Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 925 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, INC. and LOCAL No.
13002, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-872.-Decided July 24, 1939
•
Chemacal Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion-Company-domi-
nated Union: domination of and interference with formation and administra-
tion ; activities on company time and property ; supervisory cooperation and par-
ticipation in solicitation of membership ; recognition of as collective bargaining
agent; disestablished , as agency for collective bargaining.
Mr. Herbert 0. Eby, for the Board.
Mr. William A. Stuart and iTIr. Edmund M. Toland, for the
respondent.
Mr. Roy Lancaster and Mr. Herman Edelsberg, for the United.
Mr. R. C. Thompson, for the Association.
Mr. Raymond J. Compton, of counsel to the Board.
r,
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges, amended charges, and supplemental charges duly
filed by Local No. 13002, United Mine Workers of America, herein
called the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore,
Maryland), issued its complaint, amended complaint, and supple-
ment to amended complaint, dated respectively, March 31, May 12,
and 18, 1938, against Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc., Saltville, Vir-
ginia, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint, amended complaint,
and supplement to amended complaint, and the notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. The
complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleged in substance, that
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of a labor organization known as the Saltville-Mathie-
son Employees' Association; discharged and refused to reinstate
13 N. L. R. B., No. 96.
925
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frank Musselwhite, Henry Allison, and Steve Allison, because they
and each of them joined and assisted the United, thereby discourag-
ing membership in the United; and interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
Thereafter the respondent filed answers to the complaint and to
the supplement to amended complaint, dated respectively, April 27
and June 1, 1938, admitting the material allegations concerning the
nature of its business, but denying that it was engaged in or that its
activities affected interstate commerce, and that it had engaged in or
was engaging in the unfair labor practices as alleged.
Pursuant to notice and notice of postponement, a hearing was held
in Marion, Virginia, from June 6 to 24, 1938, inclusive, before Albert
L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the
opening of the hearing, the Saltville-Mathieson Employees' Associa-
tion, hereinafter referred to as the Association, duly filed a joint
motion to intervene and petition for certification. The Trial
Examiner allowed the Association to intervene in the proceeding,
but denied the motion in so far as it related to a petition for certifica-
tion. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were repre-
sented by counsel, and the United by counsel and its district repre-
sentative, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the
hearing, the Trial Examiner granted motions by counsel for the
Board to dismiss the supplement to amended complaint in so far as it
is alleged therein that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the act., At. the
close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings
be conformed to the proof adduced at the hearing. The motion was
granted. At the same time, the respondent renewed motions made
during the course of the hearing to dismiss the complaint as amended
and supplemented, and the Association likewise renewed its motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in so far as it related to unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. The
Trial Examiner reserved rulings on these motions for his Inter-
mediate Report. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Exam-
iner made other rulings on objections to the admission of evidence
and on motions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
•
1 Counsel for the Board moved for dismissal of this portion of the complaint upon the
respondent 's agreement to reinstate in accordance with their seniority at such time as
the operations of the respondent permitted the three employees alleged to have been
discriminatorily discharged.
MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, INCORPORATED 927
On August 1, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, a copy of which was duly served on all parties, finding that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning 6f Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act, overruling the aforesaid separate and several
motions for dismissal made by the respondent and the Association.
He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices, disestablish the Association as the bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees, and take certain other affirmative action.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed thereafter by the
respondent and the Association, together with a request by the
respondent for oral argument upon the exceptions before the Board
and for leave to file briefs.
Pursuant to notice, oral argument was had before the Board in
Washington, on March 30, 1939. The respondent and the United
were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The
respondent and the Association also filed briefs in support of their
exceptions.
