Northern Ohio Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 613 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE ComPANY and UTILITY
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1632.-Decided October 2, 1940
Jurisdiction : telephone industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In General
Employee in his activities on behalf of "inside" organization held to have
acted with the knowledge and approval of the employer and that his conduct
is attributable to the employer.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; threatening em-
ployee with discharge if he remained loyal to "outside" union ; inducing em-
ployee to abandon union and helping him to procure similar action from his
subordinates ; interrogating employee concerning his union affiliation.
Company-Dominated Union: participation of representatives of management in'
formation of: suggesting formation ; preparing, circulating and requesting
employees to sign a petition ; cooperation in the holding of a meeting by ar-
ranging for substitute night operators to take the place of the regular night
operators so that they could attend the meeting-permitting employees to
circulate and solicit signatures to petition on Company time-indicia of
domination : agreement containing a no-strike clause without- a correlative
clause outlawing lock-outs and providing for arbitral awards not binding
upon the parties
Remedial Orders : company-dominated union disestablished and contract with
said union abrogated.
Evidence
The circumstances tinder which statements were made to employees that
they were free to join or not to join the "inside" organization held to clearly
negative its bona fides.
Testimony by employees that their participation in "inside" organization
was "free" and that they were "satisfied" with said organization held, in
view of the circumstances, entitled to little or no weight. -
Mr. William J. Avrutis, for the Board. -
Jones, Day, Cockley cC Rearvis, by Mr. Earl J. LeFever, of Cleveland,
Ohio, for the respondent. -
Mr. Sanford I. Lakin, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Council.
Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board..
27 N. L R B ., No. 115 - -
613
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CA SE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Utility Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint dated
May 14, 1940, against Northern Ohio Telephone Company, Bellevue,
Ohio, 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) and (2) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that the respondent (1) engaged in espionage upon and
surveillance of the acts and proceedings of its employees and the
Union; 1 (2) subjected its employees to interrogation with respect to
their affiliation with the Union; (3) advised and directed its em-
ployees not to join the Union and, threatened them with discharge
in the event they did join; (4) interfered with attempts of its em-
ployees to hold a meeting for the purpose of obtaining members for
the Union, by causing and inducing an employee to hold a beer
party at the time set for said meeting and soliciting employees to
attend said beer party; (5) induced employees to resign from the
Union; (6) formed, promoted, assisted, and sponsored the formation
of a labor organization known as The Northern Ohio Telephone
Employees' Council, Inc., herein called the Council, and dominated
and interfered with its administration, and supported it; (7) on
May 11, 1939, and in April 1940 entered into agreements with the
Council providing for terms and conditions of employment and for
recognition of the Council as a representative of its employees; and
(8) by the foregoing acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
On May 24, 1940, the respondent filed its answer contesting the
jurisdiction of the Board over its operations and denying that it had
'The Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report, mentioned below, that this
allegation of the complaint was not supported by the evidence . The Union did not except
• to this finding, and we are satisfied that the Trial Examiner did not err in so finding
Accordingly , we shall dismiss this part of the complaint.
NORTEERN OHIO TELEPHONE COMPANY 615-
committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
On May 27, 1940, the Council, after being granted leave to intervene
in these proceedings, filed its answer in which it admitted that it had
entered into contracts with the respondent as alleged in the complaint
but denied all other allegations of the complaint concerning itself.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from May 27 to June 1,
1940, 'Sat Norwalk, Ohio, before George Bokat, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the
Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties . At the commencement and at subsequent stages of the
hearing, the respondent moved for a dismissal of the complaint on
the ground that the Board did not have any jurisdiction over its
operations . The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on these motions.
At the close of the Board's case and at the close of the hearing, the
respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground
that there was no substantial evidence to support the allegations of
the complaint. The Trial Examiner also reserved ruling on these
motions. In his Intermediate Report mentioned below, the Trial
Examiner denied the motions on which he had reserved ruling. At
the close of the hearing counsel for the Board moved that the plead-
ings be conformed to the proof in regard to minor details. The Trial
Examiner granted this motion. During the course of the hearing the
Trial Examiner made various other rulings on motions and on objec-
tions 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 are hereby affirmed.
