Motor Specialties Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 12, 1940

22 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION and LOCAL 155, IN- TERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA and MOTOR SPECIALTIES EMPLOYEES UNION ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT Case No. C-1372.Decided April 10, 1940 Screw Machine Products Manufacturing Industry/Interference , Restraint, and Coercion-Company-Dominated Union: domination of and interference with the formation and administration ; activity of supervisory employees on behalf of ; meetings on company time and property and shutting off of power ; preparing con- stitution and bylaws partly during working hours ; consummation of contract;- confirming relationship ; disestablished , as agency for collective bargaining- Contract : with organization found to be company-dominated ; respondent ordered' to cease and desist giving effect to , as well as any extension , renewal , modification, supplement thereof, or any superseding contract-Check-off: respondent ordered to reimburse employees for any amounts deducted from wages as initiation fees, dues, and assessmentsDiscrimination : charges of , as to two employees, dismissed. Mr. George J. Bott, for the Board. Milburn c6 Semmes, by Mr. Edward T. Goodrich, of Detroit, Mich., for the respondent. Echlin cfi Lendzion, by Mr. Edward P. Echlin, of Detroit, Mich., for the Association. Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Local 155, Inter- national Union, United Automobile Workers of America, herein called the U. A. W. A., the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan ), issued its complaint , dated March 31, 1939, against Motor Specialties Corporation , Detroit , Michigan, herein called the respond- ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National 22 N. L . R. B., No. 64. 865 866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The' Board duly served its complaint upon the respondent and the U. A. W. A., and upon Motor Specialties Employees Union Association, party to the contract, herein called the Association. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent had (1) supported, encouraged, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation and admin- istration of the Association; (2) discharged and refused to reinstate Marie Keeley because she had joined the U. A. W. A. and refused to become a member of the Association, and laid off and refused to reinstate Starmina Martin because she had joined the U. A. W. A. and refused to join the Association; (3) by the above and other acts, including executing a contract with the Association at a time when the Association did not represent a majority of the respondent's em- ployees in an appropriate unit, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On April 8 and 10, 1939, the respondent and the Association, respectively, filed their answers admitting the allega- tions of the complaint concerning the nature of the respondent's busi- ness but denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent, the U. A. W. A., and the Association, a hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, from April 10 to 14, 1939, before Herbert Wenzel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were represented by counsel; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. At the inception of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the allegations of the complaint as to violations of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act, or, in the alternative, that these allegations be made more definite and certain. The Trial Examiner denied this motion but stated that he would grant the respondent additional time to prepare if the respondent was "taken by surprise on any particular point alleged in the complaint." The respondent did not avail it- self of, this opportunity. At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel'for the respondent and the Association moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied these motions without prejudice to their renewal at the conclusion of the respondent's case. Counsel for the respondent and the Association also moved to strike the testimony of witness Nat Ganley. The Trial Examiner, reserved ruling upon this motion and denied it in his Intermediate Report, thereafter filed. Counsel for the Board moved to conform the com- plaint to the proof, which motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. 1 MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION 867 At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the respondent renewed its motion to dismiss. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling, thereon and in his Intermediate Report granted the motion as to the alleged violations of Section 8 (3) of the Act, but denied the remainder of the motion. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. Following the hearing, the Association and the respondent filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. On September 23, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the U. A. W. A., and the Association. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the re- spondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and, affirmatively, withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the Association as representative of any of the respondent's employees with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employ- ment, and declare that the contract between it and the Association is null and void and of no legal effect. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. On October 25, and 26, 1939, the Association and the respondent, respectively, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, the Association and the respondent filed briefs with the Board, in support of their exceptions, on Novem- ber 20 and December 6, 1939, respectively. Pursuant to request therefor by the respondent and notice thereof to the parties , a hear- ing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Washington, D.. C., on December 12, 1939. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The As- sociation did not appear. The Board has considered the exceptions filed and, save 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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Motor Specialties Corporation, the 'respondent, is a Michigan corporation having its principal place of business in Detroit, Michi- gan. It is engaged in the manufacture of priming caps, oil-can 868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD holders, rapid-tapping chucks, cap screws, nuts, and screw machine products. During the year ending April 1, 1939, the respondent purchased brass, bronze, and steel of a value of $139,070.86. It spent 29.2 per cent of this, or $40,565.97, for purchases made outside the State of Michigan. During the same period, the respondent's gross sales amounted to $356,626.13. Of its gross sales, 29.8 per cent, amounting to $106,152.29, were made outside the State of Michigan. