
I. B. E. W. or affiliated locals, began withdrawing their business with the result
that by November 1 the electrical equipment business of Respondent had dwin-
dled to practically nothing.
When Dillon and Soos met with Merson and the 'committee of the employees on
November 1, 1945, Merson handed Dillon a copy of a proposed contract which
he scanned and then, laying it aside, stated that the business of the company
had fallen off, that he understood she had promised the men that that would
not happen , and that lie would not discuss a contract with the Union until this
promise had been kept and the status quo of the business restored. This meeting
lasted for approximately an hour, during which the boycotting of Respondent's
business was the principal subject of discussion , although Dillon did not definitely
refer to it as a boycott but simply that none of their former customers would now
consent to handle their material . In view of the position taken by Dillon that
he would not discuss the contract until the boycott condition had been raised, no
further attempt was made by Merson to bargain with him . Such attempts would
have been futile as is evidenced by Dillon's statement at the hearing that the
position of Respondent is the same now as it was on November 1, 1945.
It was the contention of Respondent that the memberships solicited from the
employees were obtained upon certain definite representations by Merson con-
cerning the effect of such membership in and representation by the Union, which
B Incorrectly referred to in the transcript of testimony as Sass.
9 The corollary to this, and the inferred, if not the actually accompanying question, is
whether designation of the Union would affect their jobs by affecting the business of
Respondent.
LAKESHORE ELECTRIC MFG. CORP. 809
had not been met, and that Respondent was entitled to make compliance with
such representations , a condition precedent to bargaining with the Union. No
charge of fraud is made against Merson, nor is there an implication of bad
faith. Obviously, the inquiries were prompted by the question of whether, if
the Union should become bargaining representative, the I. B. E. W. would visit
reprisals on Respondent by refusing to handle its products, thereby compelling
Respondent's customers to make their purchases elsewhere. In other words,
whether I. B. E. W. would boycott Respondent's products. There are many
large manufacturers of electrical equipment whose products are used indiscrimi-
natorily by I. B. E. W. shops, notwithstanding their employees are represented
by CIO organizations, and the record reflects no reason for Merson to believe,
prior to the election, that the A. F. of L affiliate, I. B E. W., would, under such
circumstances, engage in reprisals against Respondent in the event a CIO organ-
ization should become the designated representative of its employees
Dillon, in his testimony, studiously refrained from directly characterizing
the condition existing in his business as a boycott of Respondent's products by
I. B. E. W. or any other A. F. of L. affiliate, but the language used by him and
the undisputed descriptions of what has happened to the business leaves no
doubt that such a boycott actually exists When directly questioned, he said :
I wouldn't know whether to call it a boycott, or anything else, because there
is nothing tangible, except all of the electricians apparently working for
the contractors throughout the country are AFL men, and apparently they
don't pick out any company to boycott in that term, but they just don't do
business with people who do not carry their label, that's all.
Dillon stated that he had not been told directly by any of his customers why
they had suspended their orders, but, running through his entire testimony is
the inference that the reason for the withdrawal of his former business im-
mediately following the election, is the fact that his employees are represented
by the CIO while those of his customers are represented by I. B E W or one of
its affiliated locals, and that they are faced with a threat of reprisals from those
organizations if they attempt to utilize materials originating in Respondent's CIO
shop. In the light of experience in the field of labor and its controversies
between rival unions contesting for representation in the same occupational area,
a realistic approach to the conditions found to exist here leads directly to such
an inference. No other reasonably can be drawn.
Vincent Skodis, special organizer for Local Z-38 of the I. B. E. W. (AFL),
was called as a witness by Respondent, and testified that within the 3 weeks
prior to the hearing, his union had obtained 43 signed application cards from
among the 51 persons now employed in the appropriate unit at Respondent's
plant. No attempt was made to controvert this statement, but in view of all
the circumstances, its truth or falsity becomes immaterial. On the subject of
Respondent's loss of business following the designation of the Union as the bar-
gaining representative of the employees. Skodis testified that, as an electrical
worker and a member of the I. B B W., he has never questioned any of the
products he has installed because of the place of their origin, and that so far
as he knows or has had an opportunity to learn in his limited capacity as special
organizer, there have been no instructions issued from any source within the
1. B E W. directing the AFL organization members to refuse to install material
produced in a non-union shop or a CIO shop
Under the issues as they are framed here, no finding as to the responsibility
for conditions in Respondent's business is essential However, while Skodis'
testimony was unrefuted, I am unable to accept it at its face value. The pat-
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tern of circumstances points to a conclusion that if a boycott was not actually and
directly imposed, Respondent's customers had good reason to believe that they
would not be permitted to use Respondent's products with impunity and acted
accordingly.. The unanimity with which they acted strongly indicates that
their fears had a common source.