On July 8, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding that the
respondent 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 recommending that the respondent cease and
desist from its unfair labor practices, and that it take certain affirma-
tive action remedial of their effect. Thereafter, the respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the record, and the re-
spondent submitted a brief to the Board in support of its exceptions.
Neither the respondent, the Council, nor the Union requested oral
argument before the Board. The Board has considered the excep-
tions and the brief and, except where consistent with the findings-of
fact, conclusions of law, and order below, finds them to be without
merit.
616, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS- BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE , BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
• The respondent, Northern Ohio Telephone Company, is an Ohio
corporation having its principal office at Bellevue, Ohio. It is an
independent telephone company engaged in the business of furnishing
local exchange telephone service over its own lines and equipment
located within the State of Ohio, and long distance telephone service
over its own lines and connecting lines of the Ohio Bell Telephone
Company. It maintains telephone exchanges in 13 counties and 48
cities, villages, and communities located in the area between Cleveland,
Columbus, and Toledo, Ohio.2 Toll or long distance telephone service,
including interstate and foreign communication service, is furnished
by the respondent to its subscribers through the medium of existing
contracts for the interchange of tolltraffic between the respondent and
the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and certain other independent
telephone companies. Under these agreements the communication _
lines of the respondent are connected with the lines of the Ohio Bell
Telephone Company and other companies with which it has contracted,
and telephone communications are interchanged and the charges there-
fore prorated in accordance with the provisions of such contracts.
By virtue of these agreements and connections, toll service is furnished
the respondent's subscribers to and from all parts of the United States
and foreign countries throughout the world. Because the respondent's
service is exclusive within the area of its operations, its facilities are
the only means available to business, professional, industrial, agricul-
tural, and social interests located within such areas for the transmis-
sion of interstate and foreign telephone communications.3
The total revenue which the respondent received from its operations
in 1939 exceeded $1,000,000. Approximately $9,161 of this amount
was received from toll interstate communications originating or termi-
nating in Ohio. During the same year the respondent purchased for
use in the course of its operations poles and cross bars, wire, iron, cov;
ered iron copper,-cables, and telephones, in addition to miscellaneous
other products valued at approximately $189,300. Of this amount
approximately $148,433 was purchased and transported • to the
respondent from sources outside Ohio.
2 Principal cities served by the respondent are Bellevue, Bowling Green; Clyde, Crestline,
Delaware; Galion; Genoa,- Medina, New London, Norwalk, Oberlin, Port Clinton, and Wil-
lard. Numerous manufacturing concerns are located in these cities in addition to the main_
division points of the Baltimoie and Ohio Railioad and a division point of the Nickel Plate
Railroad.
3 The respondent also has an arrangement with the telegraph company operating in its
area wherein its subscribers can send local as well as interstate and foreign telegrams.
NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE COMPANY .'617
The respondent's system of exchanges is divided into 10 geograph-
icdl areas known as Bowling Green, Elmore, Port Clinton, Bellevue,
Norwalk, Oberlin, Willard, Medina, Salem, 'and Delaware. The
respondent employs about 311 persons.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Utility Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits
to membership persons employed by the respondent.
The Northern Ohio Telephone Employees' Council, Inc., is an un-
affiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the respondent who are citizens of the United States except those
employees who are identified with management and those who have
the right to hire and discharge.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On or about February 20, 1939, Thomas Evans, an organizer for the
Union, began organizing employees of the respondent. A. E. Lewellen,
manager of the respondent's Norwalk district with authority to hire
and discharge, admittedly became aware of union activities in ' his
district on or about March 1, when a janitor informed him that "he
had nothing to do with that meeting last night." Thomas P. Wickham,
an employee of the Norwalk district, testified that on or about that
date Lewellen stated to him that "he did not know whether he could
get the C. I. O. organizers stopped or not, but if it did get organized
it would not amount to anything, and advised me not to join it."