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 155, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The U. A. W. A. admits to its membership the production 1 employees of the respondent, exclusive of super- visory and clerical employees. Motor Specialties Employees Union Association is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to its membership the employees of the respondent.' III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference with, domination, and support of the Association; interference, restraint, and coercion In the early part of March 1937, the U. A. W, A. started to enroll members among the respondent's employees. Prior to that time, except for an informal "sort of a bargaining committee," the respond- ent's employees had not been organized. On about March 22 C. W. Beck, Jr., president of the respondent, told Joseph Hobell, the chairman of the U. A. W. A.'s negotiating committee, that he would not object to Hobell's efforts at organizing a union but that a strike would be harmful to the respondent. While the U. A. W. A. was at that time considering calling a strike, in sympathy with a strike of employees in neighboring plants, no such strike was called. In the early spring of 1937, following the inception of the U. A. W. A.'s organizing activities, Mike Stechishin, a foreman, Rus- sell Bernard, a timekeeper, and Jack Cruse, a repairman, circulated among the employees in the plant, "petitions" to be signed by those who were in favor of a union confined to the respondent's em- ployees. John Walker, an assistant foreman, went to the house of 1 It is not clear from the record whether maintenance employees of the respondent are also eligible to membership in the U. A. W. A. 2 It is not clear from the record whether foremen are admit ted to membership. How- ever , no foremen are members of the Association. 1 MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION 869 Anthony Danielczuk, an employee, and requested him to sign a pe- tition. Danielczuk, however, refused. Walter Scott, a foreman, ad- mitted at the hearing that he knew that the petitions were available in the plant "for everybody to get that wanted them." Royce Haley, a foreman, Bernard, and Walker signed a petition. The origin of the petitions is not clear, nor does the record disclose how many employees signed them.3 Shortly after the petitions were circulated, a meeting was held in the respondent's stockroom during working hours 4 attended by almost all of the employees who were working at that time. The meeting lasted about 15 minutes, and the employees' wages were not docked for the time they spent there. The power in the factory was shut off during the meeting. Hobell testified that "Cruse came down and shut the power off" and said that he had permission to do so for 15 minutes. While the respondent de- nied that the power was shut off with its permission, we do not credit its denial since the power was also shut off at subsequent meetings and at no time did the respondent take any action to indicate its dis- approval thereof. We find that the power was shut off during this and subsequent meetings with the respondent's consent. Supervisory employees of the respondent were present at the meeting. Cruse, the "spokesman," announced that the employees had signified that they -were in favor of an inside union and that another meeting would be held later for the purpose of organizing one. Thereafter Cruse, assisted by Victor L. Brumley, an employee, pre- pared a constitution and bylaws, which became those of the Associa- tion, and consulted an attorney 5 in this connection. Brumley testi- fied that he did some of this during working hours with the permis- sion of Royce Haley, his foreman. Haley, admitting that Brumley had requested such permission, testified : "I told him that he could do it but not on the company's time; he would have to ring his card out." Regardless of whether Haley so qualified his granting of permission to Brumley, he must have been aware, as Brumley's foreman, that Brumley drafted the Association constitution and bylaws during working hours. We find that Brumley drafted the Association con- stitution and bylaws during working hours with the consent of the respondent. On about April 19 or 20, 1937, and pursuant to notice thereof posted in the plant, a second meeting of the respondent's employees was held in the plant during working hours. The power was again shut off for this meeting, which' lasted about 2 hours. This meeting 3 Cruse, who was an important motivating force in the formation of an inside union, did not testify at the hearing 4In its brief the Association, and at the oral argument counsel for the respondent, stated that Cruse called the meeting. 6 This attorney subsequently became the attorney for the Association. 283033-41-vol 22-56 870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was attended by almost all the respondent's employees who "were working at that time, and their wages were not docked for the time spent there. Supervisory employees of the respondent were also pres- ent. Various employees spoke at the meeting and, although "the ma- jority of the speakers that formally aciressed the meeting . . . were not in favor of forming the association," a rough draft of the con- stitution and bylaws that Cruse and Brumley had prepared was adopted by those present at the meeting as the constitution and by- laws of the Association. At about this time, Cruse had 200 Association membership applica- tion forms printed, and he circulated them among the respondent's employees during working hours. Walker solicited applications from employees in the inspection department. Miss Mack, Beck's secretary,' suggested to Brumley that lie sign an application. Haley also sought to obtain an application from him. The Association ob- tained one membership application dated April 18 and about 63 dated either April 19 or 20. The applications contained check-off authori- zations, and provided for initiation fees of 50 cents and monthly dues of 35 cents. The first meeting of the Association, restricted to Association