The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and of
the Association to the Intermediate Report and to the rulings of the
Trial Examiner, and except in so far as they are consistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of ammonia soda and related byproducts at Saltville,
Virginia. The respondent maintains executive offices in New York
City, and also operates branch plants at Lake Charles, Louisiana,
and Niagara Falls, New York. From the ammonia soda, the respond-
ent manufactures and processes soda ash, caustic soda, bicarbonate
of soda, fused alkalis, and carbon-dioxide ice. The Saltville opera-
tions, involved in this proceeding, cover approximately 1,000 acres,
including a gypsum mine, limestone quarry, and salt brine wells. In
1937 the respondent manufactured 272,750 tons of finished products,
having a gross value of more than $1,000,000, of which approximately
80 per cent was shipped, by rail and water to points outside the State
of 'Virginia. Although limestone, salt, and gypsum rock are the
principal raw materials used by the respondent, its operations are
dependent upon other commodities all of which, with the exception
of coke and coal, are purchased and shipped from concerns located in
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
States other than the State of Virginia. In 1937 the purchases of
such raw materials necessary to the respondent's Virginia operations
exceeded $400,000 in value. The respondent also operates a general
store, three branch stores, market, gas stations, drug store, and hos-
pital, for which, in 1937, it purchased supplies totaling approxi-
mately $450,000, of which 50 per cent was acquired from outside the
State of Virginia. The respondent advertises in trade journals hav-
ing a national circulation, and in. 1937 expended approximately
$25,000 for such purposes. Branch sales offices are maintained in 10
States other than Virginia, and the respondent leases warehouses in
26 other States for the storage of its manufactured products. On
November 1, 1937, 959 men were employed by the respondent at Salt-
ville, and on May 1, 1938, the personnel approximated 778 employees.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local No. 13002, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion,- admitting to membership all the production employees of the
respondent, excluding supervisory, clerical, and office employees.
Saltville-Mathieson Employees' Association is an unaffiliated labor
organization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The chronology of events
In the latter part of August 1937 the United began to organize,
receiving its charter in September. Coincident with the advent of the
United, Thompson, a machinist, sponsored the circulation of "straw
vote papers" in the various departments to determine the sentiment
of the respondent's employees regarding the formation of an inde-
pendent employees' association. On August 20, 1937, Ruetschi, plant
manager, who had heard of the attempt being made to form an inde-
pendent association, called a meeting of the departmental supervisors
to advise them of the respondent's attitude toward this organizing
movement. After reading excerpts from the Act, Ruetschi stated :
"You all will readily see from the above, that our employees have the
privilege to organize an employees association, if they so desire. You
will also note that we as the employer have no right to state that we
either favor or disfavor such an organization."
Thompson's "straw vote" efforts at first met with little success,
because, as he testified, "The men were afraid to show by their signa-
ture that they were in favor of an organization . . . They didn't
understand their rights as given them under the Wagner Labor
MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, INCORPORATED 929
Act, .. ." However, Thompson admitted that he and the other
members of the organizing committee formed to promote the associa-
tion knew that they had a right under the Act to form and join such
an organization , and that they so informed prospective signers.
Thompson would neither affirm nor deny that he told employees that
the Association was being formed to obstruct and prevent organiza-
tion of the United, but testified that both he and the other members
of the organizing committee were opposed to any "outside" organiza-
tion. However, A. K. Hudson and R. E. French, who were mem-
bers of the organizing committee , testified that their purpose in
forming the Association was to prevent "trouble" from occurring at
the respondent 's plant as it had at another plant in Bristol, Tennes-
see, where the C. I. O. had gone on strike , and that they had told
this to prospective members.
On August 23 Thompson and several other members of the or-
ganizing committee met with Ruetschi to determine their "rights"
under the Act. Thompson prefaced their request for Ruetschi's
opinion as to the forming of an independent association with an ex-
pression of appreciation for past pay increases and for "the attitude
the Company has always taken in respect to its employees."
Ruetschi then lead portions of the Act, and allegedly told them the
choice of an organization rested with the employees, concluding with
the parting admonition : "Don't let this interfere with your daily
work." Following this conference with the management, which be-
came known throughout the plant , the committee was able to secure
enough support effectively to organize the Association . Thompson
admitted that his Association activity had interfered with his work,
but that his foreman, L. S. Frye, never reprimanded him or
expressed any opposition thereto.