Lewellen denied having made such a statement and specifically denied
that he told Wickham not to join the C. I. O. The Trial -Examiner
who observed the demeanor of the witnesses stated in his Intermediate
Report that- "in view of the evasive, contradictory manner in which
Lewellen testified and because of significant admissions therein, which
clearly indicated his opposition to the Union" he could not credit
•Lewellen's denial of Wickham's testimony.4 The Trial Examiner
also stated in his Intermediate Report that he was further persuaded
to this conclusion by the "obvious reluctance" with which Wickham
testified. We find that Lewellen in substance made the statements
testified to by Wickham.
Emery J. Preston, an employee of the Norwalk district who was
active in behalf of the Union, invited his fellow employees to a union
* Lewellen ' s admissions referred to by the Trial Examiner are set forth below
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARb
meeting which was to be held at his home on the evening of March 9.5
Preston testified that on the morning of March 9, W. J. Swonger, an
employee, warned him that he had better call off the union meeting
because "the big shots got wind of your union, and you had better
bump it on the head." Earnest K. Case, foreman of the service crew
in the Norwalk district, testified that on March 9 Lewellen asked him
to attend a party that he was going to give at Swonger's _home.
Lewellen also asked him, according to Case, to influence the men who
worked under him to come to the party. In the afternoon of March 9
Swonger announced that a beer and poker party would be held at his
home that night and invited all the men to attend. As a result of this
announcement, and believing that the men would prefer to attend the
party at Swonger's home, Preston called off the union meeting.
Swonger denied that he knew anything at all about the union meeting
when he announced the party, or that Lewellen had anything to do
with arranging the party. He testified that the party had been
planned some time before, but that he had postponed it indefinitely
when "two or three could not come." ° Lewellen denied the testimony
of Case and denied further that he knew of a union meeting scheduled
for March 9. Upon the entire record, and in accord with the Trial
Examiner's findings, we do not credit either Swonger's or Lewellen's
denials and find that they in substance made the statements attributed
to them.7 We find further that Lewellen and Swonger arranged a
"beer and poker" party on the evening of March 9 as a means of
frustrating the Union's attempt to organize the respondent's
employees. -
On March 19 a union meeting was held at which practically all of
the Norwalk employees joined the Union. Shortly thereafter, rumors
were heard that employees who joined the Union would be dis-
charged. Bertha Case, wife of the foreman, fearing that her hus-
band's job was in danger because he too had joined the Union, visited
Lewellen in order to determine the truth of these rumors. She testi-
6 Preston testified that he had spoken with a number of employees , all of whom had
expressed an interest in attending the meeting at his home and joining the Union.
6 Swonger, who frequently had parties at his house, could give no particular reason for
deciding to hold a party on March 9 . He testified as follows . "Just talked about it and
said 'why not have a party tonight ', and I said , ' It's 0 K with me , I will tell the fellows,
and if they come, we will have it' ".
° The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report states that Case "was an extremely
forthright candid witness ," and that the Trial Examiner "was particularly impressed by
his apparent sincerity and honesty ." We have already set forth the Trial Examiner's
observations with respect to Lewellen.
Preston's testimony was corroborated by Wickham who related that he saw Preston and
Swonger having an argument on the morning of March 9 and that at noon of that day
Preston informed him "he wasn 't going to have a party at his house ; they were going to
Jakes ( Swonger 's) instead . . . Jake told him that the big shots heard about it" More-
over, it seems unlikely to us that Swonger would not have heard of the union meeting in
light of the fact that practically all of the Norwalk employees were asked to come.
NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE COMPANY 619'
fled that,Lewellen told her that her husband's job would not "last
long if he stayed in the C. I. 0."; that she thereupon asked Lewellen
to call at' her home and "talk with my husband" ; and that when
Lewellen arrived at the Case home he "told us that he would try to
break the C. I. 0., and Mr. Case's job would be all right if he came
back in ... the Council." s Case testified that Lewellen asked him
"what I joined the C. I. O. for, and I told him just because the rest
of 'them had . . . He asked me if I would come back with the com-
pany, and I told him I would, and I did." Lewellen, according to
Case, also asked him to induce employees working'under him to drop
out of the Union and to bring them to his office. Case, his son
Forrest Case, and John Wallace, employees working under Case, met
Lewellen in his office that night. Wallace testified, without contra-
diction, that at this meeting, Lewellen "said something about bring-
ing us boys back with the company and putting us in good standing
with the company, and I said if they was all through, that I was
going back with the company; if the rest of the boys were going to
stick with the C. I. 0., so was I."
Lewellen, while admitting that Mrs. Case spoke with him about the
Union, denied that he stated to her that Case would lose his job if
he "stayed in the C. I. 0." 9 He also denied the testimony of Case
and his wife with respect to the conversation which occurred at their
home. However, he admitted visiting the Case home and engaging
in a conversation with respect to,the Union. He testified that "they
were talking to me about getting out of the C. I. 0." because "they
were afraid that he [Case] was going to lose his job." Lewellen ad-
mitted that he stated to them that while he would do everything
necessary to keep Case's membership in the Union from interfering
with his job, "I can't say to you that you won't lose your job, or that
it won't affect it." Lewellen also admitted stating to Case "you know
that you can break this off or stop it [the Union] at any time you
want to . . . Forrest will do whatever you say, and Wickham and
Wallace and O'Dell will do whatever you say." 10 Lewellen also
admitted that Case, Forrest Case, and Wallace came to his office that
same night, and that Case said "these boys here all want to get out
of the C. I. 0." He testified further that they asked him if it was
necessary for them to resign, and that he -replied, "No, it was not
necessary if you do not pay any dues in it . . . you are not a
member."-
9 The Council was in process of formation at this time.
9 Lewellen could not recollect exactly what Mrs. Case did say with regard to the C. I O.
He admitted that there were rumors with respect to people being discharged.
10 The persons mentioned were all part of a crew working under Case They had also
joined the Union . It is apparent from Lewellen 's testimony that he wag aware of and
opposed to the union affiliation of these employees.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record, including the mutually corroborative testi-
' mony of the Cases, the uncontradicted testimony of Wallace, the ad-
missions of Lewellen, and the findings of the Trial Examiner, we find
that Lewellen threatened Case with discharge if he remained loyal to
'the C. I. 0.; assured him that his job would be "all right" if he joined
the Council; interrogated him concerning his union affiliation; pro-
cured his abandonment of the Union; induced him, and helped, to pro-
cure similar action from his subordinates; and stated in. substance that
he would seek to destroy the Union.
On March 23, Lewellen summoned all the male employees of his
district, of whom there were about 12, to his office, because, he claimed,
"there had been so much talk going around, and this man was going to
get fired, and that man was going to get fired" that it began to affect
the work of the men. He informed the assembled employees that he
'hoped they would adjust their differences and that "nobody had any
reason to fear for their job." When asked about the Council, Lewellen
remarked that perhaps Swonger, whom he knew to be active in the
Council, could tell them about it. He then walked out of the office
leaving Swonger in charge. Swonger and Paul H. Kaufman, a sales-
man active in the formation of the Council, thereupon commenced to
distribute resignations from the Union which had been prepared by
'Kaufman. A number of employees accepted these resignation forms
and others refused to do so. Lewellen denied that at the time he sum-
moned the employees to his office he had been informed that Swonger
and Kaufman were prepared to distribute resignations from the Union.
The Trial Examiner did not credit Lewellen's denial. Upon the entire
record we find that Lewellen knew that Swonger and Kaufman were
going to distribute resignations and further find that this was at least
one of Lewellen's purposes in calling the employees together.
In addition to Lewellen's anti-union conduct, the respondent's antip-
athy to the Union was also expressed on March 23 by Florence Strand,
chief operator at the Oberlin district who has authority to hire and
discharge. Upon receiving an application for a'job as a switchboard
operator, she remarked in the presence of employees "we might as well
take applications for work . . . some of these would lose their jobs if
the C. I. O. got in."