members, was held in the plant stockroom during working hours on April 23. This meeting also was announced by means of a notice posted in the plant. The power was again shut off for this meeting, and members' wages were not docked for the time spent in attend- ance. Officers of the Association and a negotiating committee were elected at the meeting. Thereafter, although the Association's nego- tiating committee met in the respondent's factory about 15 or 20 times, membership meetings of the Association were held outside the factory. According to Beck's testimony, some time prior to May 8 the Association requested the respondent to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's employees and to enter into a contract with it. Beck testified that he told the Association's representatives that "they would have to have a majority of the employees recorded; otherwise, they couldn't form a contract"; that the Association gave him a "list of what they wanted"; that he had the respondent's attorney prepare a proposed contract which was submitted to the Association's representatives; and that they subse- quently returned the contract, requesting some "very, very minor" changes which were made. On May 8; 1937, the Association pre- ° Miss Mack is one of the respondent's oldest employees, cariies out Beck's orders, gives orders to the foiemen, and is considered to be a "factors- executive or an office executive" by the secretary of the Association MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION 871 rented 'to the respondent membership applications signed by 76 ° of the respondent's 123 employees, exclusive of foremen and office employees, and the respondent and the Association entered into a contract by which, inter alia, the former recognized the latter as the exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's employees for a 1-year period." According to the testimony of the Association secretary, the con- tract was preceded by only one conference between the Association and Beck and by no Association meetings. After the execution of the contract, Sam Sweet, educational direc- tor of the U. A. W. A., attempted to start "negotiations" with Beck and Beck so informed the Association. On May 14 the Association sent a letter to Beck in which it demanded that Beck immediately terminate negotiations with any union other than the Association and threatened to complain to the Board "in the event of any further interference." On May 17 the respondent posted the following notice, which was prepared by the respondent's attorney: To ALL EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION : Reports have reached the management that some of the em- ployees of Motor Specialties Corporation have been informed that by joining one or another of several labor organizations employees may be certain of continuing in the employ of the company, and that refusal of an employee to join a labor organ- ization may endanger his continuing in the employ of the company. The company does not intend to interfere with the right of any employee to join the labor organization of his choice or to refuse to join any such organization, and all employees are entitled to exercise their own judgment in this respect free from any fear of intimidation by the company or by any other person. The company intends so far as is possible to treat all of its employees alike, regardless of affiliation or non-affiliation with anylabor organization, and the sole test of continuing in the employ of the company shall be the fitness of each employee for doing his work, and, of course, the amount of work which the company will have to be done. No labor organization can guarantee to any employee that by joining such organization the employee can be certain of con- tinuing in the employ of the company, and any such statement made to any employee is untrue. 4 Thereafter, approximately 38 additional applications were delivered by the Association to the respondent. 8At the time of the hearing, the contract w as still in effect by virtue of a "tacit understanding." 872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If any employee wishes to do so, he may authorize the ycom- pany to pay to any labor organization a portion of his wages for the support of the organization and the company will honor such request, but any employee may feel free insofar as the company is concerned to countermand such request at any time and the company will honor the countermand as promptly and cheerfully as it honors the original request. The company will, of course, negotiate with the duly chosen representatives of its employees on all proper matters, and will cooperate with all of its employees for their mutual benefit as it has always done in the past, but we repeat that any employee may feel free to join or refuse to join any labor organization without his decision in any way affecting his employment. On May 19 the Association wrote a letter to the U. A. W. A. requesting the latter to join with the Association in a petition to the Board for investigation and certification." On May 21, 1937, prior to the receipt of the Association's letter, the U. A. W. A. met with Beck and suggested that the respondent enter into a collective bar- gaining agreement with it. Beck refused on the ground that the respondent already had an agreement with the Association. Beck, however, agreed to call a conference between the Association and the U. A. W. A., in which a proposed election to ascertain which organization represented a majority of the employees could be dis- cussed. Beck further stated that he would agree to any decision reached at the conference. On May 21, 1937, the Association pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act filed a petition for investigation and certification.70 However, on May 25 representatives of the Association and the U. A. W. A. agreed, subject to approval by the members of the Association, to the holding of a consent election. The members of the Association, however, refused to approve the proposed election. On June 5, 1937, the U. A. W. A. filed its charge herein. The Association thereafter settled with the respondent grievances- of a few members. It also appears to have secured for the employees vacations with pay. The manner in which this was accomplished was described by the Association secretary as follows : A. Whether we made the appointment with the office or not, I don't know, or whether we were called in, but I know that every- body on the committee who could be reached went into the office. O The address of the Association at this time , as stated in the letter , was that of the respondent. 