On September 27, the Association held its first meeting in the
Saltville Schoolhouse , permission for the use of which was ob-
tained by Thompson from Ruetschi , who was chairman of the school
board. The 110 employees present at this meeting elected tem-
porary officers , Thompson becoming secretary , and Shannon, a
chemist in the development department , chairman. A bylaws and
organization committee also was appointed , which included L. H.
Terry, foreman of the rock-crushing plant. A few days after this
meeting, Shannon was passing the furnace -room office when he was
handed an unstamped envelope by W. M . McCready , assistant super-
intendent of the chemical control and development department.
McCready had formerly been process superintendent for more than
10 years. The envelope contained a copy of the constitution and
bylaws belonging to the employees ' association organized at the re-
spondent's plant at Lake Charles , Louisiana . Shannon testified that
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he did not ask McCready where the envelope came from, and that
McCready merely said : "Here's something left for you." McCready's
version of the incident was that he found the envelope addressed to
Shannon on the desk belonging to Nelson, furnace-room foreman,
and that Shannon was going by and he handed it to him. Nelson
testified that the envelope was on his desk when he came to work
that morning. He stated that when McCready came in an hour
later he called Nelson's attention to it, advising him to tell Shan-
non he had some mail there and that while they were talking Shan-
non came along and McCready gave it to him. Although McCready
and Nelson disclaimed any knowledge as to the source of the en-
velope, they admitted that never before within their knowledge had
Shannon received any mail at that particular office.
A few days prior to October 5, 1937, the bylaws and organization
committee designated on September 27 met and drafted a constitu-
tion and bylaws for the Association. The constitution and bylaws
were in part based on the constitution and bylaws which were in
the envelope which McCready handed to Shannon.
At a general meeting of the Association on October 5, 1937, the
constitution and bylaws were adopted, and membership lists were
distributed for use in soliciting members. These lists were headed
with a statement that those signing were members of the Asso-
ciation and thereby authorized it to act as their collective bargaining
representative.
During the following weeks, the efforts of both the United and
the Association to secure members reached their height. The evi-
dence establishes that supervisory employees of the respondent
actively supported the Association in its efforts and impeded the
efforts ofthe United.
Among the persons most active in behalf of the Association were
W. H. Terry, rock-crusher foreman, who, as stated above, was a
member of the Association's bylaws and organization committee.
W. H. Doane, a rock crusher, testified that Terry asked him to sign
"the straw vote paper" of the Association and stated that otherwise
he would not "stand as good show as the ones that did sign." Terry
denied that he asked Doane to sign the paper, but admitted that he
had informed Doane respecting the legality of the Association and
had stated that "he thought it would be a good thing." Walter
Hayden, a quarry worker, testified that Terry asked him during
working hours on October 17 to join the Association and stated that
a majority had already done so. Hayden further testified that when
he replied, "Well, if they have, I reckon I will have to," Terry put
his name on the list and told him to bring a dollar fee the neat day.
Terry denied that he asked Hayden to join the Association, but
admitted that he signed and delivered to Hayden a receipt for dues
MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, INCORPORATED 931
dated October 18, 1937. Elgin Greer, another quarry worker, testi-
fied that Terry also asked him to join the Association and that when
he replied that he was going to "wait and see what the C. I. O. was
going to do," Terry stated that he was trying to "keep the C. I. O.
out of the Mathieson Alkali Works" and that "where they had the
C. I. O. they wasn't running very good." Terry denied that he had
made the statement attributed to him by Hayden. Four other quarry
workers, Jasper Keen, Eubert Jones, Otis Bise, and George Bise,
testified that Terry asked them to join the Association during work-
ing hours about October 26 and stated that the Association was
already "recognized and carried." Terry denied this testimony, but
admitted that he had signed and delivered to the four employees
receipts dated October 26, 1937, for payment of the initial Asso-
ciation membership fee. He also admitted that he had in his posses-
sion an Association membership list and that he had collected dues
for the Association during working hours. We are convinced that
Terry engaged in the acts and made the statements testified to by
the various witnesses whose testimony is above considered. We so
find.