We find that,the respondent, by the.foregoing statements and con-
duct of Lewellen, and Strand, has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced 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 purposes of collective bargaining, or other
mutual • aid or protection.
NORTHERN OHflO TELEPHONE COMPANY 621,
13. Domination of and interference with the formation and adminis-
tration of, and support to, the Council; and attendaict interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion
On March-18, 1939, about 16 of the respondent's Norwalk em
ployees under the leadership of Swonger, met at the home of Claude
Bell, an employee, for the purpose of discussing the formation of -
an unaffiliated union."' The employees present decided to invite
employees from other districts to a further meeting to be held the
following day at Swonger's home. They also decided to invite a -
representative of the independent union at the Ohio Bell Telephone
Company to explain "how to go about forming an independent
union." At the close of the meeting, Swonger in the presence of
other employees, telephoned William C. Henry, the respondent's
general manager, and informed him that "a group of employees
... were thinking about forming an organization and intended
to have a meeting the following day . . . The employees would
like to have him up there because they wanted the management to
know what they were doing; they didn't want to do it without them
knowing about it." Swonger was unable to recall who suggested
that Henry be- invited to attend the meeting. He finally stated,
however, that "it might have been (his) idea and it might have
been someone else's."
A meeting was held the next day, March 19, at the home of
Swonger, attended by about 30 employees from various districts.12
Henry and one Murray, _ who was a member - of the independent
union at the Ohio Bell Company, were also present. Swonger
introduced Murray who described the independent union at the Ohio
Bell Telephone Company and how it functioned. Henry was then
called upon to express his views and according to his testimony
stated "they could join any, organization they saw fit. They could
form their own organization or refuse to join; that I could not
advise them ; . . . that in their own discretion they had -an absolute
right to do whatever they pleased about it and if they were there
to discuss that kind of a thing, that I had no business at the meeting
and that I would like to be excused before they went further with
any discussion of organization." After 'the meeting concluded, five
employees remained, including Swonger and Burr Silliman, an
employee. About 20 minutes later, Lewellen arrived and joined the
11 Several months prior thereto employees , including Swonger , had discussed the forma-
tion of an unaffiliated union similar to the one in existence at the Ohio Bell Telephone
Company but nothing came of it.
"As stated above on the morning of March 19 the Union held a meeting Attended by
about 22 employees and practically all those present joined the Union
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
group of remaining emplpoyees.13 Lewellen, upon his arrival, stated
in substance : "Well, this is a good level-headed bunch. I think we
had better get busy . . . it would be the right thing to do, to have
a union of our own and get started from there ..." Lewellen then
suggested that a petition be prepared. All those present, including
Lewellen, made suggestions as to its composition. After the petition
was drafted, a number of typewritten copies\were made and dis-
tributed to those present for circulation."' Lewellen assigned Silli-
man to circulate the petition among the employees of the Norwalk
district and told him to "take two along . . . one for the girls and
one for the men."
On March 20, the day after the meeting at his home, Swonger,
Clayton M. Godfrey, plant accountant,15 and three other employees
spent the entire day traveling from one district to another soliciting
signatures for the petition .16 Chief Operator Strand directed the
operators under her to go to the wire chief's room during working
hours. There one Dwight Alexander, the manager of the Oberlin
district, and' one Farmer, a salesman, were waiting with the petition.
Alexander said to them that "some of the employees, were trying to
form an organization of their own; that Mr. Farmer had a paper
which he requested employees to sign which would signify whether
or'not they favored the formation of an organization of their own,
and the employees were free to sign or not to sign the paper, as
,they saw fit; that Mr. Farmer would explain it to them." Alex-
13In explaining Lewellen 's presence , Swonger testified that Lewellen telephoned him
"and asked me how the meeting came out, who was there, what we were doing, and would
It be alright if he came." Lewellen , who related that Henry had informed him that he
was going to attend a meeting, said that, not having heard from Henry as to what had
transpired , "I was naturally pretty anxious about it , .