10 The Regional Office has taken no action on this petition ( Case No . VII-R-33), as it' Is awaiting disposition of the present case. MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION 873 And Mr. Beck told us he understood we were the committee for the union , he had heard a union had been formed, or an associa- tion, you might say . . . And we got to talking about what would be the-some things that would benefit the members, and that was evidently one of the things that was brought up, that a man who had worked steadily , a man or woman , either, who had worked steadily for a year should have a week's vacation. I think somebody mentioned that the office employees have it; why don't the industrial employees have it. Q. And Mr. Beck granted the vacations? A. It was granted before the evening was over .. . Q. Then this is clear, then : Before this meeting with Mr. Beck there hadn't been any formal discussion of this? A. No. Q. With the membership? A. No, there had not. It thus appears that shortly after the start of U. A. W. A. activities among the respondent's employees, the respondent fostered, encour- aged , and aided the formation of an organization composed only of its own employees and subject to its domination. Supervisory em- ployees solicited the employees to sign petitions for the formation of an Inside organization and membership applications therein. The respondent claims that Walker, one of those who solicited employees to sign a petition and membership applications, is not a supervisory employee. He does not possess the power to hire or discharge' em- ployees. While the power to hire or discharge is not the sole criterion of who is a supervisory employee so as to bind the employer by his actions," we find it unnecessary to determine whether Walker was such a supervisory employee since other supervisory employees, and admittedly such, were active in the formation of the Association. 11 See Virginia Ferry Corporation Y. N. L. R B, 101 F. (2d) 103 ( C C. A 4 ), enf'g as mod . Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters , Mates and Pilots of America, No 9, 8 N. L. R. B 730; Matter of Humble Oil if Refining Company and Oil Workers International Union, Locals No 333 and 316, 16 N L R B 112; Matter of Allstcel Products Manufactueing Company ( Inc.) and International Association of Machinists, Local 1308, 16 N. L R B 72. See also, International Association of Machinists , Tool and Die Makers Lodge No 35, affiliated with the International Association of Machinists , et al. v N . L R B, 311 11 S 72, enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Woi kers of America . Local No. 4 ;9, 8 N L. R . B. 621, where the court said : The basic policy of the Act is "hands off" so far as he [the employer] Is concerned. The statute , we think purposely , does not define the particular methods or agents by which the employer may intermeddle unlavfully . Had it done so, easy escape would have been opened from the Act ' s provisions . Nothing in it requires that such representation be limited to officials having any particular kind or degree of authority,' such as "hiring and firing," "disciplinary power" or even "supervisory capacity." 874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD That the respondent is responsible for the acts of such supervisory employees is clear 12 The respondent also assisted in the formation of the Association by permitting organizational meetings to be held _in_ the -plAiqt,,, during working hours, although this involved shutting off the power in the plant and paying the employees for the time spent at the meetings. The respondent claims that it so paid the employees only after it had telephoned the Regional Office, informed a clerk there that employees "from all departments and on both shifts had attended the meeting, and we didn't know what to do about paying your employees who were supposed to be in there working," and been told by the clerk that the Regional Director said "that it didn't make any difference to the Board, we could handle it any way we saw fit, as long as everyone was treated alike." This purported statement of the clerk in the Regional Office could hardly be considered an unequivocal requirement that the re- spondent pay its employees for their time spent in the meetings. As- suming, however, that the respondent relied, as it claims, upon the clerk's statement, its failure to take affirmative remedial action after its knowledge of the meetings, despite the shutting off of the power, the cessation of work, and the consequent expense incurred by the respondent, constituted open sponsorship of the Association by the respondent. The effect upon the employees of this sponsorship by the respondent of the formation of the inside organization is indicated by Brumley's asking Haley's permission to work on the Association's constitution and bylaws during working hours. The respondent claims that any wages that Brumley received for the time spent by him in drafting the constitution and bylaws "must have been exceedingly small." However, irrespective of the amount of wages received by Brumley for the time spent by him in Association affairs, fundamentally the respondent's contribution to the formation of the Association con- sisted of Haley's granting Brumley permission to take time off from his work to devote himself to Association work. The negotiations leading up to the contract thereafter entered into between the respondent and the Association indicate clearly that or- ganization's lack of independence, as do the subsequent negotiations concerning the granting of vacations to the employees. According to Beck's own testimony, the contract was, with some "very, very minor" is See Swift and Company , a corporation v. N L R B, 106 F. (2d) 87 (C C A. 10), enf'g as mod Matter of Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 6111, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No 300, 7 N L. R. B. 269 ; N. L. R. B. v The A. S. Abell Company, 97 F. (2d) 951 (C. C A. 4), enf'g as mod Matter of The A S . Abell Company and International Printing and Pressmen's Union, Baltimore Branch , Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31, 5 N. L R. B. 644; Matter of Jefferson Lake Oil Company, Incorporated and Sulphur Wot kern Local Union No. 21195, 16 N. L R B 355. MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION 875 changes, dictated by the respondent. According to the Association secretary, the Association had little, if anything, to