F. E. Maiden, yard-department foreman, admittedly signed the
Association membership list in the presence of a number of yard-
department employees and presented the list to yard employees. He
testified that the presentation of the list to employees was at the
request of Floyd Johnson, Association organizing committee mem-
ber, and that he stated to the employees at the time, "Here is a
paper, boys. Look it over, and suit yourself about putting your
name on it." Maiden further testified that he explained to em-
ployees that he had signed the list because he had heard there might
be some other labor organization in Saltville which would call out
the employees with strikes elsewhere and that he referred to a strike
at Elizabethton, Tennessee, inasmuch as his nephew who worked
at Elizabethton had told him about the trouble there and that the
C. I. O. "wasn't any good." Maiden later erased his signature from
the membership list after Johnson told him he should not have
signed, but did not so inform the yard employees. Clyde Mullins,
a yard employee, testified that Maiden while talking with the yard
employees stated that he was more in favor of the Association than
the C. I. O. because the employees could by joining the Association
settle their grievances with the Company "without getting these for-
eigners that are in the C. I. O. mixed up in this and calling us out
on strike." Mullins further testified that on another occasion Maiden
told him during the course of a conversation relative to the matter
of discharges that "he wouldn't carry a paper around working agin
the company, because he said they wouldn't fire you direct for work-
ing agin them, but they would get something agin you and work
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you off, but you would not know exactly how it was done, that you
could not exactly prove it was under union activities you had been
fired." Maiden testified that he did not remember any such con-
versation with Mullins. In the light of the entire record, we find
that Maiden made the statements attributed to him by Mullins.
Arthur Chapman, a lime-kiln employee, testified that his foreman,
G. W. Holmes, asked him to join the Association and that, when he
replied that he did not have the necessary fee, Holmes stated, "You
can pay the dollar any time and keep the C. I. 0. out." Lee Shep-
pard and Ed Allison, lime-kiln employees, also testified that Holmes
had asked them to join the Association. Sheppard, who was a mem-
ber of the United, further testified that Holmes had on one occasion
asked to see his United card and when he complied with the request
Holmes remarked to some of the other employees that he did not think
Sheppard "had nerve enough to show it to him." Holmes admitted
that he "might have" spoken to some of the employees about union
activities, but testified that he could not remember what was said.
He further admitted that he had seen an Association membership
list on his desk for several days, but testified that he did not know
how or when it was put there. We are convinced, and find, that
Holmes engaged in the activities and made the statements testified
to by Chapman, Sheppard, and Allison.,
Wiley Williams, an employee of the Company at North Holston,
testified that on one occasion his foreman, Joe Brown, told him and
several other employees "there will be a man up here with a paper,
you all sign it" and that shortly thereafter William Thompson ap-
peared at North Holston and solicited members on behalf of the
Association. Williams also testified that on another occasion Brown
stated that the employees "ought to support the paper the company
men was trying to get up . . ." Although Brown denied that he
made the statements attributed to him by Williams, we are con-
vinced that he did so and so find. The testimony of Brown as a
whole was ambiguous and unconvincing.
A number of employees testified that on one occasion Henry Taylor,
surface supervisor of gypsum operations at North Holston, sat in his
car across the road from a building in which a meeting of the United
was being held and that as the employees left the meeting Taylor
apparently wrote down the names of the employees. Tom Wilson, a
United member, testified that on the following morning Taylor ques-
tioned him concerning his attendance at the meeting and asked him
whether he had been promised "any more sugar for his coffee."