I
wondered what was going on . .
so I called Mr. Swonger . . . and I asked him if the meeting was over . . . and he said
yes, it , was, and said four or five boys were sitting around yet, and I believe I asked him
if it was alright if I came out
14 Although a copy of the petition was not produced at the hearing , the evidence indicates
that it was worded substantially as'follows : "we the employees of the Northern Ohio
Telephone Company , wish to form an organization for collective bargaining for the
Northern Ohio employees only." _
15 In addition to serving as plant accountant , Godfrey dictated and signed orders for
purchases which had been 'approved by the general manager . At the date , of the hearing,
Godfrey was assisted in his work by a boy who aided hint in the posting of entries and
tabulating reports. Godfrey shared an office with the commercial superintendent and had
the use of a stenographer who also performed secretarial work for high supervisory officials,
including the sales manager, plant superintendent and the travelling chief operator.
16 In addition to the time in circulating the petition , Swonger spent the rest of the week,
with the exception of 4 hours on Friday and 4 hours on Saturday , in organizing activities.
Swonger and the other employees, with the exception of Godfrey, who was paid on a salary
basis, were not compensated for the time spent in organizing activities Godfrey testified
that the respondent did not require him to work any definite number of hours but required
only that he complete his work ; and that lie spent evenings following his organizing active-_
ties completing his work None of these employees received permission to stay away from
work They testified that the respondent did not require an employee to receive its
permission. prior to remaining away from work.
NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE COMPANY 623
ander remained in the room while Farmer explained and the em-
ployees signed the petition.
After a number of employees had signed the petition , Swonger
and others who were active in the circulation of the petition , decided,
to hold a general meeting of employees in the city of Bellevue.
The respondent cooperated by arranging for substitute night op-
erators at the Galion_ district so that the regular night operators
employed there could attend the meeting. There were about 200
employees present at this meeting, including supervisory employees.
They were addressed by Sanford I. Lakin, an attorney. 17 There-
after the employees present voted to form an intramural union
subsequently incorporated as "The Northern Ohio Employees Coun-
cil, Inc.," elected temporary officers is and made arrangements for
the adoption of a constitution and bylaws. W. J. Hetrick, a work-
ing foreman who had previously been active on behalf of the Union,
served as one of three incorporators . Other council meetings sim-
ilarly attended by supervisory employees, were held on March 29
and April 5 and at these meetings the organization of the Council
was completed. - '
On May 11, 1939, as a result of several bargaining conferences,
the respondent and the Council executed a collective labor agree-
ment which provided for an increase in wages and regulated hours
of work and other conditions of employment. The respondent and
the Council renewed this agreement on May 1, 1940. The agree-
ment proposed by the Council and executed' by the.respondent in
1939 and 1940 included a no-strike clause without a correlative clause
outlawing lock-outs, and provided for arbitral awards not binding
on the parties.
It is clear that the Council was sponsored and formed by the
respondent as a means of frustrating the Union and does not repre-
sent the free choice of the respondent's employees. From the outset
the respondent manifested its hostility to the Union and sought
by various means to impede its progress and to secure the resig- -
rations of employees who had joined it. This opposition should
be contrasted with the respondent's activities leading toward the
formation of the Council. The respondent fostered the Council by
Henry's attendance of the meeting , at Swonger 's house; by Lewel-
len's attendance following this - meeting, by his participation in
the formulation and circulation of the petition , and by informing
Case that his job would be "all right" if he joined the Council; by
17 Lakin also represented the independent union at the Ohio Bell Telephone Company
''8 Swonger, Thomas Philo , a salesman , and Godfrey were made temporary officers, and
subsequently were elected permanent officers, of the Council.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alexander's and Strand's procuring the signatures of employees to ;
the petition ; and by its encouraging the attendance of employees
at the Bellevue meeting. In view of the cooperation between Lew-
ellen and Swonger in holding a "beer and poker party" to frustrate .