do with either the contract's drafting or its adoption. The -respondent, having thus actively aided the formation of the Association and assisted it to the extent of giving it a contract and granting it exclusive recognition, could not, by its May 17 declaration of neutrality, undo the harm already wrought. By that notice the respondent did not, repudiate its relationship with the Association. Rather, the respondent's statement therein that it would "negotiate with the duly chosen representatives of its employees," coming but a few days after it had recognized the Association as such representa- tive, served to confirm that relationship. Nor, having encouraged its employees to join the Association and recognized it as their exclusive collective bargaining representative, could the respondent, by purporting to be willing to consent to an election between the Association and the U. A. W. A., detract from the advantages accrued to the Association by the respondent's illegal acts. We find that, by the acts above-described, the respondent has domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association, and has contributed financial and other support to it, and that the respondent has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. We further find that the contract of May 8, 1937, between the respondent and the Association was not the result of collective bar- gaining between the respondent and the freely designated repre- sentative of its employees, but was executed on the respondent's initiative as an integral part of its program of assisting the Asso- ciation. B. The alleged discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment The complaint alleged that the respondent , by its discriminatory discharge of and refusal to reinstate Marie Keeley and lay-off of and refusal to reinstate Starmina Martin, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report that the respondent had not engaged in such unfair labor practices . The U. A. W. A. did not file exceptions to the Trial Examiner's findings in this respect. We have reviewed the evidence as to Keeley and Martin and we con- cur in the Trial Examiner 's findings as to them . Since no exceptions were filed by the U . A. W. A. thereto , we shall not discuss the evi- 876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dente pertaining to the alleged discrimination against Martin and Keeley. We shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment or terms or conditions of employment of Keeley and Martin. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, A, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed 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. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. We will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and has contributed financial and other support to it. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and free the employees of the respondent from such support, interference, domination, and the effects thereof, we will order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Association and completely disestablish it as representative of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. Since we have found that the contract of May 8, 1937, was an integral part of the respondent's unlawful campaign of encouraging and assisting the Association and was entered into with an organiza- tion dominated by the respondent, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to the contract of May 8, 1937, as well as any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, and any superseding contract which may now be in force. Nothing in this Decision and Order should be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage, hour, seniority, and other such substantive features of its relations with the employees themselves, which the respondent has established in performance of the invalid contract as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded. We shall also, in order to restore the status quo, order the respond- ent to reimburse its employees for any amounts the respondent de- 1 MOTOR SPECIALTIES CORPORATION 877 ducted ' from their wages as initiation fees, dues , and assessments of the Association." Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Local 155, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, and Motor Specialties Employees Union Association are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma- tion and administration of Motor Specialties Employees Union Asso- ciation and by contributing financial and other support thereto, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the 'Act, 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. 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) 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 Motor Specialties Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Motor Specialties Employees Union Association, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to Motor Specialties Employees Union Association, or any other labor organization of its employees ; v See Matter of Alabama Power Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 18 N L R B 652; Matter of Western Union Telegraph Company, a corpo- ration and American Communications Association , 17 N. L. R. B. 34; Matter of Corning Glass Works , Macbeth -Evans Division and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America, 15 N. L R. B. 598. 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Recognizing Motor Specialties' Employees Union Association as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,-hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (c) Giving effect to its contract of May 8, 1937, with Motor Special- ties Employees Union Association, or to any extension, renewal, modi- fication, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract which may now be in force; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, 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 Motor Specialties Employees Union Association as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Motor Specialties Em- ployees Union Association as such representative; (b) Reimburse each of its employees whose initiation fees, dues; or assessments, if any, in Motor Specialties Employees Union Associa- tion, were checked off for the amounts thus deducted from their wages ; (c) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout its factory, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive- days, no- tices to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.