Factual conclusions
It is not contested that in the election of October 10. 1945, the Union was duly
and properly selected by a majority of the eligible voters to represent them as
their collective bargaining representative and as the exclusive collective bargain-
ing representative of all the employees within the appropriate unit. Respondent
makes no contention that it did not, on November 1, 1945, and at all times since
then, refuse to bargain with the Union on matters pertaining to wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment and other conditions of employment except after
compliance by the Union with a condition precedent to such bargaining ; i. e. the
termination of the sales resistance Respondent had experienced among its old
time customers since the Union became the bargaining representative of its
employees.
Respondent justifies the placing of this condition precedent upon its bargaining
with the Union, with the contention that the Union obtained its designation from
a majority of the employees upon the representation to them that in so designating
the Union, they would not injure the business of Respondent nor jeopardize their
own employment. The representative of the Union who made the statements
to the employees did not deny having made them, but, as has been found, there
is no indication in the record that the statements were made other than in com-
plete good faith. They are not a commitment by the Union to insure the continuity
of Respondent's business nor to control the actions of a rival union. They have
none of the indicia of fraud or coercion that would vitiate the election but were
made under circumstances that justify a belief in their accuracy by Merson when
they were made I can, accordingly, find no merit in this contention of Respondent
While Respondent finds itself in the unfortunate position of being made the
victim of apparent threats of reprisals by a labor organization which was unable
to muster a majority of the votes cast in the election, I am unable to find any
authority in the decisions of the Board or the Courts which excuse it from bar-
gaining with a duly and properly chosen representative of a majority of the em-
ployees in an admittedly appropriate unit. The fact that the selection by its
employees of a given labor organization as their representative may result in
hardships arising out of the conduct of a defeated minority union over which
neither Respondent nor the successful Union have any degree of control, is no
excuse for refusing to conform to the requirements of the Act.4 There may be
some tribunal in which Respondent can obtain relief from reprisals of that char-
acter, but the Board is not such a forum and is without jurisdiction to take them
into consideration when measuring Respondent's obligations under the Act. It
4 In the early case of Star Publishing Company, 4 N L. R. B. 498, the question was first
raised . The Board there announced that fear of economic losses from reprisals threatened
by a labor organization does not excuse a breach of the law. In A. J. Showalter Company,
64 N. L. R B 573 , the threat of a loss of business , sufficient even to cause the plant to be
shut down , did not justify the president in telling his employees of the threat and the
effect it might have on their jobs if they continued to maintain the Union . In the recent
case of Toledo Desk .4 Fixture Company , 65 N. L R B. 1086, the same principle was
a gain announced when the employer urged that, to recognize the C. I. 0 would deprive
it of the right to use the A. F. of L. label and thereby render its products unsalable in
their customary markets. See also N . L R. B. v . National Broadcasting Company, Inc.,
150 F. (2d) 895 (C. C. A. 2), and cases there cited.
LAKESHORE ELECTRIC MFG. CORP. 811
is accordingly found that on November 1, 1945, Respondent refused to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees within an appro-
priate unit in its plant at Cleveland, Ohio, and at all times thereafter has con-
tinued to refuse so to bargain with the Union as such exclusive representative of
its employees.
Respondent also contends that the Union does not now represent a majority
of its production and maintenance employees; that at the time of the election on
October 10, employment in its plant had dropped to its lowest point as a result of
unemployment during the reconversion period ; that employment in the plant has
now doubled in number and that it is informed and believes that the I. B. B W.
now represents more than 80 percent of the employees in the unit described as
appropriate. It is uncontroverted that in January 1945, Respondent employed
between 60 and 70 persons ; that by July these had been decreased by 10 or 15; that
by October, when the election was held, Respondent had ceased the manufacture
of war products and was in the process of converting over to peacetime operations
with an employment which had reached a low point of 26; and that at present
the employment in the plant numbers 51 persons within the appropriate unit.