a union meeting, Swonger's consultation with Henry relative to the
formation of the Council, his invitation to Henry to attend. the
meeting of March 19, and the circumstances surrounding the formu-
lation and circulation of the petition, it is clear and we find that
Swonger in his activities on behalf of the Council acted for, and
with the knowledge and approval of, the respondent and that his
conduct is attributable to the respondent.19
Although Henry and Alexander told the employees that they
were free to join or not to join the Council, the circumstances under
which Alexander made his statement clearly negative its bona fides and
in any event these statements of Alexander and Henry cannot ex-
culpate the respondent because of the respondent's other statements
and acts hereinabove set forth. Upon this record testimony by em-
ployees that their participation in the Council was "free" and that
they were "satisfied" with the Council is entitled to little or no
weight.20
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with and
contributed support to the formation and administration of the Coun-
cil, and thereby, and by other acts, mentioned above, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations of the respondent described iii
Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial ' relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and between
10 Cf. International Association of Machinists, Toot & Die Makers, Lodge No. 35, affiliated
with the International- Association of Machinists at al. v..National Labor Relations Board,
110 F. (2d) 29 (C. A. D C.), cert. granted 309 U. ^a 649, enf'g Matter of The Serrick
Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No.
459, 8 N. L. R. B. 621.
m National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co ,
308 U. S. 241, rev'g 101 Fed. (2d) 841 (C. C. A 4), and enf'g Matter of Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and International Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, 8 N. L R. B 866,; National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper
Mill Co, 108 F. (2d) 867 (C. C A 5), cert. denied 60 S. Ct. 1104, enf'g Matter of Brown
Paper Mill Company, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, 12 N. L. R B. 60; National Labor Relations Board v.
Skinner and Kennedy Stationery Company, Fed. (2d) (C. C. A. 8), enf'g Matter of Skinner -
and Kennedy Stationery, Company and St. Louis Printing Pressmen's Union No. 6, et al.,
13 N L R B. 1186.
NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE COMPANY 625,
the States and foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated, interfered with the
formation and administration of the Council, and contributed sup-
port to it. Its continued existence is a consequence of violation of the
Act, thwarting the purposes of the Act. In order to effectuate the
policies of the Act and to free the employees of the respondent from
such domination and interference, and the effects thereof, which con-
stitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the
rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order, the respondent to
withdraw all recognition from the Council as a representative of any
of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment, and to disestablish the
Association as such representative.
Since the agreement between the respondent and the Council repre-
sents the fruits of the respondent's unfair labor practices and a device
to perpetuate their effects, we shall order the respondent specifically
to cease and desist giving effect to this or any other agreement it may
have entered into with the Council in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of work.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Utility Workers Organizing Committee and The Northern Ohio
Telephone Employees' Council, Inc., are labor organizations, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in-unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of The Northern Ohio Telephone Employees' Council, Inc.,
and by contributing support to said organization, the respondent has
323428-42-vol. 27-41
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
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 respond-
ent, Northern Ohio Telephone Company, Bellevue, Ohio, and its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of The Northern Ohio Telephone Employees' Council, Inc:, or
with the formation and administration of any other' labor organiza-
tion of its employees, and from'contributing support to The Northern
Ohio Telephone Employees' Council, Inc., or to any other labor organ-
ization of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of.the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ-
ities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
(c) Giving effect to its contract with The Northern Ohio Telephone
Employees' Council, Inc., dated May 1, 1940, and any renewals or
extensions thereof, and any and all contracts, understandings, and
arrangements relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, -to which The Northern Ohio
Telephone Employees' Council, Inc., is a party.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from The Northern Ohio Telephone
Employees' Council, Inc., as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent in any manner con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment; and completely dises-
tablish The Northern Ohio Telephone Employees' Council, Inc., as
such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its various buildings
and exchanges throughout its 10 districts and maintain for a period
of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posling, notices
to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in
NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE COMPANY 627
the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a),-(b), and (c) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent engaged in espionage , be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.