Taylor testified that he stopped his car on the occasion in question
at a service station opposite the building in which the United's meet-
ing was being held, but stated that he had done so merely for the
MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, INCORPORATED 933
purpose of buying gasoline and without knowledge that the meeting
was being held. He denied watching employees leave the meeting
ands testified that, if he had done any writing at the time, it was
merely to make a notation of the gasoline purchased. Taylor ad-
mitted that he asked Wilson the following morning whether he at-
tended the meeting, but testified that he did so merely because he
"wanted to know if they put any sweet words in his mouth or bal-
oney." We are convinced that Taylor's presence opposite the meet-
ing place of the United was for the purpose of observing the em-
ployees of the respondent who were participating in the activities of
the United and we so find.
On or about October 14, 1937, the temporary committee of the As-
sociation met with officials of the respondent. Shannon, one of the
Association's representatives, testified relative to such meeting "we
went in and outlined our organization steps up to that time and
stated we wanted to know what we could do, we were planning to
ask for recognition as the bargaining agent." Shannon informed
the respondent's representatives that the Association had a member-
ship of approximately 643 employees, and that the temporary com-
mittee was authorized by its constitution to represent the Association.
The respondent examined the Association constitution and bylaws
and after some discussion informed the committee that it did not con-
sider the Association to have progressed far enough in its organiza-
tion to be in a position to request recognition, and that it would have
to proceed to elect its plant council and permanent officials before
the Association could be recognized.
Tmmediately following the above conference, the Association ar-
ranged for a plant-wide election on October 19 for the purpose of
selecting a plant council and posted notices of the election in all de-
partments. The election was conducted in the various departments
during working hours. The respondent's old laboratory building
was used as election headquarters, and the councilmen were notified
of their election over the plant telephone.
On October 20, the day following the election, the councilmen met
in the old laboratory to elect permanent officers of the Association.
Shannon, the temporary chairman, was elected president, but Thomp-
son was replaced as secretary by Claude D. Stephenson, an account-
ant in the general office. Thompson testified that since the election
of the plant council he has had nothing to do with Association af-
fairs. The councilmen also elected a negotiating committee to con-
sult with the respondent relative to demands which they formulated
at this meeting for presentation to the respondent.
On October 22 the negotiating committee met with the manage-
ment to again present their demands and request recognition. The
1 S 76130-:19-vol 13--6O
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent countered with a request for evidence as to the number
of paid-up members, certification by the election committee that the
election of the plant council had been properly held, and a copy of
the membership list which had been signed by its employees. In
requesting a copy of the membership list, the respondent suggested
"that the Association keep the original in a safe place." Thereafter,
the Association kept its record in the respondent's office vault until
they were ordered removed by the respondent upon the fact being
brought to the respondent's attention by a representative of the
Board. On October 25 the committee presented the respondent with
the requested evidence, and the Association was recognized as the
collective bargaining agent of the respondent's employees.
After several conferences between the Association and the respond-
ent, the last of which was on November 2, 1937, the respondent an-
nounced in a bulletin to its employees dated November 3, 1937, that
as a result of its negotiations with the Association a general raise
increase of 5 cents per hour would be granted, time and one-half
would be paid for overtime, and certain hour and working-day sched-
ules would be changed. Although the Association had demanded a
10-cent increase in pay, together with its other demands, the negoti-
ating committee orally agreed to the partial increase in pay and the
other partial concessions made by the respondent without submitting
such agreement to the Association membership for ratification or re-
jection as required under its constitution. About a month after the
agreement had been reached, the respondent informed the Association
that because of poor business conditions it would have to reduce wages
or cut hours. The negotiating committee agreed to a reduction in
hours in preference to a reduction in pay, which nullified the previous
raise increase. This action was likewisd taken without consulting the
Association membership, which had not met since prior to the election
of the plant councilmen. Thereafter, the negotiations between the
Association committee and the respondent were of minor consequence.
B. Domination of and interference with the Association and other
interference, restraint, and coercion
In view of the facts set forth above, we think it clear that the
respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of the Association and has engaged in other acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion. We have found that W. H.