Respondent points to this low point of employment at the time of the election but
does not raise the question that by reason thereof, the 26 employees were insuffi-
cient to designate a bargaining representative for the unit. They constituted an
operating and fully functioning staff at the time That there has since been
an expansion to double their number does not affect the Union's status. The most
it might do would be to have some influence on the Board to make a redetermina-
tion of representative, upon proper petition and showing, at an earlier date than
1 year after certification and true bargaining, as is its usual custom.
No attempt was made to controvert the testimony of Skodis that in the last
3 weeks the I B. E. W. had obtained the signatures of 43 of the employees within
the appropriate unit to its own application or designation cards. However, it has
been found that beginning November 1, 1945, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent has refused to bargain with the duly designated representative of
the majority of its employees in the appropriate unit. Such action constitutes
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. The
decisions of the Board extending over many years have well established that
loss of membership by a designated Union during the period when the employer
is refusing, contrary to the provisions of the Act, to recognize and deal with it as
the representative of its employees, will not be considered as an impairment of the
right of the Union to continue to represent the employees, nor a dimunition of the
obligation of the employer to bargain with it. It therefore becomes immaterial
that the I. B. E. W. may now claim to represent a substantial majority of the
employees within the appropriate unit or that it does in fact have designation
cards signed by such a majority of the employees. For the present, and until a
reasonable opportunity has been afforded the designated Union to fully represent
the employees, its right to so represent them may not be interfered with.
In view of the findings that Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union
as the designated representative of a majority of the employees within the
appropriate unit and thereby the exclusive representative of all the employees
within such unit for purposes of collective bargaining, it must be and is found that
by so refusing to bargain Respondent has interfered with the rights of its
employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in Section I above, have a
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE RS MEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice
affecting commerce by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the
designated representative of a majority of its employees in an appropriate unit
and therefore as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees
in such unit, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom,
and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Except
as Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union as heretofore recited is aa
interference with the rights guaranteed to its employees in Section 7 of the
Act, there is no indication of an inclination on the part of Respondent to disregard
or fail to observe the provisions of the Act. Because this is so, the recommenda-
tion will be confined to a correction of the single condition found to exist, and to
the posting of appropriate notices to its employees in connection therewith.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO) is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By refusing on November 1, 1945, and at all times thereafter to bargain
collectively with United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO),
as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit heretofore found to
be appropriate, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
3. By the above acts, Respondent has interfered with its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in, the case, the undersigned recommends :
That Respondent, Lakeshore Electric Mfg. Corp., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (CIO) as the exclusive representative of its production and
maintenance employees including working foremen, except clerical employees and
foremen with the right to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action ;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America (CIO) to bargain collectively with it as the rep-
resentative of its employees in the appropriate unit above described.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
LAKESHORE ELECTRIC MFG. CORP. 813
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Unltefl Electrical, Raclio & Machine
Workers of America (CIO) as the exclusive representative of all its employees
within the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment and other conditions of employment ; and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its plant in Cleveland, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked *'Appendix A." Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) File with the Regional Director of the Eighth Region, on or before ten (10)
days after the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth
in detail the manner and form in which Respondent has complied with the fore-
going recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of this Intermediate Report, Respondent notifies said Regional Director in
writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
19.15, 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 Sec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in
beau 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 proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and fourcopies of a brief in
support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director. As further provided in said Section 3.3, should any party desire permis-
sion 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.
R. N. DENHAM,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 4, 1946.
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will bargain collectively upon request with United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America (CIO), as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The bargaining unit is:.All production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing working foremen; except for clerical employees and foremen with the
right and authority to hire, promote, discharge, or discipline or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action.
We will not in any manner interfere with the efforts of United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO), representing the above described
employees, to bargain collectively with us.
LAi siio1E Euxiraic MFG. CORP.
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.