Terry, rock-crusher foreman, was an active participant in the forma-
tion of the Association, advocated and solicited membership in the
Association, participated in the collection of dues for the Association,
and openly expressed his opposition to the C. I. O. F. E. Maiden,
MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, INCORPORATED 935
yard-department foreman, advocated and solicited membership in the
Association and was outspoken in his opposition to the C. I. 0. G. W.
Holmes, line-kiln foreman, solicited members for the Association and
questioned an employee about his membership in the United. Joe
Brown, a supervisory employee, openly supported the cause of the
Association. Henry Taylor, surface supervisor of gypsum opera-
tions, spied upon a meeting of the United and thereafter made re-
marks to an employee clearly derogatory of the activities of such
organization.
The respondent contends that its obligations under the Act were
discharged when its supervisors were instructed as to their conduct
towards the formation of the Association and that it may not be
deemed responsible for any statement made or activities engaged in
by the supervisory employees above mentioned. This contention is
without merit. The doctrine of respondent superior applies, and the
respondent is responsible for the acts of its supervisory employees,
even though it had no actual participation therein.' Furthermore,
notwithstanding the widespread activity of the supervisory em-
ployees on behalf of the Association and in opposition to the United,
the respondent took no steps to disavow their acts nor to inform the
employees that the respondent desired to maintain a position of neu-
trality as between the competing organizations. That the officials of
the respondent knew of the activities of the supervisory employees
would appear to be beyond question in view of the scope and nature
of such activities. We have noted that McCready, assistant superin-
tendent of the chemical control and developing department, handed to
Shannon, who was at the time temporary chairman of the Associa-
tion's organizing committee and who later became president of the
Association, an envelope containing a copy of bylaws and a constitu-
tion of an organizaton in effect at one of the respondent's plants, and
that the bylaws and constitution of the Association were based in part
upon the bylaws and constitution which were in the envelope. Al-
though McCready denied knowledge of the source or the contents of
the envelope, the circumstances surrounding this incident, particu-
larly as viewed in light of the entire record, permit no plausible expla-
nation other than that the respondent caused the envelope containing
the bylaws and constitution to be delivered to Shannon and did so in
order to further and assist in the formation of the Association.
Although the Association engaged in extensive solicitation and
other activities on company property during working hours, no at-
tempt was made at any time to curb such activities.
28ee Swift & Company, a corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 10 eir, 106
F -(2d) 87.
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The extent of the respondent's domination over the Association is
manifested by the fact that the records of the Association were kept
for a period of time in the respondent's office vault. It is also mani-
fested by the nature of the dealing of the Association with the re-
spondent and the ineffectiveness of such dealings to secure any real
or lasting benefits to the employees.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and contributed
support thereto. We further find that thereby and by its other acts
set forth in this section the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent, described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. TIIE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association, and has
contributed support to it. That organization cannot, in view of the
circumstances, operate as a true representative of the employees. We
shall, therefore, order the respondent to withdraw recognition from
and to disestablish the Association as collective bargaining represen-
tative for any of its employees. Since the respondent has engaged
in other unfair labor practices, we shall further order the respondent
to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and to take certain
affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the purposes
and policy of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local No. 13002, United Mine Workers of America, and Saltville-
Mathieson Employees' Association, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of the Saltville-Mathieson Employees' Association, and by
MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, INCORPORATED 937
contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc., Saltville, Virginia, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Saltville-Matheson Employees' Association, or with the formation
or administration of any other labor organization of its employees,
or contributing support to any such labor organization;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Saltville-Mathieson Em-
ployees' Association as representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish the Saltville-
Mathieson Employees' Association as such representative ;
(b) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous
places throughout its plant, and maintain such notices for a period
of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent
will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and that the respond-
ent withdraws and will refrain from all recognition of the Saltville-
Mathieson Employees' Association as the representative of any of
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and that the Salt-
ville-Mathieson Employees' Association is completely disestablished
as such representative;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
MR. WILLIAM.M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.